Category: Standardized Testing

The concept of education has changed throughout the years. When kids are adolescents, everyone believes it is all ingenuity and out of this world projects; however, the burgeon of standardized testing engulfing our school systems. The issue that standardized testing is creating is that it gives general statistics that diminish students’ intelligence, increases students’ anxiety as well as teachers, and questions teachers’ credibility. This issue has impacted many professionals in the education field. In addition, Alfie Kohn an author and a lecturer in the education field has stated: “as much as 90% of the variations in test scores among schools or states have nothing to do with the quality of instruction.” Many educators don’t believe standardized testing should be the way to judge their knowledge because many students’ intelligence does not correlate with a score. Therefore, this raises the question to what extent do standardized testing negatively portray students?

Let’s start with the first perspective, the first perspective is that standardized testing is good. Many critics emphasize that standardized testing helps grade adolescents on growth. As GradePower learning presents “it provides guidelines for the curriculum”. What this essentially means is it limits the curriculum to what students need to know, to succeed. Therefore, these tests are useful for teachers to know what to teach. Moreover, standardized testing also identifies where students struggle to help them thrive as they perpetuate as they go to higher grade levels. As GradePower learning continues to state “Standardized tests can help identify problem areas in individual students, as well as schools and curriculums”. To be able to identify where students’ struggle is a major bonus to standardized testing (Arnold). For instance, if a certain class all does deplorable on a math section, the teacher knows what to fixate on; therefore, incrementing the value of education and performing better in the classroom. Moreover, many schools do not understand that it takes time for these to benefit. In Kentucky, it took 5 years for teachers and students to see benefits, but now they can have very high standards that students will reach (Porter).

However, with this source, there are weaknesses and strengths. The weakness is they give no examples where standardized testing has increased educational value. To clarify, the critics give zero examples of certain schools who enjoy using standardized because they have seen improvement in students. The give a generalizable statement that applies to every test. On the contrary, the strength of this source is that it is very credible. GradePower learning focuses all on tutoring kids to be successful. GradePower learning teaches kids how to expand their thinking; therefore, when they present information about standardized testing the credibility increases due to the fact they major in helping kids. Consequently, this source does have a plethora of credibility which shows the benefits of standardized testing.

Continuing with the first perspective, to measure the growth of students, exams are the most common way to do it. Speaking in general terms, exams are pretty much the basis of everyone’s grades in school. To have a good grade in a class, it is necessary to do well on exams. Therefore, considering this, exams are the most appropriate and the easiest way to see where students are and what they need to work on. This is why many believe “ Exams are instruments for measuring student proficiency… measuring something is often the best way to maximize or improve it” (Norman). Taking a test allows knowledge to be put to the test, and if students do lamentable on it, it is an indicator to the teacher that students haven’t mastered that unit. Which is why data should not just be dismissed as a number (Los Angeles Times).

Considering, standardized tests are solely meant for this purpose many see it as a positive because it is the best indicator for a student and a teacher to see where the adolescent is falling behind to provide a solution. Continuing, many students want to thrive in and out of school no matter location. Therefore, standardized testing gives students motives and goals to reach to thrive in the school atmosphere. This is why many critics and educators see the benefits with standardized testing because ultimately it helps students become better in the classroom and be able to be more successful as they continue throughout. Due to this, parents and teachers should not be apprehending these tests, instead, they should be utilizing them as a resource and visually perceiving where their kids need help instead of incriminating a test (Norman).

This source shares weaknesses and strengths. Norman R. Augustine is chairman of National Academics which shows that he does have cognizance on this subject, considering it is a huge part of academics in today’s society; however, how he presented his information was very generalized giving no real examples showing where these tests help students. Norman just states facts that are not backed up with evidence. Now the strength to Norman is he is a very credible inditer he is a part of National Academics, which correlates to the fact that he has worked with students from all over to see the benefits of these and considering from his perspective, the benefits outweigh the harm.

Continuing, the most popular standardized test is known as the SAT or the Scholastic Aptitude Test. This test is important in America for college acceptance. Many students and teachers hate this test saying how many students shouldn’t be quantified by a test; however, these tests show what you have learned throughout high school and see if you can apply it to application. Therefore, showing what students may improve on. Consequently, students should not dismiss this test just because it is hard. These tests show what many college type questions may look like; therefore, making you more prepared. As “Respect for Standardized Testing” shows “Standardized tests remain an important part of holding schools accountable and shouldn’t be minimized or dismissed as just a bunch of data. The concrete results from the tests force us to see truths we could otherwise avoid…” With standardized tests showing the student where could focus on is a big help to increase learning and to perform better on these tests. Therefore, these tests matter because they show what students need to focus on to thrive more on the SAT.

Now, let’s take a look at the second perspective, which focuses on the harm towards standardized testing. Starting with how standardized test rank students. Students get ranked depending on how they perform. Students aren’t objects they are people who may have test anxiety and do not perform as well, it doesn’t mean they are as not as smart as a student who did well. Ranking children should never happen in school, every student is different and every student thrives in their own way. As Bruce Dixon shows sports and education are two separate things “Learning is not a competitive sport, so how about we stop treating it that way. Why do we persist with ranking everything, naming and shaming schools by publishing test results like they’re sporting scores in league tables?” schools don’t need the hate, students don’t need the hate; so why does everyone use standardized testing to increase the pressure with school and pressure? Standardized is not meant to compare students to see who did preponderantly. Besides just ranking students, standardized testing cuts down creativity in school. Therefore, the emphasis on standardized testing has cut down creativity which kills curiosity and motivation to learn. As Bruce Dixon emphasis “The overemphasis on testing has led many teachers to eliminate projects and activities that provide students with an opportunity to be creative and imaginative, and scripted curriculum has become the norm in many classrooms.” Standardized testing has changed our school system, especially for younger students. Students used to be able to be way more ingenious in school and learn how to use their brains to think and their imagination to create, but now students use their brains to think about questions to make schools look good and their imagination is completely diminished.

