Statewide Testing Schedules: Challenging “What We’ve Always Done”
We’ve all heard it (or said it):
“This is how we’ve always done it.”
When it comes to statewide testing schedules, that phrase gets repeated far too often—and it’s one of the most overlooked barriers to improving the student testing experience.
Just because something worked before (or seemed to) doesn’t mean it still works now. School systems have changed. Students have changed. Even the tests themselves have changed. So why are so many testing schedules still built off old habits and inherited spreadsheets?
Are You Still Scheduling Around Old Assumptions?
Testing schedules often get recycled year after year. But has anyone stopped to question why they were set up that way in the first place—or whether those reasons still apply?
Let’s break down a few legacy assumptions that no longer hold up:
1. “Students need more time to get used to the computer.”
This one made sense pre-COVID, when most schools weren’t 1:1 with devices. Logging in took time. Rotating students into computer labs took even longer. But those days are largely behind us. Today’s students use digital tools daily, and most schools now have enough devices for full-class sessions.
If your testing schedule is still padded because of old tech limitations, it’s time to tighten it up and get that instructional time back.
2. “Untimed tests mean students can take all the time they want.”
Let’s clear this up: Untimed does not mean unlimited.
The original purpose behind removing time limits was to give students adequate time to demonstrate what they know—especially for those who need more processing time. But that doesn’t mean students should sit for hours refusing to engage with the test. If a student is no longer making progress, it's okay to pause or stop testing for that day.
The intention was not to hold students (or staff) hostage to an open-ended window. Adults can and should make informed decisions when students disengage.
3. “Testing needs its own special schedule.”
This belief came from the paper-pencil testing era, when strict time limits made it hard to work within a regular bell schedule—especially in secondary schools. But now, with the flexibility of online testing platforms, that’s changed.
Many systems allow breaks—even overnight or across days—with test security features built in. If your school schedule already has natural chunks of time that work for testing, consider integrating testing into those existing patterns. Predictability and routine help students feel more secure—and the fewer disruptions to their day, the better their chances of showing what they know.
Outdated Schedules Based of False Assumptions
Let’s start here: Most statewide tests provide actual test timing data—and yet many school schedules don’t reflect that information. In fact, a typical test might take 85%–90% of students less than 40 minutes per segment, yet schools often allocate entire blocks for multiple days for each segment!
This leads to:
Long idle times for students who finish early, increasing students getting creative in how to entertain themselves
Inflated perceptions about how much time is actually spent testing because it doesn’t actually reflect the length of the test
Increased stress for teachers who must manage a silent room far longer than necessary (see first bullet)
What is worse is that it sends a subtle but powerful message: This test is a huge deal and will take all day, so you better treat it like one.
That’s not helping anyone.
When “Finishing Early” Isn’t a Red Flag
One of the most persistent (and harmful) myths in testing culture is the idea that if a student finishes quickly, they must not have taken the test seriously.
But what if that student simply:
Understood the content
Didn't second-guess themselves
Didn't need extended time
Was focused and efficient?
Instead of assuming that a short completion time means a lack of effort, use it as an opportunity to re-examine your assumptions about what effort actually looks like. Not every student benefits from long testing windows—and stretching the session too far can increase anxiety and reduce engagement, especially for students who need closure to stay focused.
Now, I’m not talking about a student who rushes through 30 questions in under 10 minutes (we’ve all seen it). But…
Trust the data. If 90% of students complete a session in under 40 minutes, there’s no need to schedule 90-minute blocks—let alone multiple days of extended time! Especially if you're already offering breaks or flexible make-up sessions for the few students who need more time.
Audit Your Current Testing Schedule: Guiding Questions
Use these questions to reflect on your current site or district testing plan:
Are you using current technology access to our advantage?
Does your schedule reflect the actual time students need to complete each session (based on data like 85th or 90th percentile completion times)?
Do you build in buffer time purposefully and based on actual information, or are you padding with extra hours “just in case”?
Are you purposefully leveraging embedded online test platform features like breaks, pauses, and session-saving tools?
Have you aligned your testing schedule to students’ normalized routines and structures?
Is your schedule designed to maximize teaching and learning time, or do does it create unnecessary downtime?
Do students and teachers know what to expect—and why the schedule looks the way it does?
How do teachers and proctors respond when students finish quickly—do they assume they’re disengaged?
Do you know when a student is no longer making forward progress, and do you have a plan for what to do in those moments?
Does your schedule have make-up sessions that were build upon data—historic trends, attendance patterns, and how much of the test actually remains to be completed?
If your schedule isn’t rooted in current data, student needs, and instructional priorities, it is time for a redesign.
Looking Through the Compassionate Assessment Framework Lens
Two key components of the Compassionate Assessment Framework (CAF) apply here:
Adult Attitudes & Beliefs
The mindset that “more time = more effort” is deeply embedded in many school testing cultures, but it is not always true. If our beliefs about testing do not reflect actual student needs, they may be doing more harm than good.
Technical Quality
Good data starts with appropriate test conditions. If the logistics don’t align with how the test is designed to function, you risk distorting the results, making scores less valid and useful for all intended purposes—from systems level decisions to instruction.
Challenge: Share & Reassess
Think of your current testing schedule like an old recipe. It may have worked once, but is it still serving your current students? This week, share this post with a colleague and ask:
“What would we change if we weren’t tied to what we’ve always done?”
Then—get brave.
Look at your schedule. Use the guiding questions above. And start adjusting.
Need help? Reach out to us or subscribe to our weekly newsletter, Metrics & Meaning for more tips and tools.
