Guest article by: Hilary Scharton, Vice President of K-12 Product Strategy for Canvas by Instructure
What standardized end-of-year tests really measure
Every spring, schools nationwide administer millions of standardized exams. Students spend hours filling in bubbles with No. 2 pencils over one or more days. Teachers and administrators emphasize that the tests are “important,” that students should “do their best,” and that they often only have “one chance” to demonstrate their learning. For many children—especially those who experience test anxiety, ADHD, or other learning differences—the process can be stressful and discouraging.
In 2015, more than 650,000 students nationwide opted out of standardized tests, and in some areas nonparticipation reached as high as 20%. That level of resistance raises a central question for parents and educators: what do these tests actually tell us about how children are learning?
Tests don’t always measure what we assume
We often expect standardized tests to reflect how much a student has learned or their future potential. But extensive research shows that many standardized measures are limited in what they reveal about an individual student’s knowledge or promise. A widely known example is the SAT, which, while intended to predict college success, correlates strongly with family income. In fact, SAT scores tend to rise as parental income increases—an indicator that these tests can reflect socioeconomic background as much as student ability.
More reliable predictors of college achievement tend to be high school grades and consistent classroom performance rather than a single standardized score. That helps explain why a single test score is a poor substitute for the broader picture teachers can gain through ongoing assessment and classroom observation.
Most standardized tests are built to compare groups
Large-scale assessments are usually designed to make efficient comparisons between groups—schools, districts, states—not to diagnose the strengths and needs of individual students. Group comparisons can be valuable: they help districts evaluate curriculum, make funding decisions, and highlight systemic inequities.
To achieve comparability and efficiency, test designers prioritize questions that are easy to administer and score, such as multiple-choice items. While these items allow broad comparisons, they rarely capture deeper skills like complex reasoning, creativity, collaboration, or the ability to solve real-world problems.
When instruction is driven primarily by multiple-choice testing, learning often becomes surface-level: memorizing facts, formulas, or procedures to select the correct answer. Rarely does the typical workplace resemble a bubble sheet with preselected options; adults are more often asked to define problems, weigh tradeoffs, and generate solutions without a clear predefined answer.
Test preparation can work against meaningful learning
In states or districts where accountability metrics center on test performance, schools often shift time and resources toward test preparation. The accountability movement grew from a reasonable impulse: taxpayers want evidence that education dollars are producing results. To encourage higher performance, policymakers tied rewards and penalties to test outcomes.
However, heavier emphasis on accountability tends to drive instruction toward test-taking strategies and predictable question formats. Teachers may practice methods for answering specific item types or rehearse common prompts. Although such preparation can improve state test scores in the short term, research suggests that this narrow focus can undermine broader learning—states that emphasize accountability sometimes perform worse on national and international measures than those that emphasize richer instruction.
In other words, time spent coaching students on how to guess or mark a bubble is often time taken away from deeper content learning and skill development.
Use diverse assessments to understand individual learning
If standardized tests are ill-suited for evaluating individual growth, what should parents and schools do? The solution is not fewer assessments, but smarter, more varied ones. Combining large-scale tests for system-level insights with ongoing, authentic classroom assessments gives a clearer picture of both group outcomes and individual progress.
Authentic assessment asks students to apply knowledge to meaningful, real-world challenges. For example, instead of only practicing volume formulas on worksheets, a geometry unit could include a project where students design a more efficient packaging solution for a juice box—balancing material cost, shipping efficiency, and sustainability. Such projects make the math relevant and encourage problem-solving, collaboration, creativity, and communication.
Teachers naturally assess in these richer ways every day—through class discussions, group work, presentations, and project deliverables. The challenge is capturing and using that rich classroom evidence to inform instruction and report progress. Fortunately, many schools now have access to technologies that help teachers collect assessment data more efficiently, analyze student performance, and adapt teaching to meet students where they are.
How parents can support their child’s learning
Parents who want to ensure their child is doing well should stay involved and communicate regularly with teachers. Districts do a reasonable job notifying families about testing schedules, but the best window into daily learning is a conversation with the classroom teacher.
Ask teachers how your child will be assessed, what success looks like in the classroom, and how much time is being dedicated to test preparation versus deeper, project-based learning. Teachers are assessment experts and can explain grading practices, progress-monitoring approaches, and ways families can support learning at home.
If you live in a state with heavy accountability pressures, raise your voice with local representatives to express that you value more than a single test score. Encourage policymakers to consider multiple metrics—such as college and career readiness indicators, AP completion and pass rates, and measures of student engagement—when evaluating schools and teachers.
About the author: Hilary Scharton has spent her career in education. She serves as Vice President of K-12 Product Strategy for Canvas by Instructure, an open learning management system that supports teachers and students. In her role she focuses on how technology can enhance instruction and promote equitable access to high-quality learning for all students.