There are strengths and weaknesses to this source by Bruce Dixon. The strength is these quotes are true looking at today’s society colleges require a test and standardized testing start in third grade and some countries even earlier. The idea of standardized testing has taken over schools is to a large extent very true creative minds don’t run wild anymore because of the test they are more focused, which makes kids grow up too fast. On the contrary, the weakness of these statements is that they don’t provide a counter-argument. Maybe it is good for kids to see tests earlier or start learning at a young age.

Continuing with this argument, parents bash their kids to do well on these tests which creates an immense amount of pressure. In New Delhi students have to pass the exam to be able to go to college. As Jim Yardley explains ‘We have to keep them under pressure,’ says Jaya Samaddar, whose daughter is studying for the national exams given in 10th grade. ‘We have no other choice.’ For parents to have to put pressure on kids that would make them perform worse because they are nervous and feel they have to perform well for someone else rather than themselves.

Along with parents bashing their children, when China crushed the United States on their SAT called PISA, and here is why as Sam Dillion states “Chinese students spend less time than U.S. students on athletics, music and other activities that are not geared toward success on exams in core subjects”. Kids need to be kids, they need to have fun and live because they only live once and sports are a big part of life it isn’t all about stressing children out to different extents.

Both these sources are very strong credible starting with the first source in New Delhi they utilize the parents saying they put pressure and for source two they use research to show why China crushed their standardized test.

With this question, one can pose two perspectives. These perspectives include that it doesn’t hurt/negatively affect the student and that it increases learning through the idea of benchmarks and educational advancements. However, it also impacts students through anxiety and pressure.

After evaluating the argument, it is clear that standardized testing has many flaws. This stance leads back to the question, do standardized tests negatively portray students? Standardized testing can negatively portray students because many students are not good test takers; however, that does not mean these tests aren’t useful. When researching this topic, there were many valid points to both sides of the argument, which increased the reliability of this argument. When researching, my viewpoint kept changing. On one hand, these tests rank people, which is very unethical, since everyone has their strengths and weaknesses and tests may be a weakness; however, on the other hand, these tests lead to more educational advancements. Therefore, I was torn between which side is morally right. Looking at this issue, there is no perfect answer to if standardized tests are beneficial or not; however, there is a solution: make standardized tests weigh less. Instead of seeing if kids perform well on one test, evaluate how they did throughout the year, see how students did on other assignments and then base their learning on that, rather than just basing it on one test. Even as students get older, standardized testing a big part of school. The Scholastic Aptitude Test should not be the determining factor of acceptance or not. Therefore, while standardized testing has some flaws that negatively portray students if they don’t score that high; however, in addition, it also helps increase educational advancements for students and also indicates weakness. Furthermore, standardized testing shouldn’t make or break students if they do poorly, many kids aren’t good test-takers, and that shouldn’t deteriorate their intelligence.

The United States has on numerous occasions had to respond to chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear and explosive threats. However, the absence of standardized testing methods has affected its ability to respond to hazards that are natural and manmade. For instance, the absence of standardized fire hose couplings has negatively impacted on the ability of firefighters to effectively respond to fires, therefore, increasing the risks faced by individuals and their properties (Steinhausler, 2015). The National Board of Fire Underwriters had initially put in place elaborate measures that emphasized on the need to standardize testing methods within the CBRNE community; additionally, standardized testing procedures play an integral role in helping stakeholders in homeland security respond to disasters that are likely to occur.

Therefore, standardized testing helps to analyze the threat as well as help aid in risk assessment in the vent disasters strike. The Department of Homeland security has emphasized on the importance of federal, state and local governments overseeing the adoption of chemical detection standards. This initiative increases the ability of government agencies to effectively respond to disasters that are CBRNE in nature (Steinhausler, 2015). Standardized testing helps to assess the quality assurance initiatives that monitor the performance of detectors used. Additionally, the adoption of standardized testing ensures that the evaluation of response mechanisms adheres to the laid down procedures and help aide in the validation process. Reference methods should be adopted by individuals tasked with the responsibility of ascertaining the effectiveness of standardized testing procedures.

Commercial chemical detectors should conform to established standards that respond to national security needs. The different levels of government will be in a position to make informed decisions based on the assessment of capabilities of the different equipment’s involved in assessing conformity to CBRNE standards. The failure to integrate the input of stakeholders involved in responding to disasters in the formulation of standardized testing procedures reduces their effectiveness when responding to threats attributable to chemical and biological weapons (Forest, Howard & Sheehan, 2013). The CBRNE community should adopt standardized testing procedures that will help in tactical decision making with the main objective being in the reduction of the number of causalities when disasters that are chemical and biological in nature strike.

Additionally, government agencies tasked with the responsibilities of guaranteeing national security employ standardized testing procedures when conducting a risk assessment. This initiative is characterized by an assessment of the different hazards and security threats. In this regard, standardized testing plays an integral role in ensuring biological and chemical samples collected are screened. Given that the primary mandate of incident commanders is to coordinate disaster response activities they rely on the input of standardized testing programs to determine the best course of action when responding to disasters that are likely to arise (Forest, Howard & Sheehan, 2013). In the absence of a standardized testing method law enforcement agencies are bound to encounter challenges discharging the response activities. Communication is an important aspect of responding to national disasters since it helps in the mobilization of both financial and human resources required to effectively respond to disasters.

Lack of standardization procedures in the CBRNE community adversely affects the adoption of national standards aimed at responding to chemical and biological threats. For instance, when responding to threats that are biological and chemical in nature it is considered a routine practice that public health officials are informed of the threat and provide a professional opinion on how the threat will impact the overall wellbeing of the population affected. Furthermore, samples should be collected and analyzed so as to influence the adoption of an ideal and effective response strategy. This strategy will reduce the vulnerability of local communities in areas where the disaster has occurred.

