If We Believe in Low-Demand Schooling, Why Do We Test at All?
Last week, during our monthly staff meeting, teachers reviewed the most recent Acadience and MAP data for our students. These meetings always lead us to important conversations, not just about numbers, but about how we use data, and how we intentionally do not use it at Oak House.
Data, Intellectual Community, and Revolutionary Compassion
Over the years, I’ve experienced both extremes as a parent and an educator: private schools that collected almost no data at all, and public schools that relied so heavily on testing that anxiety and distress were inevitable. Oak House exists in response to both of those experiences.
“Everytime I sit at a computer my back feels like it is on fire.”
When my oldest child, Raines, started kindergarten more than a decade ago, I had a master’s degree in art education but very little exposure to standardized testing. We chose a small private school that emphasized outdoor time and relationships, largely because we were navigating significant separation anxiety at school drop-off—what we now understand as emotionally based school avoidance.
At the end of that year, the school administered a single nationally normed assessment. I remember opening the envelope that summer. This was long before I had spent years looking at testing data, but even then something about the results felt off. The test results looked did not make sense, some scores were incredibly high and some incredibly low.. I called the head of school, and she reassured me that kindergarten testing was unreliable and not to worry too much.
Looking back now, I recognize what I was seeing. The results showed what is often called a “spiky profile,” something that frequently appears in neurodivergent learners.
The following year, Raines transitioned to a charter school where I was also teaching. In that setting, the problem was not the absence of data. Testing was constant. In just three months, she completed eleven computer-based standardized tests. During this time, Raines began saying that every time she sat down at a computer, she felt like her “back was on fire.”
One of her teachers gently suggested we pursue testing for dyslexia. Within a few months, we finally had part of the answer our family had been searching for.
How These Experiences Shaped Oak House
When we opened Oak House, we were clear about what we did not want:
An absence of data that leaves teachers without insight into student growth
A culture of constant testing that reduces children to scores and creates anxiety
We chose Acadience because it is administered one-to-one, nationally normed, and takes less than ten minutes. As students get older, we introduce MAP testing, not as a measure of worth, but as one data point that can inform instruction and long-term planning.
Humanizing Academic Data
At Oak House, we believe data can be a valuable tool. But numbers only become meaningful when they are interpreted in context.
Quantitative data is always paired with qualitative data. Test scores are considered alongside teacher observations, student work, emotional well-being, engagement, identity development, and lived experience. Numbers can tell part of a story, but they rarely tell the whole story of a child.
For students entering Oak House after experiencing EBSA, we may intentionally delay or decline testing altogether. In those moments, rebuilding trust in school is the most important data point there is.
There are also times when quantitative data shows little short-term growth, while qualitative indicators tell a very different story: a student choosing to read independently, taking academic risks, or developing a more positive identity as a learner. We recognize that growth, even when it cannot yet be graphed.
Student Autonomy & Data
As students mature, we believe they deserve increasing agency around data. This year, before administering MAP testing at the high school level, I told students they could decide whether this data felt like it served them.
I shared that when I go to the doctor, I turn away from the scale—not because the number is inherently bad, but because at this point in my life, that data does not serve my mental health. We talked about how easy it is to become obsessed with quantitative data: the number on a test, the number on a scale, the number in a bank account, and how quickly those numbers can begin to stand in for human worth. Learning when data is useful and when it is simply distracting or harmful is an important life skill.
A Deliberate Balance
In an ideal world, academic data would be neutral—supporting instruction without fear or judgment. But we do not live in a world where numbers are truly neutral. In many spaces, quantitative data becomes tied to worth, opportunity, and even a person’s ability to move safely through systems that determine resources and access. Until that is true, Oak House will continue to use data judiciously and place human worth before numbers.
At Oak House, we believe students deserve both time to play and teaching that is thoughtfully informed by data. Holding those truths together reflects our commitment to student autonomy, intellectual community, and revolutionary compassion.
