Standardized tests are at their best when they are used to measure basic skills and knowledge in a consistent and objective way. Because every student receives the same instructions, questions, and scoring, these tests are effective tools for assessing areas such as reading comprehension, math computations, vocabulary, and factual recall. In these contexts, standardized tests provide reliable data that can be used to compare performance across different schools or regions, allowing educators and policymakers to identify large-scale trends and evaluate the effectiveness of educational programs. When properly designed and administered, they help reduce scoring bias and offer a fair way to gather information about students’ academic progress.

However, standardized tests are at their worst when they are used to measure skills that are complex, creative, or deeply contextual. They are not well suited for assessing critical thinking, real-world problem-solving, collaboration, or creativity—areas that require performance-based tasks rather than fixed-response formats. Problems arise when these tests become high-stakes, such as when results determine school funding, teacher evaluation, or student promotion. Such pressure can lead to stress, teaching to the test, and a narrowing of the curriculum. Additionally, standardized tests can be unfair when cultural or language bias influences the content, disadvantaging students who do not share the same background knowledge or experiences. They fall short when used as the sole measure of student ability, since they cannot capture the full range of human strengths, talents, and potential.