Moreover, the development of standard operating procedures ensures that response to incidents that are CBRNE in nature is coordinated by integrating the professional input of relevant stakeholders. Testing and evaluation infrastructure ensures test methods are in place and that the test facilities are accredited by the relevant government agency (Forest, Howard & Sheehan, 2013). Therefore, standardized testing increases the information sharing capacity within government departments. Furthermore, it enhances interoperability making it possible for emergency responders to adopt a uniform response strategy (Forest, Howard & Sheehan, 2013). Dependence on military units in responding to disasters that have CBRNE characteristics has reduced significantly. Response activities are now spearheaded by law enforcement officers, hazardous materials response units, emergency medical services, and the bomb squad.

A study done by Spector of New York Times shows “about three quarters of psychologists from the state’s nearly seven hundred school districts said state tests are causing great stress” (Spector, 1). Many students are required to take standardized tests nationwide which results in a lot of stress. Low energy, headaches, an upset stomach, aches, pains, and tense muscles are all symptoms caused by stress. Not only does testing create stress, but not all testing is accurate. Therefore, standardized testing should be eliminated because it is inaccurate and creates stress.

Some might argue that standardized testing is mandatory and should be used in order to receive information pertaining to the student’s qualifications however, evidence shows that nearly “70% of standardized tests do not meet the criteria taught in school” (Spector, 2). This goes to show that standardized tests don’t better a student’s educational values nor do they show what students need to improve on. The only circumstances in which standardized testing should be used is if it follows the school’s criteria and shows what each student needs to improve on.

The biggest factor that goes against standardized testing is the amount of stress that it puts on students. “Eighteen out of thirty eight fourth graders rated stress levels in the high range because of standardized testing” (Spector, 2). With this being said young students, such as fourth graders, shouldn’t be amounted to that much stress at such a young age. Standardized testing is already very stressful for students but it also includes a lot of additional studying beforehand. “On average, teachers estimate spending 14 days preparing students for mandated exams” (Robelen, 1). By saying this, the author is trying to explain that this is too much time spent preparing for exams that don’t meet school criteria and they could be learning more valuable information. “When it comes to test prep, sixty two percent of teachers say they spend too much time readying students for state-mandated exams’ (Robelen, 1). This shows that not only students believe too much time is spent on state-mandated exams but teachers as well.

In conclusion, standardized testing is time consuming for both students and teachers, the tests are inaccurate, and they’re stressful. In addition, the many hours spent preparing for standardized tests could be used to learn vital information. Standardized testing is inaccurate and creates stress. With this information, students should not stress because it doesn’t better them for the future in the long run.

Works Cited

1. Chambers, John A. “When Standardized Tests Go Wrong.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 28 June 2003, www.nytimes.com/2003/06/29/nyregion/soapbox-when-standardized-tests-go-wrong.html.
2. Robelen, Erick. “Education Writers Association.” Testing and Test Prep: How Much Is Too Much?, 3 June 2016, www.ewa.org/blog-educated-reporter/testing-and-test-prep-how-much-too-much.
3. Walberg, Herbert J. “Standardized Tests Effectively Measure Student Achievement.” Defining Ideas: A Hoover Institution Journal, edited by Dedria Bryfonski, 20 May 2011. Opposing Viewpoints in Context, link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/EJ3010478217/OVIC?u=j220907001&xid=a0487192. Accessed 2017.

How do you feel when there will be a test coming up in school? What if it’s a really important test, like a midterm or final test of the school year? I mean you definitely have to spend the time to review and memorize it, right? But have you ever wondered if the standardized test actually measures ability?

Most students know that standardized tests have been a major part for them in the United States due to the reason that standardized test mainly decides a student’s grade. Students are taking more and more tests and spending day and nights to review what they have learned from school and prepare for the ACT and SAT, which mainly decides their future. Even though standardized tests are used to check the learning process of students, but I believe it has become a poor way of measuring students abilities. According to Washington post, it suggests a low score can’t indicate how much knowledge a person has on the subject, saying that students can’t be judged based on the grade they got on each course. Now let’s talk about some famous people’s process to success.

We know that many big entrepreneurs, wealth owners actually don’t know how to read when they are studying, or even miss the school. Have you ever wondered why? For example, Einstein (founder of General Electric), Mr. Bell (inventor of the phone, founder of Bell Phone), Bill Gates (founder of Microsoft), these big names are actually called idiots by teachers when they are learning. Their success is because they are not afraid of failure, are not afraid of being rejected, have their own dreams and beliefs, and put them into action. To be successful, not to read or study, but face challenges and always stand up longer than others.

Outside of school, we will always have other resources around us. Students have the Internet for questions they don’t know, and they can always go to friends, family, or other people that would know how to help us. Education shouldn’t just be about memorizing facts and taking tests but instead to learn how we can use our knowledge in the real world. Tests such as ACT and SAT carry too much weight in determining which university or college a student goes, because it doesn’t fully measure students intelligence, but to be tested on how well your teacher had taught you throughout the years, and how much information you can remember.

Academic achievement does not determine the child’s future development, but only reflects one aspect of learning ability. While personality, ability, knowledge, health, contribution, wealth, personality plays a decisive role! That is, the state of mind determines the future of the child.

As early as 2001, with the implementation of accountability policies such as No Child Left Behind (NCLB), and Race to the Top (RttT), there has been an increased emphasis on students standardized test scores. These policies use student’s performance on such tests as a means of funding schools, such that higher scoring schools receive more funds, and lower scoring schools receive less funds. Teachers are now being held accountable for students test scores (Valli and Buese), with negative consequences affecting them if they don’t meet the standards placed by the district. This ultimately places them under increasing pressure to improve scores.

