“Sometimes the most brilliant and intelligent students do not shine in standardized tests because they do not have standardized minds.”
— Diane Ravitch

You may have read or heard that our society is currently facing a mental health crisis. This reality is becoming increasingly evident in our schools, where the need for consistent, accessible mental health support for students, families, and staff has never been greater. If there is any area where funding and attention should be directed, it is here—ensuring that support systems are in place to meet the emotional and psychological needs of those within our educational communities.

While many factors influence overall well-being, there are some areas within education that we can directly control. One of those areas is testing—both local and standardized—and its impact on students.

Take a moment to reflect on your own school experience. What memories stand out? Hopefully, they include moments of joy, discovery, and connection with peers and teachers. Rarely do those memories revolve around testing. Yet today, testing has become a dominant force in education. Students often participate in standardized assessments multiple times a year, along with frequent interim testing that can make it feel as though the “testing train” never stops.

This culture of constant assessment does not only affect students—it impacts teachers, administrators, and entire school systems. In many states, student performance on standardized tests directly influences school grades, funding, and even evaluations tied to compensation. As a result, pressure builds at every level.

I was reminded of this pressure when I saw a school marquee wishing students good luck on a series of upcoming tests. While the message started with encouragement, it ended with the phrase, “Make Us Proud.” Though likely well-intentioned, that statement carries unintended weight. To a student, it can feel like their worth—or their ability to make others proud—is tied to a test score. That is a burden no child should carry.

Our pride in students should be unconditional. We should communicate messages like “You matter,” “We believe in you,” and “We are proud of your effort and growth.” Students already face pressures from multiple directions. What they need from us is support, stability, and encouragement—not additional stress tied to performance.

During my time as a teacher, particularly in third grade in Florida, I witnessed firsthand the effects of high-stakes testing. I could see test anxiety in my students—their expressions, their body language, the quiet tension that filled the room. In Florida, scoring at a Level 1—the lowest level—on the end-of-year assessment in third grade could result in automatic retention unless specific exemptions were met. Imagine being eight or nine years old and knowing that one test could determine whether you move forward with your peers.

Even in other grade levels, students who scored below proficiency were often placed on academic intervention plans, regardless of their overall performance in class. Despite their hard work, growth, and achievements in other areas, a single number often defined them. I made it a point to remind my students, just as I would my own children, that they were more than a score—it did not define who they were or what they were capable of becoming.

Still, that did not erase the reality they faced. One of the most difficult parts of my career was making those phone calls to families, explaining that their child would not be promoted. The emotional weight of those conversations is something I will never forget. Summer school was offered as a pathway forward, but expecting a student to demonstrate mastery in a few short weeks—compared to an entire school year—was often unrealistic.

Consider the impact this has on a child’s confidence and self-esteem. Whether it was you as a student or your own child placed in that position, the experience can be deeply discouraging. Beyond academics, these students require significant social and emotional support to rebuild confidence and maintain a positive sense of self.

The reality is simple: not all students are strong test-takers. Some excel in performance-based assessments, collaborative environments, or hands-on learning experiences. Others may face learning differences or disabilities that affect how they process and demonstrate knowledge. No child should be penalized for how they learn.

At the same time, even high-achieving students are not immune to the pressures of this system. For them, the challenge often becomes maintaining perfection—staying on accelerated tracks, meeting high expectations, and contributing to school performance metrics. While there can be benefits, such as college opportunities, we must ask an important question: at what cost? And more importantly, who is driving these expectations—the students themselves, or the adults around them?

These are complex questions, but avoiding them only perpetuates the problem. We must be willing to engage in meaningful conversations about the purpose and impact of our assessment systems.

It is also important to recognize that standardized testing extends to populations where it may be even less appropriate. Some Exceptional Student Education (ESE) students—who may be nonverbal or have significant physical or cognitive challenges—are still required to participate in various forms of assessment. In many cases, our efforts would be better spent focusing on life skills, independence, and preparing them for meaningful adult lives rather than prioritizing test performance.

Adding to the issue is the lack of alignment across states. While we are one nation, our educational standards and assessments vary significantly. This inconsistency makes meaningful comparisons difficult, if not impossible. National assessments like the NAEP (National Assessment of Educational Progress) attempt to provide a broader picture, but even these results can lead to confusion and misplaced concern when they are not aligned with individual state systems. It often becomes a case of comparing apples to oranges.

There is much we can learn from other countries. For example, nations like Finland delay high-stakes testing until later in a student’s educational journey, allowing more time for cognitive and emotional development. This approach recognizes that young children learn and grow at different rates and should be supported accordingly.

As we move forward, we must begin to rethink how we approach assessment. Technology has made it possible to create adaptive testing systems—assessments that adjust in real time based on student responses, providing a more accurate picture of individual strengths and areas for growth. These tools can help educators better target instruction rather than simply assign a score.

Ultimately, we must ask ourselves a fundamental question: What is the true purpose of assessment? Is it to serve systems, accountability measures, and funding structures—or is it to support students in their growth and development?

If our answer is truly the latter, then we must take a hard look at our current practices. Because as it stands, the experiences of many students, teachers, and schools suggest that the system is not fully aligned with that goal.

It is time to shift our focus. It is time to prioritize understanding over ranking, growth over numbers, and the well-being of students over the demands of the system. Only then can we create an educational environment that truly reflects the diverse minds, talents, and potential of every child.