The use of standardized test scores to measure reading proficiency is a long-standing source of debate in education reform. Although these scores provide useful information that may contribute to students’ reading growth, they are often considered the “coin of the realm”—silencing other valuable indicators and assessments while disproportionately influencing important educational decisions. Furthermore, low test scores can have cascading, negative impacts on students, schools and their surrounding communities—leading to poor student morale, high staff turnover, lower real estate prices and more.

According to ILA’s recent brief, the dominance of standardized reading tests “stems from an insufficient understanding of their limitations.” Without endorsing or negating their value, the brief explores the roles, uses and caveats of standardized reading tests to assess student achievement, compare students, evaluate programs, create educational policy and determine accountability.

ILA advocates for a different weighting of standardized reading tests as well as a more thorough understanding of reading development that recognizes “an array of formative classroom-based assessments.” The brief ends with five salient considerations that teachers and administrators can use to inform internal decision making:

• There is no research that supports a correlation between increased standardized testing and increased reading achievement.
• Standardized reading tests do not fully reflect students’ reading achievement and development.
• Standardized reading tests can impede the development of students’ self-efficacy and motivation.
• Standardized reading tests confine reading curriculum and can undermine high-quality teaching.
• Standardized reading tests are time-consuming and expensive—demanding resources that could be used to support students’ reading achievement in other ways.

To read more, visit the brief here.

Alina O'Donnell is the editor of Literacy Daily.