Required Reading Tests Are Too Long

Every school year for as long as most of us can remember, standardized testing has always been a constant—whether you’re in third grade or tenth. There’s the standardized testing in math, science, and reading at the end of each year. Juniors take the ACT. And three times a year, everyone takes the reading tests.
These tests, formerly called the RI or Reading Inventory tests, that are now the NWEA-MAP tests, might be the worst ones.
For one, students are required to take the exam three times a year—at the beginning of the year, at the semester mark, and at the end of the year. The test questions consist of a short passage to read and an accompanying question. Sometimes they ask about commas or grammar rules. Other times they’re quizzing us on vocabulary or our comprehension of the information in the passage.
These tests are long and often feel like a waste of time. The tests are around 40 questions and typically take up an entire class period. That’s three full class periods taken up per year by these tests. Taking the tests at the beginning and end of the year makes sense because students and their teachers could see if they improved. The test at the semester mark is the exam that makes less sense and feels like a waste of time.
In the middle of the year, we’ve fully dived into the content. We’re in the middle of reading a book or we’re working on writing essays. The semester test interrupts the flow of the class and doesn’t feel necessary.
“I think they [should] be a lot shorter, and I would do twice a year to measure, ‘did we grow?’” Highland language arts teacher Katie Bullock said. “I think three times, with as long as they are, it wastes a lot of time.”
For students, spending an entire class period on a test where all we’re doing is reading passages and answering one question for each is a drag. The tests move quickly in the beginning, when your brain still has juice in it. But after half an hour of reading passage after passage of words written a hundred years ago, the words all start to blur together. Students start asking themselves what the point even is.
The tests are designed so students can’t see how many total questions there are on the test, which makes finding motivation to finish harder. With each click of the next button, students hope that will be the last question… only to be fed yet another passage to read. The test gets frustrating after a while and students stop paying attention to what they’re reading and just guess on the questions.
To be more affective, I think many of us would agree that the tests should be shorter. In some cases, the scores might not be as accurate, but if a lot of students aren’t answering with effort on the second half of the test, the scores might actually be more accurate if the tests were cut in half. They would also only take half a class period, instead of a full one. This would give teachers more time to teach other content and keep students more engaged in the questions.
When students finally reach the end, the test gives us a number that corresponds with our reading level. Teachers can use the information that these tests provide to make sure their students are at the level they’re supposed to be at. A teacher could compare the scores from each of the three tests within one year, but it’s harder for them to compare year to year because of how often the district changes the test.
“I think they [would be] important if they were consistent,” Bullock said. “But we’ve had so much change that we don’t really have any data to compare. Every year that I’ve been here, it’s been a different test. […] I feel like whiplash because I’ve taught many years, and it’s changed a few times in my career then I got here and it’s [one] test and then the next year was a different test and the next year it was a different test.”
When the data teachers get each year is inconsistent to the prior year, and the tests take up a lot of time, are they really worth it?