It’s no wonder that headaches, frustration, and anxiety overwhelm students whenever they hear the words “standardized test.” MCAS, and now PARCC, become a part of Massachusetts students’ yearly routines from the age of nine. Lest sophomores think they’re finally done, SATs and ACTs loom right around the corner, as do SAT Subject Tests and AP Exams. Those planning to enter the armed forces instead of college must take the ASVAB. Standardized tests are so ubiquitous that their efficacy is assumed. But just how well do standardized tests accomplish what they are supposed to? Should they even be used at all?

In theory, standardized tests would help students learn more material more efficiently and more thoroughly. In practice, however, the opposite is true. Since tests cannot possibly cover all content due to expense and time limitations, test creators must choose certain topics to prioritize—and inevitably, English and Math take precedence over Science, History, and the Arts. This makes no difference, proponents argue, because the teachers can still teach the latter subjects in the classroom. But because of financial benefits offered schools successful on the tests, administrators cut the budgets of the latter to make room for more of the former, suppressing the potential of students who prefer science, history, and art.

Furthermore, because of a long list of standards and barely enough days to cover it all, English and Math teachers are forced to teach only what will be on the test. Teachers consider themselves lucky if they have a few weeks left at the end of the year to delve into broader concepts. Even if students ace the tests, they complete their education with only a partial understanding of the subject.

Educators might still accept all this if student achievement improved as a result. In 2002, George W. Bush signed into law the No Child Left Behind Act, which requires states to assess all grade levels in order to receive federal funding. That year, American students were ranked eighteenth in the world in math, according to the Programme for International Student Assessment. Seven years later, they dropped to thirty-fourth; during the same period, US spending on standardized tests rose 160%. Compare them to Finnish students, who took no standardized tests and were ranked first.

Despite proponents’ good intentions, evidence does not substantiate the claim that standardized tests are useful. In fact, it clearly supports the opposite. They are not merely ineffective; they are counterproductive.