When critical supplies run low, we prudently conserve what’s precious and forego what’s less essential. This year, that wisdom applies to learning like never before. The events of 2020 have proven beyond dispute that in-person learning is the most precious resource we can offer our students. Because of closures and disruptive quarantines, every single student has lost out on in-person learning. Now, we are resisting a mandate to spend even more in-person time on low-value assessments that don’t justify the trade-off of losing even more learning.

Also read: POINT | We must track progress of remote learners

We administer Colorado Measures of Academic Success (CMAS) every year to track individual and group progress and to improve instruction. Every educator I know finds value in using the data to compare student performance over time and across student groups. Last spring we cancelled those assessments because gathering to administer them would incur medical risk. This year, superintendents, teachers, legislators, and dozens of other agencies and leaders agree that administering the 2021 CMAS is not worth the cost. With the exception of PSAT and SAT exams for college admissions purposes, teacher-led and local assessments are a better option compared to a universal assessment that was never designed to measure performance during the wildly chaotic conditions that have dominated these two school years. 

Standardized tests measure multi-year progress toward academic mastery. Tests in 2021 will reflect the disruptions of 2020 and the continued volatility of 2021. The tests will tell us something, but they will not be comparable to the 2019 or 2023 tests in any degree. Even 2022 test results are unlikely to return to pre-Covid levels because of the cumulative effect of learning losses.

Further, we know that patterns of attendance and engagement vary tremendously across communities and student populations. We know that students who are at risk for any reason have been more vulnerable to pandemic impacts and students with more assets have been more resilient. We don’t need exams to prove that truth.

Proponents say testing will give us a measure of how much impact the pandemic has had. They won’t. There is no way to control for what statisticians call confounding variables – the “other” things that you didn’t intend to measure but that interfere with your conclusions.

What we might be measuring is parent employment patterns that support or inhibit at-home help. We might end up measuring access to devices and broadband – better for thriving families closer to networks, and worse for surviving families farther from reliable service. Again, we don’t need hours of sit-down tests to tell us that.

Maybe we would measure which schools were more prepared with technology and agility to support transitions to E-learning.

All of that might be good information, but none of that information is worth sacrificing the invaluable asset of in-person learning.

The other major factor is participation. Many families chose not to attend in-person this year. We have no reason to think that they will attend in-person for assessments. Of those who do attend, we have heard a resounding message from students, parents, and teachers: CMAS isn’t worth it this year. We agree, and we predict that if we are mandated to administer the tests, students and parents will “vote with their seats” and most tests will capture far less than 50% participation.

Even in normal years CMAS is disruptive to learning at the end of the year. Typically, we adjust and absorb that impact. In 2021, it is asking too much for students and teachers to absorb one more disruption. This year we should do the next right thing and prioritize learning over testing.

Peter Hilts has invested 30 years in public education and currently serves as the chief education officer for School District 49 in Falcon in El Paso County.