These tests aren’t just used to track student performance. They’re used to rate schools and even determine teacher salaries, meaning they carry high stakes for educators. In the last two decades, more and more educators and families have raised concerns that this system creates the wrong incentives. They argue that standardized test scores become a goal in themselves, rather than a tool to measure overall educational progress.
But the tide is turning. Compelling research has shown that “teaching to the test” harms educational quality without improving scores. Instead, educators are finding new ways to deliver a high-quality education and prepare students for exams along the way.
But problems arise when the tests, rather than the learning standards they measure, drive lesson planning. Assessment expert W. James Popham makes a clear distinction between “curriculum-teaching” aimed at delivering a set of knowledge and skills—which include material assessed on standardized tests—and “item-teaching,” which focuses on the items that will appear on an assessment.
For example, a teacher who is “item-teaching” might focus on ensuring students memorized a set of vocabulary words that are likely to be on the test. In contrast, a teacher who is “curriculum-teaching” might instead work to grow a students’ vocabulary holistically through their reading and writing work.
Research shows that focusing classroom instruction on test preparation does not improve scores. It can also negatively impact students’ overall education. Standardized assessments are typically narrowly focused, with predictable question types and focus areas.
Many educators argue that teaching to the test emphasizes rote memorization and repetitive drills instead of helping students develop the critical thinking, problem-solving, creativity, and communication skills they need to thrive. After all, rigor is how students develop meaningful skills that translate into better test performance. If the learning objective is answering a multiple-choice question correctly, rigor is no longer the goal.
Research has suggested that focusing on test preparation can lead to less ambitious, lower-quality instruction. This impact can even trickle down to younger grades, with teachers focusing on preparing students for future exams instead of developmentally appropriate skills like interpersonal communication.
Test questions are randomly sequenced. They don’t build on one another. They are not pedagogically sound. They aren’t a learning pathway; they’re a learning labyrinth without exit.
One study of ACT prep in Chicago Public Schools found that when schools focus too closely on improving scores on practice tests and questions, teachers and students fail to take a step back and identify the areas where students’ knowledge and skills are weak. Plus, an excess focus on test preparation often means less time is available for untested subjects like the arts, music, and physical education, all elements of a well-rounded curriculum.
It isn’t effective for educators to take last year’s test and teach students how to answer that. Why? Because that test will never show up again. It’s rare to have even one repeated item. This teaching strategy causes overfitting, where what students learn is too closely matched to the example test. What students prep for doesn’t help them on the upcoming exam.
Finally, using the phrase “This will be on the test,” wears thin. Basing an entire learning program on that concept is extremely demotivating to students—and can be equally demotivating to teachers. “I want to dedicate my life to helping students bubble answer sheets accurately,” said no educator ever. You can’t expect unmotivated educators to motivate students, and you can expect that unmotivated students won’t learn.
There are so many ways to move the needle. But the most frequently used one, teaching to the test, won’t work.
There are problems here, too. Misalignment between textbooks and assessments are rampant, so even if your students have perfect book knowledge they could miss on the standardized test. What’s more, textbooks are a one-size-fits-all approach that often doesn’t provide the flexibility to meet individual student learning needs.
This is the methodology we advocate at MasteryPrep and enable with our programs. When you plan your lessons, in addition to the curriculum or textbook resources you’re working with, you take into consideration:
You then provide a lesson that captures student interest, provides them value (from their own perspective), and bridges them from their current ability level to a level that meets or exceeds the expectations expressed by state standards and implied by the assessed standards and the supporting curriculum.
When you plan a lesson that teaches to the student, you’re more likely to reach them where they are and take them to where they need to go.