Teachers are subject to evaluations that measure their effectiveness in the classroom. With the rise of accountability policies, a greater percentage of their evaluation is being devoted to the results of testing, magnifying the pressure to increase scores. Thus, if students don’t achieve admirable results, teachers may be subject to lower salaries, or sometimes even be dismissed (Cucchiara, Rooney, & Robertson-Kraft). A problem that arises with this method is that scores don’t measure teacher effectiveness in a reliable way, because these tests don’t reflect an accurate measure of students’ abilities (Spann); as a result, teachers may be wrongfully penalized. Furthermore, policies also play a role in teacher evaluations and mounting pressure. Schools that are overall higher performing receive benefits such as salary increases, merit pay raises and tenure decisions, while lower performing schools are penalized by staff replacements, lower funds, and school closure (Saeki, Pendergast, Segool and P. von der Embse). Many times, as a result, administrators put further pressure in teachers to perform better, as their jobs are also at stake if teachers don’t meet the required results.

A main source of pressure for many teachers is the pressure received from administrators. Because of accountability policies, the government places more pressure on districts, which place more pressure on schools, which places more pressure on teachers. This situation, called the ‘top down’ situation, has been a major cause for teacher and student stress (Franklin, Snow-Gerono), and it all stems from the government enacting such policies. Although this type of pressure is mostly felt in lower performing schools, teachers in higher performing schools also reported feeling significant pressure, as they feel responsible to perform well and not drop the school’s rating. Along with this pressure, media pressure is also significant. Many schools and districts post test scores online or on newspapers. Because test scores are publicly displayed, many teachers feel embarrassed, and anxious (Saeki, Pendergast, Segool and P. von der Embse), and they feel judged by parents and other teachers as many times, they don’t know how to interpret the scores and blame the teachers.

One result of all this pressure is that teachers often change their behaviors and result to doing whatever is necessary to achieve admirable scores. According to David Berliner, educational psychologist, there have been many incidents of cheating and helping students during testing, so teachers aren’t penalized for low results (Berliner). Furthermore, teacher morale has been decreasing in the classroom, which might be a cause for cheating. Students in the classroom end up being affected because of these changes in behavior, as teachers also resort to teaching the test, and students may not end up receiving the best education.

Increasing pressure in the workplace may cause teachers to resort to ‘teaching to the test’, as they feel it is the only effective method to raise students test scores. Furthermore, the government often times implement policies requiring the curriculum to be more standardized, forcing teachers to teach according to test material. Test preparation activities such as vocabulary lists, practice tests, and word recognition skills have increased in the classroom significantly since accountability policies have been implemented (Moon, et. Al.). Test preparation has negative effects on both teachers and students. It minimizes the development of important skills that students should have, such as critical thinking and deep analysis, while also minimizing the time teachers have to teach students other important topics that could benefit them.

One direct effect that teaching to the test has is narrowing the curriculum. Because only reading and math are tested, subjects such as arts, physical education, and social studies are often devalued. Such subjects are an important part of education, and the decreasing time spent on them has negative consequences on the education of students. The long-term effects of this situation on student education raises concerns to numerous teachers; as they worry that in the future, students will only know that of which is being tested (Franklin, Snow-Gerono). This is especially true for elementary school teachers, given that they remain in the same classroom throughout a school year, and are responsible to teach all subjects. Because of that, they are often under significant pressure, and are faced with the difficult decision of teaching only tested subjects or teaching a variety of subjects and risking the possibility of lower test scores.

Teachers have increasingly begun to feel less pleasure in their work. Since their main focus in the classroom is raising the standardized testing scores, they no longer have time to truly teach in a way that satisfies them. According to Sonya Christian, a professor of educational leadership, teachers are less concerned with discovering specific student needs and abilities (Christian), primarily because they are more focused on reaching the required scores, and as a result, don’t show interest in student engagement. This is an effect of a decreasing job satisfaction, a factor in teaching that has been dropping significantly since the rise of accountability policies.

I woke up one friday and noticed that the SAT was the next day. I crammed a bunch of information into my head with the fear that if I managed to fail the test, it would be impossible for me to ever get into a college, but as I was studying all these different types of subjects that I haven’t reviewed for years, I asked myself if this simple test taken by majority of Americans is really a good indicator of future college performance. Opinions on standardized testing varies between who’s doing the research, but they’re usually in favor of the SAT and ACT. Though research is still very unclear on whether the SAT does a good job at predicting college success, majority of studies show that they generally aren’t.

Before standardized testing, schools required entrance exams specific to each school be taken. These exams required people to travel to the college they desired to attend to take the exam. The College Board then formed in 1900 to administer a test that can be taken nationally without the difficulty of travelling. Many years later, in 1959, a professor at University of Iowa named Everett Franklin Lindquist introduced the ACT. He often despised the idea of testing, stating that “we must undue emphasis upon average test results, upon school-to-school and teacher-to-teacher comparisons… may cause the teacher… to neglect the interests of the pupils, and to be concerned instead with subject matter objectives and with higher average scores for their own sake’ (Lindquist). In this quote, he claims that teachers may instead neglect their students by focusing more on trying to get higher average scores instead of actually focusing on the interest of their students. This is evident in today’s society where it common for teachers to adjust their lesson plan specifically to be focused around a test. The pressure puts on students about standardized test causes them to worry and gain anxiety while taking them, and these mindsets aren’t stable enough conditions students should be tested on their knowledge in.

The conditions and environment you’re forced into while taking this test is also an unrealistic representation of knowledge. According to Jessica Weaver at Pennsylvania State University, standardized testing also doesn’t have a wide enough range of topics to accurately measure the intelligence of an individual. “In a realistic situation, you would never be trapped alone in a room without resources”, she said. “They may test whether or not you remember geometry from 10th grade, but they don’t have any real bearing on someone’s success in business school” (Weaver). In realistic situations, you’re never forced in environment to remember certain techniques and things learned many years ago. Geometry is generally taught in ninth or tenth grade which would result in the average person forgetting it by the time they’re required to take a college required test. Also, standardized test don’t test wide enough of subjects to truly measure the intelligence of the brain. Weaver argues that knowing geometry from tenth grade has no benefit for someone who is interested in being a major in business.

