Waiving State Tests

Let Kids Learn Like Kids—And Hold High Schools Accountable the Right Way

There’s a reason the testing conversation has become so heated: most people can feel that something is off—especially in the elementary years.

HB0002IN’s effort to pursue a federal waiver for grades 3–8 statewide testing speaks to a growing frustration in public education: we have confused measuring learning with creating learning. And we have placed the heaviest testing pressure on the ages where children learn best through movement, play, talk, and hands-on experience.

I support less testing—especially for elementary students. I also believe in accountability, but the kind that fits human development and serves learning rather than choking it.

Here’s the case for a smarter approach.

The core value: Measure less in elementary, teach more

Elementary children are not miniature adults. Their attention, stamina, reading development, and emotional regulation are still forming. Yet in many systems, we require them to sit for long, screen-based standardized tests that demand sustained focus, independent reading, and endurance skills that are still developing.

That mismatch matters—because when the assessment system is developmentally misaligned, it doesn’t just measure learning. It shapes the entire school day:

• less recess

• less science and social studies

• less art and music

• less project-based learning

• more seat time

• more test prep

• more screen time

In the early grades, that is not a recipe for strong learning. It’s a recipe for burnout—both for kids and teachers.

What the research says about movement, recess, and learning

Children learn through their bodies. Movement is not a break from learning—it supports learning.

Research and guidance consistently connect physical activity to benefits that matter in school, including attention, behavior, and academic outcomes. For example:

• The CDC summarizes evidence that physical activity is associated with better cognitive skills and academic performance in children.

• A major systematic review found positive associations between physical activity/fitness and outcomes such as cognition and academic achievement.

• The American Academy of Pediatrics has emphasized that recess is a critical part of the school day and should not be viewed as a dispensable luxury.

(If you want, I’ll attach a short “Sources” section at the bottom of your post in APA format as we did before.)

Why standardized tests are often not age-appropriate in elementary school

This is not an argument against knowing whether children can read. It’s an argument against using the wrong tool.

Standardized tests for young children can be developmentally problematic because they often require:

• extended sitting and sustained concentration

• strong independent reading (even when reading is what’s being assessed)

• comfort with screen-based interaction

• emotional regulation under pressure

• pacing and time-management skills beyond the age level

Those demands can distort results. Some children may know the content but struggle with endurance, anxiety, or the testing format. And when scores become high-stakes, instruction shifts to match the test—not the child.

A better model: screen less, move more, teach deeper

If we truly want strong outcomes, the elementary years should prioritize:

• daily movement and meaningful recess time

• hands-on learning, talk, reading aloud, and real writing

• phonics and language fundamentals taught well

• learning through exploration and practice—not constant evaluation

• minimal screen time is used intentionally, not as the default

When children are allowed to learn like children, teachers can teach again.

What HB0002IN gets right—and what needs to be watched

If HB0002IN reduces statewide testing in grades 3–8 through a federal waiver, it could move Mississippi in a healthier direction.

But my support for reduced testing comes with a warning: we cannot replace one type of test pressure with another.

If statewide tests decline while districts are required to add more screeners, more progress-monitoring cycles, and more paperwork, the “test burden” doesn’t disappear—it just changes shape.

The goal should be this: less testing overall, not “same testing stress with different names.”

My high school view: ACT as the primary statewide measure

High school is different.

By high school, students are developmentally better able to handle long-form assessments, and the purpose of accountability shifts. At this level, testing should be tied to real readiness:

• college readiness

• career readiness

• literacy and math competence for adulthood

That’s why I support using the ACT as the primary statewide measure at the high school level. It’s widely recognized, relevant to postsecondary pathways, and avoids the need for multiple overlapping state exams that often duplicate one another.

A simpler system makes sense:

• Elementary: minimize standardized testing; focus on foundational learning + child development

• Middle school: targeted measures for intervention, but avoid high-stakes overload

• High school: ACT as the main statewide measure, with strong career-tech and graduation readiness indicators

  
  

What real accountability should look like

Accountability should not be a testing calendar. It should be a picture of whether schools are actually helping children.

A healthier accountability model would include:

• literacy growth (measured with appropriate, low-stress tools)

• attendance and engagement

• access to strong instruction and intervention

• school culture and safety indicators

• graduation outcomes

• ACT performance and readiness

• career-tech credentials and workforce pathways

That’s a fuller picture—and it doesn’t require turning elementary schools into testing centers.

A clear takeaway

I support reducing statewide standardized testing, especially in the elementary grades, because it is often not developmentally appropriate and it drives unhealthy instructional decisions. Children need movement, recess, and hands-on learning—not more screen-based testing.

And at the high school level, I support using the ACT as the primary statewide measure of readiness.

Less testing. More learning. Smarter accountability.

Reflection question for readers

If we truly believe children learn best through movement and developmentally appropriate instruction, why do we build elementary school schedules around testing demands that work against that reality?