The Problem with High-Stakes Testing: Why Education Must Be More Human-Centered

By Matthew Klaver

What Are We Really Measuring?

As you already may know, summative assessments typically serve two purposes. For students, they are meant to determine what is known relative to content standards. For teachers and school systems, they function as accountability tools used to evaluate effectiveness (Garrison & Ehringhaus, 2013).

In theory, this sounds reasonable.

In practice, it is deeply flawed.

As Durga (2020) reminds us,

“summative assessments often become instruments of accountability rather than tools for supporting learning.”

This shift—from supporting students to evaluating systems—has fundamentally changed how we define success in education.

Accountability or Oversimplification?

People like Thurston Domina, whose work has been referenced in numerous education publications, help explain the current landscape of accountability in education. His description of systems that reward and punish schools and teachers based on standardized test scores reflects a broader societal belief: that outcomes can be neatly quantified and compared.

Domina (2017) explains:

“There's accountability for schools like in the No Child Left Behind law, which creates sanctions for schools that fail to improve the proportion of kids who score proficient on a test year after year after year. There can be accountability for teachers so that we reward teachers who are particularly effective in the classroom with bonuses or we punish teachers who are particularly ineffective by not renewing them.”

At face value, this sounds like a system designed for improvement.

But it reduces the success or failure of entire communities—students, teachers, families—to a single number generated during a few hours of testing.

Olson (2020) notes that high-stakes assessments

“reveal more about opportunity gaps than instructional effectiveness.”

In other words, these systems often measure privilege, not learning.

The “Learning Factory” Mentality

Let’s take this idea further.

Imagine we treat schools like factories. We could call them Learning Factories, where children are the products and standardized tests are the quality control mechanism.

As someone who worked in a Toyota assembly plant from 2006–2008, I understand this model well. The goal is to produce identical parts as efficiently and cheaply as possible. Anything that doesn’t meet specifications is discarded.

But even machines struggle under this model.

Machines break down. Materials have imperfections. Systems require constant maintenance. Even in ideal conditions, perfection is unrealistic.

And yet—we expect it from children.

Here’s the truth we already know:

Children are not products.

They are not plastic pellets to be melted down and molded into identical shapes.

They are human beings.

They play. They create. They struggle. They grow. Their primary objective, especially in childhood, is to explore and experience the world—not to perform on demand.

Who Do Standardized Tests Actually Serve?

Some students are naturally positioned to succeed within standardized systems.

Students with stability, support, and access to resources often:

• Trust adults

• Follow expectations

• Tolerate structured environments

• Take academic risks

These students may feel nervous before a test—but they show up, try their best, and often perform well.

Tests were designed with these students in mind.

But what about everyone else?

As Adom et al. (2020) emphasize,

“evaluation should be based on multiple sources of evidence rather than a single test.”

When we rely on one assessment to determine worth, progress, or potential, we ignore the complexity of human development—and reinforce inequities already present in the system.

The Students We Don’t See

I don’t primarily work with the students who thrive in standardized systems.

I work with students who fall on either side of the bell curve—students with IEPs, learning differences, and social-emotional challenges.

I am the lone middle school special education teacher at a PK–8 STEM school in Colorado. For over two decades, I have supported students who are often marginalized by traditional systems.

These students are not failing.

They are navigating a system that was not designed for them.

IDEA law was created to address inequity and ensure access—but even with these protections, the system often falls short. Many of my students don’t have opportunities to engage in meaningful, real-world learning until high school, when they finally gain access to job training or hands-on programs.

By then, many have already internalized years of struggle and disconnection.

What Real Learning Looks Like

To address this gap, I created a service-learning class that runs at the end of each school day.

On paper, it’s labeled as a supplemental math class.

In reality, it’s something very different.

In this space, students design and lead their own problem-based learning (PBL) projects. I act as a facilitator, guiding their thinking, collaboration, and execution.

Right now, my students are working to collect fleece donations so they can make blankets for a local animal shelter before Christmas. Their long-term goal is to expand this project and deliver blankets to children at a hospital in the spring.

This is learning.

Not because it will be graded on a standardized test—but because it is:

• Meaningful

• Collaborative

• Purpose-driven

• Rooted in real-world impact

Shepard et al. (2020) argue that real learning happens through

“assessment practices that are integrated into instruction and provide meaningful feedback to students.”

There is no Scantron for this.

Success is not a percentile score.

Success is delivering those blankets—and knowing they made a difference.

Rethinking Success in Education

The current system asks:

• Did the student pass the test?

• Did the teacher raise scores?

• Did the school meet benchmarks?

A human-centered system asks:

• Did the student grow?

• Did they feel capable?

• Did they engage in meaningful learning?

• Did they build skills they can use in the real world?

These are harder to measure.

But they matter more.

Final Reflection

High-stakes summative assessment, as it currently exists, does not just evaluate learning—it shapes it.

When we reduce education to numbers, we risk losing the very thing it is meant to cultivate: human growth.

If we want better outcomes, we need better questions.

We need systems that recognize that children are not products, teachers are not assembly line workers, and learning is not a standardized process.

At KlaverKind, we believe in an approach that values the whole child—one that prioritizes growth, connection, and meaningful engagement over compliance and performance.

Because real learning isn’t measured in bubbles filled in on a test.

It’s measured in confidence, curiosity, and the ability to navigate the world with purpose.

References

Adom, D., Mensah, J. A., & Dake, D. A. (2020). Test, measurement, and evaluation: Understanding and use of the concepts in education. International Journal of Evaluation and Research in Education, 9(1), 109–119. https://doi.org/10.11591/ijere.v9i1.20457

Domina, T. (2017). Thurston Domina defines school accountability [Video]. Sage Knowledge. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781473999428

Durga, V. S. S. (2020). Formative and summative assessment for learning: A review. JRSP-ELT.

Olson, L. (2020). Blueprint for testing: How schools should assess students during the COVID crisis. FutureEd.

Shepard, L. A., Diaz-Bilello, E., Penuel, W. R., & Marion, S. F. (2020). Classroom assessment principles to support teaching and learning. Center for Assessment, Design, Research and Evaluation, University of Colorado Boulder.

Garrison, C., & Ehringhaus, M. (2013). Formative and summative assessments in the classroom.