Why Some States Stick to Limited Standardized Testing
When you walk into an American public school, you’ll likely see posters about math and reading goals, practice tests for state exams, and reminders about “testing season.” What you probably won’t see? A big push for statewide assessments in subjects like art, music, or even social studies. While math and English language arts (ELA) dominate standardized testing in most states, other subjects rarely make the cut. This raises a question: Why don’t states expand testing to include more subjects? The answer lies in a mix of politics, funding realities, and long-standing debates about the purpose of education itself.
The “What Gets Tested Gets Taught” Mindset
For decades, policymakers have operated under a simple assumption: If a subject isn’t tested, schools won’t prioritize it. This idea gained traction after the 2001 No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), which tied federal funding to student performance on math and reading tests. Schools facing pressure to avoid penalties doubled down on these subjects, often at the expense of electives or creative disciplines. Even after NCLB was replaced by the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) in 2015—which gave states more flexibility—the legacy of testing math and ELA remained.
But why stop there? If testing drives focus, wouldn’t testing history or science ensure those subjects get attention? In theory, yes. In practice, adding tests costs money—a lot of it. Developing, administering, and grading assessments requires resources many states don’t have. For example, creating a valid, unbiased science exam involves hiring experts, field-testing questions, and training scorers. Smaller states or those with budget constraints often opt to focus limited funds on core subjects already tied to accountability measures.
The Backlash Against Over-Testing
Imagine a high school sophomore juggling state tests in five subjects instead of two. Now imagine their teacher scrambling to cover all required content while prepping students for exams. This scenario explains why many educators and parents oppose expanding standardized testing. Critics argue that excessive testing narrows curriculum, reduces classroom creativity, and heightens student stress.
Take Texas as an example. In 2023, lawmakers debated a bill to eliminate state testing in social studies, arguing that teachers needed freedom to explore topics deeply rather than “teaching to a test.” While the bill didn’t pass, it reflected growing frustration with the perceived overreach of standardized assessments. Similar debates have occurred in states like Colorado and Oregon, where grassroots movements have successfully rolled back testing requirements.
The Challenge of Measuring “Soft Skills”
Not all learning outcomes fit neatly into a multiple-choice format. How do you test a student’s ability to collaborate on a science project, play a violin solo, or analyze a painting? Subjects like art, music, and physical education emphasize creativity, critical thinking, and physical health—skills that are harder to quantify.
Some states have experimented with performance-based assessments. For instance, New Hampshire uses portfolios and projects to evaluate student progress in nontested subjects. However, these methods are time-intensive and costly compared to traditional exams. Without federal incentives or funding, most states stick to what’s easier to measure.
Political Priorities and Public Opinion
Education policy is never immune to politics. State legislatures often prioritize testing in subjects perceived as “essential” for workforce readiness or global competitiveness. STEM (science, technology, engineering, and math) fields, for example, have gained traction in recent years, leading some states to introduce science assessments. But even this shift is uneven.
Public opinion also plays a role. Parents who grew up taking math and reading tests often see those subjects as the “basics” their children should master first. Advocacy groups for arts or civic education, while passionate, typically have less influence than larger organizations focused on core academics.
The Case for Local Control
Another factor is the U.S. education system’s decentralized structure. The federal government sets broad guidelines, but states—and even individual districts—decide much of the curriculum. Some states, like California, emphasize local autonomy, allowing districts to design their own assessments for subjects like history or health. Others, like Florida, centralize decisions but still limit testing to avoid overwhelming schools.
This patchwork approach means testing practices vary widely. A state with strong arts programs might resist statewide art exams to preserve teachers’ flexibility. Conversely, a state focused on technical education might prioritize industry certification exams over humanities testing.
What’s Lost When Testing Stays Limited?
While debates about testing continue, educators warn that sidelining nontested subjects has consequences. Schools in low-income areas, which often face the most pressure to boost math and reading scores, are more likely to cut arts or recess to make time for test prep. Over time, this can widen equity gaps: Students in wealthier districts enjoy well-rounded curricula, while others miss out on opportunities to explore music, coding, or debate.
There’s also the question of civic engagement. Social studies teachers argue that without statewide assessments, schools might skimp on civics education—leaving students unprepared to vote or engage in democracy. After the 2016 election, states like Illinois and Massachusetts began requiring civics courses, but only a handful tie these courses to standardized tests.
A Shift Toward Broader Metrics?
Change might be on the horizon. Frustrated with the limitations of traditional testing, some states are exploring “accountability dashboards” that track factors like school climate, extracurricular participation, and access to advanced courses. In 2022, Georgia introduced a pilot program evaluating schools based on arts integration and student wellness alongside test scores.
These efforts align with research suggesting that nonacademic factors—like access to music programs or physical activity—improve long-term student outcomes. However, translating this data into policy remains complicated. Without federal mandates, progress depends on state leaders’ willingness to rethink old models.
The Bottom Line
The lack of statewide testing in subjects beyond math and ELA isn’t an accident—it’s the result of tight budgets, political trade-offs, and a system designed to measure narrow academic skills. While testing has helped identify achievement gaps and hold schools accountable, its limitations are increasingly clear. As states grapple with preparing students for a fast-changing world, the conversation is shifting from “Why don’t we test more?” to “What’s the best way to measure what truly matters?” The answer to that question could reshape American education for decades to come.
Please indicate: Thinking In Educating » Why Some States Stick to Limited Standardized Testing