According to PBS, it’s impossible to measure intelligence of the complex brain with one tool like a standardized test. William Hiss, the former Dean of Admissions lead the study which claimed that “The human mind is simply so complex and so multifaceted and fluid, that trying to find a single measurement tool that will be reliable across the enormous populations of American students is simply a trip up a blind alley. I would never say the SATs and ACTs have no predictive value for anybody; they have predictive value for some people. We just don’t find them reliable cross populations” (Hiss). According to this research and study, the brain is simply too complex to being able to be measured with something as simple as a test which is another factor as to why it isn’t a good indicator of intelligence. Everyone’s brain functions differently and imports information differently. As a result, the brain also exports information differently resulting in different interest and motives.

Standardized test can also be affected by how wealthy you are. A study led by William C. Hiss, Dean of Admissions and Vice President at Bates College claimed that “Low-income students may experience financial barriers because they cannot afford expensive SAT coaching programs; students from rural areas may not have geographic access to these programs. Thus they might be less prepared to take the SATs” (Hiss). This study showed that higher income students had a higher chance of receiving greater scores on the SAT because they could afford the expensive coaching program made specifically to increase a score for standardized test. The income of a minor shouldn’t have any effect on a test intended to measure the intelligence of an individual. Though coaching programs are a good tool to strengthen and prepare students for rigorous testing, it provides an unfair advantage to students who can’t afford to access these coaching programs.

Further studies, sponsored by the National Association for College Admission Counseling, shows that poorer SAT or ACT test scores did not correlate with how well a student did within a college environment. According to the National Center for Fair & Open Testing (FairTest), “Of the roughly 800 schools that are test-optional, more than 150 are ranked in the top tiers of their respective categories. You can find the entire school list at FairTest”. This proves that the SAT has no effect on whether someone will succeed or fail in college.

According to Concordia University in Portland, “With so much riding on the results, teachers often feel compelled to teach to the tests. In some schools, less time is being spent on the sciences, social studies, and the arts to prepare students to take the tests in math, reading and writing” (The Room 241 Team). In this quote, it explains how teachers in schools began to focus more on maths and english when there is more much for students that needs to be learned. High school teachers begin to mold their lesson plans around standardized test despite the fact that standardized test don’t cover the broad range of knowledge required in a college environment. Colleges have many majors and subjects that students are required to take when attaining their degree and standardized test sometimes don’t even scratch the surface of the more rigorous and less common courses. Though some testing companies do offer multiple subject test, like the SAT Subjects Test, and the ACT, they still barely scratch the broad amount if information required to be gathered within a college environment. Though this is true, teachers still habitually mold their class around future test that student are required to take which results in students lacking in other sciences.

In a study executed by Mikayla Shamburger at Pacific University – Oregon, Shamburger states that “The SAT also tests a student’s ability to write on command in a short amount of time, given a prompt. But really, where does this become useful in college? A student’s success should not be measured by how well they can whip out an essay in 40 minutes”. In this article, Shamburger stresses the fact that the SAT, as well as other standardized test, places student in a situation that has no correlation or relations to college. Using an essay written in forty minutes to compare the success of a young student shouldn’t be a deciding factor of how a student will behave in a college environment. To create a well written essay, tools like brainstorming, planning, and drafting are required steps needed to result in the best essay possible. Despite all of this, students are still graded on their written ability with simply what they can do in forty minutes.

In an article written by Amanda Chan at Pennsylvania State University, Amanda elaborates more about how unreasonable the SAT test is, “In fact, studies have shown that high school grades are a better predictor of grades in college than an SAT score. With the national average score at 1,500 out of a possible 2,400, students are still forced to take a test that is written to trick them and prompts them to think that they cannot succeed in college”. Many studies have proven that the SAT is written to confuse the test taker, and when you look at the national average many students get almost 1,000 points less than the higher score. Acing the SAT is a rare occasion due to the fact that the test is designed for you to fail which is the complete opposite of college. College generally doesn’t contain specific algorithms and questions designed to make sure you don’t pass, instead, most classes offer free tutors, teacher’s assistants, and more useful essential tools to make sure completing college is an evitable task.

After taking the SAT, many people feel discouraged and undetermined due to the confusion and difficulty of the test. This shouldn’t be the essential goal for the test makers and instead try and offer a test that allows students to feel as though they can succeed.

In an article by Hult International Business School, they elaborate on the idea that despite some students having the same level of intelligence, their quality of education can cause them to get significantly noticeable worse scores. “Two students with relatively equal intelligence but different qualities of high school education may both take the ACT and end up with vastly different scores” (Lindsay). Students in wealthier areas with wealthier schools are most likely to succeed significantly more on standardized test because they have more resources than those in subsidized or poverty filled areas. Their intelligence can be virtually identically, but if one student had more access to other resources they’ll generally perform better due to the fact that standardized test don’t only measure intelligence, but instead measures how well a student can prepare for unrealistic situations and how well they can obtain the resources to prepare them for a situation that’s designed for them to fail.

