By Dale Chu
The post-NCLB push to broaden how we judge school quality is well-intentioned—and overdue in some respects. Headlines like the one from a recent op-ed in The 74, “Beyond Test Scores: 186 Innovative Educators on How to Know a School Is Good” reflect a growing desire for richer, more holistic indicators of student success. But in our rush to embrace the “beyond,” let’s not lose sight of what test scores are good for—and why they still matter.
The op-ed dives into survey responses collected from a subset of participants in the Canopy Project—a network of organizations focused on K-12 innovation—on how their schools go about gauging quality. The methods cited include student presentations and portfolios, climate surveys, attendance, and graduation rates among a laundry list of measures. Nothing wrong with any of these (though some are less indicative of student learning). The upshot is that there’s a panoply of tools that schools can use to record, in the words of the author, “demonstrations of learning, not just test scores.”
Here it’s worth stating what should be obvious: no one believes test scores alone capture the full picture of a school. That argument is a misrepresentation of what proponents of assessments are actually saying. For decades, educators and advocates alike have emphasized the importance of multiple measures, recognizing that state assessments provide an important—but incomplete—window into student learning. Test scores tell us something. They don’t tell us everything.
Yet increasingly, the conversation frames standardized testing as outdated or even harmful. The op-ed stops short of saying so outright, but it implies as much. In its place, alternatives like project-based learning and performance assessments are touted as more “authentic” ways to gauge student growth. Color me skeptical.
That’s not to say these alternatives have no place. But the challenge is making sure they’re implemented with rigor and consistency. Without clear, objective benchmarks, schools can drift toward models of learning that are engaging in form but shallow in substance. For instance, performance tasks can sometimes morph into discovery learning, where students are expected to “construct” knowledge with minimal guidance. This can result in classrooms where students are busy, but not necessarily learning. The hands-on becomes minds-off.
That’s why the issue isn’t a matter of preference between standardized tests and performance assessments. Framing it that way misses the point. Standardized tests set the floor: they help ensure that all students are mastering essential academic content. Performance assessments, when done well, help illuminate what students can do beyond the basics—the ceiling of deeper learning. Both are necessary. We need clear, objective benchmarks to guard against lowered expectations, and we also need richer demonstrations of learning that go beyond what a bubble test can capture. It’s not about choosing one over the other; it’s about recognizing what each is good for and insisting on rigor across the board.
So yes, let’s move beyond test scores. But let’s not forget the essential foundation they provide.