We found that the state testing mandate reduced the likelihood that private school leaders were certain to participate by 46 percent. Our second study similarly found that the state testing mandate reduced participation by 29 percent in California and New York. However, we found no evidence that nationally norm-referenced testing mandates affected program participation.
The takeaway? Private schools really care about their autonomy. And if you are going to have a testing mandate, at least allow private schools to choose a nationally norm-referenced test to prevent discouraging program participation. Both studies also found some evidence to suggest that the state testing regulation disproportionately deterred the higher-quality private schools from participating. In other words, the state testing regulation can have the opposite of its desired effect. Non-experimental studies on the subject tend to find that same result. My study at the Journal of School Choice, for example, suggests that the state testing regulation reduces program participation by 8 percentage points.
State testing mandates have the opposite of desired effect
Only a third of the private schools in Louisiana chose to participate in their heavily regulated school choice program, whereas more than double that proportion tend to participate in less regulated programs. The heavily regulated Louisiana program, which requires private schools to administer the state test, also had large negative effects on students’ test scores. Regulations can also essentially turn private schools into public schools. My peer-reviewed evaluation on the subject, coauthored with Lindsey Burke, finds that school choice regulations can also reduce specialization in private schools. And my Journal of School Choice study similarly finds that state testing mandates are more likely to deter specialized private schools from participating in choice programs than non-specialized private schools.
Pressuring private schools to focus on state tests also incentivizes “teaching to the test.” But two recent reviews of the evidence suggest that standardized test scores are weak proxies for long-term success. A study presented at Harvard University in 2018 concluded that “our meta-analysis shows that, at least for school choice programs, there is at best a weak relationship between impacts on test scores and attainment outcomes.” My separate review of the evidence, peer-reviewed and published at Educational Review, similarly found several divergences between effects of schools on test scores and longer-term outcomes such as crime, safety and earnings. Put differently, pressuring schools to “teach to the test” could actually harm students in the long run.
Proponents of the state testing requirement in Tennessee have good intentions. They want the best for students. But the evidence suggests this particular regulation could have the opposite of its intended effect by reducing the amount of meaningful education options for families.