Ultimately, the SAT and ACT test can measure many things. It can measure how well students act in stressful and pressured situations, and how well students use deductive reasonings, but there are too many factors that disqualify these test from doing what it is they’re intended to do. Measuring someone’s intelligence and how well they’ll behave in a college environment is virtually impossible because the brain is a complex structure that can’t be measured with simply a number. Higher test scores also correlate with higher income due to the fact that many students can’t afford essentials tools that aid and assist students specifically for standardized testing. Some students have the ability to study with programs like Kaplan, but these program can range anywhere from $645 to $899 which many students aren’t capable of affording. If colleges want to continue using these standardized test as heavy deciding factors of whether or not students are ready for college, the schools should consider making the test less impactful on the admissions decision and instead using it as a softcore insight on how well students behave under pressure and stress. More reasonable sources to measure a student’s intelligence, though still far from perfect, are grades accumulated over the years and how high a student’s grade point average is. These allow colleges to see years of effort instead of timed sections that were designed to cause a students to fail.

The concept of education has changed throughout the years. When kids are adolescents, everyone believes it is all ingenuity and out of this world projects; however, the burgeon of standardized testing engulfing our school systems. The issue that standardized testing is creating is that it gives general statistics that diminish students’ intelligence, increases students’ anxiety as well as teachers, and questions teachers’ credibility. This issue has impacted many professionals in the education field. In addition, Alfie Kohn an author and a lecturer in the education field has stated: “as much as 90% of the variations in test scores among schools or states have nothing to do with the quality of instruction.” Many educators don’t believe standardized testing should be the way to judge their knowledge because many students’ intelligence does not correlate with a score. Therefore, this raises the question to what extent do standardized testing negatively portray students?

Let’s start with the first perspective, the first perspective is that standardized testing is good. Many critics emphasize that standardized testing helps grade adolescents on growth. As GradePower learning presents “it provides guidelines for the curriculum”. What this essentially means is it limits the curriculum to what students need to know, to succeed. Therefore, these tests are useful for teachers to know what to teach. Moreover, standardized testing also identifies where students struggle to help them thrive as they perpetuate as they go to higher grade levels. As GradePower learning continues to state “Standardized tests can help identify problem areas in individual students, as well as schools and curriculums”. To be able to identify where students’ struggle is a major bonus to standardized testing (Arnold). For instance, if a certain class all does deplorable on a math section, the teacher knows what to fixate on; therefore, incrementing the value of education and performing better in the classroom. Moreover, many schools do not understand that it takes time for these to benefit. In Kentucky, it took 5 years for teachers and students to see benefits, but now they can have very high standards that students will reach (Porter).

However, with this source, there are weaknesses and strengths. The weakness is they give no examples where standardized testing has increased educational value. To clarify, the critics give zero examples of certain schools who enjoy using standardized because they have seen improvement in students. The give a generalizable statement that applies to every test. On the contrary, the strength of this source is that it is very credible. GradePower learning focuses all on tutoring kids to be successful. GradePower learning teaches kids how to expand their thinking; therefore, when they present information about standardized testing the credibility increases due to the fact they major in helping kids. Consequently, this source does have a plethora of credibility which shows the benefits of standardized testing.

Continuing with the first perspective, to measure the growth of students, exams are the most common way to do it. Speaking in general terms, exams are pretty much the basis of everyone’s grades in school. To have a good grade in a class, it is necessary to do well on exams. Therefore, considering this, exams are the most appropriate and the easiest way to see where students are and what they need to work on. This is why many believe “ Exams are instruments for measuring student proficiency… measuring something is often the best way to maximize or improve it” (Norman). Taking a test allows knowledge to be put to the test, and if students do lamentable on it, it is an indicator to the teacher that students haven’t mastered that unit. Which is why data should not just be dismissed as a number (Los Angeles Times).

Considering, standardized tests are solely meant for this purpose many see it as a positive because it is the best indicator for a student and a teacher to see where the adolescent is falling behind to provide a solution. Continuing, many students want to thrive in and out of school no matter location. Therefore, standardized testing gives students motives and goals to reach to thrive in the school atmosphere. This is why many critics and educators see the benefits with standardized testing because ultimately it helps students become better in the classroom and be able to be more successful as they continue throughout. Due to this, parents and teachers should not be apprehending these tests, instead, they should be utilizing them as a resource and visually perceiving where their kids need help instead of incriminating a test (Norman).

This source shares weaknesses and strengths. Norman R. Augustine is chairman of National Academics which shows that he does have cognizance on this subject, considering it is a huge part of academics in today’s society; however, how he presented his information was very generalized giving no real examples showing where these tests help students. Norman just states facts that are not backed up with evidence. Now the strength to Norman is he is a very credible inditer he is a part of National Academics, which correlates to the fact that he has worked with students from all over to see the benefits of these and considering from his perspective, the benefits outweigh the harm.

Continuing, the most popular standardized test is known as the SAT or the Scholastic Aptitude Test. This test is important in America for college acceptance. Many students and teachers hate this test saying how many students shouldn’t be quantified by a test; however, these tests show what you have learned throughout high school and see if you can apply it to application. Therefore, showing what students may improve on. Consequently, students should not dismiss this test just because it is hard. These tests show what many college type questions may look like; therefore, making you more prepared. As “Respect for Standardized Testing” shows “Standardized tests remain an important part of holding schools accountable and shouldn’t be minimized or dismissed as just a bunch of data. The concrete results from the tests force us to see truths we could otherwise avoid…” With standardized tests showing the student where could focus on is a big help to increase learning and to perform better on these tests. Therefore, these tests matter because they show what students need to focus on to thrive more on the SAT.

Now, let’s take a look at the second perspective, which focuses on the harm towards standardized testing. Starting with how standardized test rank students. Students get ranked depending on how they perform. Students aren’t objects they are people who may have test anxiety and do not perform as well, it doesn’t mean they are as not as smart as a student who did well. Ranking children should never happen in school, every student is different and every student thrives in their own way. As Bruce Dixon shows sports and education are two separate things “Learning is not a competitive sport, so how about we stop treating it that way. Why do we persist with ranking everything, naming and shaming schools by publishing test results like they’re sporting scores in league tables?” schools don’t need the hate, students don’t need the hate; so why does everyone use standardized testing to increase the pressure with school and pressure? Standardized is not meant to compare students to see who did preponderantly. Besides just ranking students, standardized testing cuts down creativity in school. Therefore, the emphasis on standardized testing has cut down creativity which kills curiosity and motivation to learn. As Bruce Dixon emphasis “The overemphasis on testing has led many teachers to eliminate projects and activities that provide students with an opportunity to be creative and imaginative, and scripted curriculum has become the norm in many classrooms.” Standardized testing has changed our school system, especially for younger students. Students used to be able to be way more ingenious in school and learn how to use their brains to think and their imagination to create, but now students use their brains to think about questions to make schools look good and their imagination is completely diminished.

