The rare case of a testing cut worth applauding

02 Sep The rare case of a testing cut worth applauding

By Dale Chu

Testing can feel like a zero sum game: too many assessments eat into classroom time while cutting tests risks compromising accountability. (Look no further than the latest hullabaloo from Oklahoma to see how tricky the tradeoffs can be.) But in Tucson, a local teachers union recently helped one Arizona district navigate a middle road. Rather than messing with state or federally mandated exams, the Tucson Education Association (TEA) pushed to eliminate overlapping or low-value district assessments. 

Specifically, the TEA and the Tucson Unified School District signed a memorandum of understanding that reduces by half the number of district-mandated standardized tests students will take this year. In grades 2–8, three i‑Ready diagnostic tests and three benchmark exams will be pared back to the adaptive i‑Ready tests alone. At the high school level, practice ACT administrations drop from three to two. Importantly, state and federally required tests remain untouched, preserving transparency and comparability across the system.

Too often, “less testing” is equated with weakened accountability. States lower proficiency cut scores, abandon exit exams, or paper over results that conflict with national benchmarks like NAEP. These moves reduce pressure without clarifying real learning gaps. Tucson’s approach, by contrast, recognizes that not all assessments carry equal value: eliminating redundant district tests may not produce dramatic gains in instruction, but, done right, it can remove unnecessary clutter while keeping critical guardrails in place.

At the same time, districts seeking to follow Tucson’s move should proceed with caution. Case in point, a similar experiment underway in the Los Angeles Unified School District. There, up to 10 schools were allowed to skip certain district-mandated diagnostic tests while still taking the state assessment. Schools were encouraged instead to track student progress using portfolios or presentations—as if these methods are equally rigorous and reliable. As I told Education Week:

There’s a middle ground between a regime of time-consuming tests and no testing at all. In weighing the benefits of diagnostic tests, districts should do occasional audits to review what tests measure, whether they overlap, and whether there are better alternatives. But removing diagnostic assessments entirely may make it more difficult to guide learning. And, as studies show, parents often don’t realize their children aren’t meeting grade-level learning expectations, the move may come at a cost.

The Tucson case demonstrates that careful, targeted reductions—rather than blanket eliminations—can free up instructional time without undermining accountability. To be sure, schools rarely maximize the time they already have; passing periods, movie days, and other non-instructional lulls mean that reclaiming hours from redundant tests may not guarantee better learning, but it can give educators space to focus on what matters most.

The broader lesson is that debates over testing shouldn’t be reduced to “more vs. less.” The real question is which assessments serve students and which merely add bureaucratic weight. By thoughtfully trimming low-value tests while preserving essential state and federal exams, Tucson offers an alternative path forward for districts grappling with overtesting.