There are strengths and weaknesses to this source by Bruce Dixon. The strength is these quotes are true looking at today’s society colleges require a test and standardized testing start in third grade and some countries even earlier. The idea of standardized testing has taken over schools is to a large extent very true creative minds don’t run wild anymore because of the test they are more focused, which makes kids grow up too fast. On the contrary, the weakness of these statements is that they don’t provide a counter-argument. Maybe it is good for kids to see tests earlier or start learning at a young age.

Continuing with this argument, parents bash their kids to do well on these tests which creates an immense amount of pressure. In New Delhi students have to pass the exam to be able to go to college. As Jim Yardley explains ‘We have to keep them under pressure,’ says Jaya Samaddar, whose daughter is studying for the national exams given in 10th grade. ‘We have no other choice.’ For parents to have to put pressure on kids that would make them perform worse because they are nervous and feel they have to perform well for someone else rather than themselves.

Along with parents bashing their children, when China crushed the United States on their SAT called PISA, and here is why as Sam Dillion states “Chinese students spend less time than U.S. students on athletics, music and other activities that are not geared toward success on exams in core subjects”. Kids need to be kids, they need to have fun and live because they only live once and sports are a big part of life it isn’t all about stressing children out to different extents.

Both these sources are very strong credible starting with the first source in New Delhi they utilize the parents saying they put pressure and for source two they use research to show why China crushed their standardized test.

With this question, one can pose two perspectives. These perspectives include that it doesn’t hurt/negatively affect the student and that it increases learning through the idea of benchmarks and educational advancements. However, it also impacts students through anxiety and pressure.

After evaluating the argument, it is clear that standardized testing has many flaws. This stance leads back to the question, do standardized tests negatively portray students? Standardized testing can negatively portray students because many students are not good test takers; however, that does not mean these tests aren’t useful. When researching this topic, there were many valid points to both sides of the argument, which increased the reliability of this argument. When researching, my viewpoint kept changing. On one hand, these tests rank people, which is very unethical, since everyone has their strengths and weaknesses and tests may be a weakness; however, on the other hand, these tests lead to more educational advancements. Therefore, I was torn between which side is morally right. Looking at this issue, there is no perfect answer to if standardized tests are beneficial or not; however, there is a solution: make standardized tests weigh less. Instead of seeing if kids perform well on one test, evaluate how they did throughout the year, see how students did on other assignments and then base their learning on that, rather than just basing it on one test. Even as students get older, standardized testing a big part of school. The Scholastic Aptitude Test should not be the determining factor of acceptance or not. Therefore, while standardized testing has some flaws that negatively portray students if they don’t score that high; however, in addition, it also helps increase educational advancements for students and also indicates weakness. Furthermore, standardized testing shouldn’t make or break students if they do poorly, many kids aren’t good test-takers, and that shouldn’t deteriorate their intelligence.

The United States has on numerous occasions had to respond to chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear and explosive threats. However, the absence of standardized testing methods has affected its ability to respond to hazards that are natural and manmade. For instance, the absence of standardized fire hose couplings has negatively impacted on the ability of firefighters to effectively respond to fires, therefore, increasing the risks faced by individuals and their properties (Steinhausler, 2015). The National Board of Fire Underwriters had initially put in place elaborate measures that emphasized on the need to standardize testing methods within the CBRNE community; additionally, standardized testing procedures play an integral role in helping stakeholders in homeland security respond to disasters that are likely to occur.

Therefore, standardized testing helps to analyze the threat as well as help aid in risk assessment in the vent disasters strike. The Department of Homeland security has emphasized on the importance of federal, state and local governments overseeing the adoption of chemical detection standards. This initiative increases the ability of government agencies to effectively respond to disasters that are CBRNE in nature (Steinhausler, 2015). Standardized testing helps to assess the quality assurance initiatives that monitor the performance of detectors used. Additionally, the adoption of standardized testing ensures that the evaluation of response mechanisms adheres to the laid down procedures and help aide in the validation process. Reference methods should be adopted by individuals tasked with the responsibility of ascertaining the effectiveness of standardized testing procedures.

Commercial chemical detectors should conform to established standards that respond to national security needs. The different levels of government will be in a position to make informed decisions based on the assessment of capabilities of the different equipment’s involved in assessing conformity to CBRNE standards. The failure to integrate the input of stakeholders involved in responding to disasters in the formulation of standardized testing procedures reduces their effectiveness when responding to threats attributable to chemical and biological weapons (Forest, Howard & Sheehan, 2013). The CBRNE community should adopt standardized testing procedures that will help in tactical decision making with the main objective being in the reduction of the number of causalities when disasters that are chemical and biological in nature strike.

Additionally, government agencies tasked with the responsibilities of guaranteeing national security employ standardized testing procedures when conducting a risk assessment. This initiative is characterized by an assessment of the different hazards and security threats. In this regard, standardized testing plays an integral role in ensuring biological and chemical samples collected are screened. Given that the primary mandate of incident commanders is to coordinate disaster response activities they rely on the input of standardized testing programs to determine the best course of action when responding to disasters that are likely to arise (Forest, Howard & Sheehan, 2013). In the absence of a standardized testing method law enforcement agencies are bound to encounter challenges discharging the response activities. Communication is an important aspect of responding to national disasters since it helps in the mobilization of both financial and human resources required to effectively respond to disasters.

Lack of standardization procedures in the CBRNE community adversely affects the adoption of national standards aimed at responding to chemical and biological threats. For instance, when responding to threats that are biological and chemical in nature it is considered a routine practice that public health officials are informed of the threat and provide a professional opinion on how the threat will impact the overall wellbeing of the population affected. Furthermore, samples should be collected and analyzed so as to influence the adoption of an ideal and effective response strategy. This strategy will reduce the vulnerability of local communities in areas where the disaster has occurred.

Moreover, the development of standard operating procedures ensures that response to incidents that are CBRNE in nature is coordinated by integrating the professional input of relevant stakeholders. Testing and evaluation infrastructure ensures test methods are in place and that the test facilities are accredited by the relevant government agency (Forest, Howard & Sheehan, 2013). Therefore, standardized testing increases the information sharing capacity within government departments. Furthermore, it enhances interoperability making it possible for emergency responders to adopt a uniform response strategy (Forest, Howard & Sheehan, 2013). Dependence on military units in responding to disasters that have CBRNE characteristics has reduced significantly. Response activities are now spearheaded by law enforcement officers, hazardous materials response units, emergency medical services, and the bomb squad.

A study done by Spector of New York Times shows “about three quarters of psychologists from the state’s nearly seven hundred school districts said state tests are causing great stress” (Spector, 1). Many students are required to take standardized tests nationwide which results in a lot of stress. Low energy, headaches, an upset stomach, aches, pains, and tense muscles are all symptoms caused by stress. Not only does testing create stress, but not all testing is accurate. Therefore, standardized testing should be eliminated because it is inaccurate and creates stress.

Some might argue that standardized testing is mandatory and should be used in order to receive information pertaining to the student’s qualifications however, evidence shows that nearly “70% of standardized tests do not meet the criteria taught in school” (Spector, 2). This goes to show that standardized tests don’t better a student’s educational values nor do they show what students need to improve on. The only circumstances in which standardized testing should be used is if it follows the school’s criteria and shows what each student needs to improve on.

The biggest factor that goes against standardized testing is the amount of stress that it puts on students. “Eighteen out of thirty eight fourth graders rated stress levels in the high range because of standardized testing” (Spector, 2). With this being said young students, such as fourth graders, shouldn’t be amounted to that much stress at such a young age. Standardized testing is already very stressful for students but it also includes a lot of additional studying beforehand. “On average, teachers estimate spending 14 days preparing students for mandated exams” (Robelen, 1). By saying this, the author is trying to explain that this is too much time spent preparing for exams that don’t meet school criteria and they could be learning more valuable information. “When it comes to test prep, sixty two percent of teachers say they spend too much time readying students for state-mandated exams’ (Robelen, 1). This shows that not only students believe too much time is spent on state-mandated exams but teachers as well.

In conclusion, standardized testing is time consuming for both students and teachers, the tests are inaccurate, and they’re stressful. In addition, the many hours spent preparing for standardized tests could be used to learn vital information. Standardized testing is inaccurate and creates stress. With this information, students should not stress because it doesn’t better them for the future in the long run.

Works Cited

1. Chambers, John A. “When Standardized Tests Go Wrong.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 28 June 2003, www.nytimes.com/2003/06/29/nyregion/soapbox-when-standardized-tests-go-wrong.html.
2. Robelen, Erick. “Education Writers Association.” Testing and Test Prep: How Much Is Too Much?, 3 June 2016, www.ewa.org/blog-educated-reporter/testing-and-test-prep-how-much-too-much.
3. Walberg, Herbert J. “Standardized Tests Effectively Measure Student Achievement.” Defining Ideas: A Hoover Institution Journal, edited by Dedria Bryfonski, 20 May 2011. Opposing Viewpoints in Context, link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/EJ3010478217/OVIC?u=j220907001&xid=a0487192. Accessed 2017.

How do you feel when there will be a test coming up in school? What if it’s a really important test, like a midterm or final test of the school year? I mean you definitely have to spend the time to review and memorize it, right? But have you ever wondered if the standardized test actually measures ability?

Most students know that standardized tests have been a major part for them in the United States due to the reason that standardized test mainly decides a student’s grade. Students are taking more and more tests and spending day and nights to review what they have learned from school and prepare for the ACT and SAT, which mainly decides their future. Even though standardized tests are used to check the learning process of students, but I believe it has become a poor way of measuring students abilities. According to Washington post, it suggests a low score can’t indicate how much knowledge a person has on the subject, saying that students can’t be judged based on the grade they got on each course. Now let’s talk about some famous people’s process to success.

We know that many big entrepreneurs, wealth owners actually don’t know how to read when they are studying, or even miss the school. Have you ever wondered why? For example, Einstein (founder of General Electric), Mr. Bell (inventor of the phone, founder of Bell Phone), Bill Gates (founder of Microsoft), these big names are actually called idiots by teachers when they are learning. Their success is because they are not afraid of failure, are not afraid of being rejected, have their own dreams and beliefs, and put them into action. To be successful, not to read or study, but face challenges and always stand up longer than others.

Outside of school, we will always have other resources around us. Students have the Internet for questions they don’t know, and they can always go to friends, family, or other people that would know how to help us. Education shouldn’t just be about memorizing facts and taking tests but instead to learn how we can use our knowledge in the real world. Tests such as ACT and SAT carry too much weight in determining which university or college a student goes, because it doesn’t fully measure students intelligence, but to be tested on how well your teacher had taught you throughout the years, and how much information you can remember.

Academic achievement does not determine the child’s future development, but only reflects one aspect of learning ability. While personality, ability, knowledge, health, contribution, wealth, personality plays a decisive role! That is, the state of mind determines the future of the child.