Many students either care too much about the tests, and therefore try to cheat, or they don’t care enough about the test, making the results worse than they normally would be. Ryan Deffenbaugh explains that one college, along with many others, no longer requires test scores for applicants because there were many arguments that “the scores are not a great indicator of future success in college, and that a billion-dollar-test prep industry creates an unfair playing field for students from families with lower incomes” (Deffenbaugh, 16). This college, Purchase College, is one of many that has the opinion of standardized tests being unreliable when accepting students. They don’t show true intelligence because anyone can get some luck when guessing. An article states, “Kids learn early on that they don 't have to think outside the box, they don 't have to be creative, collaborative or be critical thinkers.
The schools that have no homework have a better boat. In other words, schools with no homework do not have better test scores. In the article “20 Pros and Cons of Homework.” on Vittana.org the author explains how how homework only creates negative attitudes towards schools; “Survey after survey has found that the only thing that homework does is create a negative attitude toward schooling and education in general.” Students receive a great deal of homework each night but yet all it does is create a negative attitude towards school. If homework was eliminated then students might have a more positive attitude towards school. This would cause students to perform better academically since they think of school in positive ways and want to excelle.
On the other hand, these types of tests are easier for cheating. Using the same example about mathematics, a student can cheat the entire test without knowing how to solve any question and still pass the test because there is no way to determine whether they know how to solve it, guessed, or cheated. “Standardized tests were never intended to measure the complexities of intelligence, and over time they have drawn the center of gravity in college admissions away from things we value. Because scores generally improve with guidance and repetition, the tests have encouraged an industry of test training that takes advantage of the ambitions of students and families.”
As well, standardized testing really isn’t an accurate representation of the student’s skill. Each student has a variety of skills they each manifest in, whether it’s creativity, IQ, the arts, etc… However, standardized tests never includes all of these traits that we all possess. Even though standardized tests don’t represent these traits, they are
Again, procrastination is one reason why students fail to do work. Grades are said to drive students to push themselves even more, yet it is not entirely true. Some students cheat, causing their grades to fly high, and that doesn’t reflect wit at all. In a survey of 24,000 students at 70 high schools, Donald McCabe (Rutgers University) found that 64 percent of students admitted to cheating on a test, 58 percent for plagiarism, and 95 percent for some other form of cheating. (Facts) This proves that grades are more likely to cause students to cheat than to motivate
Anika Manzoor, an editor of Magoosh, an SAT (Scholastic Achievement Test) and ACT prep website, counted the pros and cons of the SAT and found remarkable results. To summarize, the cons of the SAT are that it is not a strong predictor of success in college, there is too much importance placed on the SAT, there are race and class biases with the Sat, the test pep requires money, energy, and time, and the takeaway from your score is not always beneficial. The pros were that it is a learnable test, the SAT can
Well, one of the biggest advantages of the American school system is the great flexibility. Students are disciplined and they are willing to do their homework for hours. These attentions on the tests are really a big issue in the American education system, but by making the tests fewer importance students all over America will have the chance to succeed better in life no matter the social status the family might have. In addition, with so much focus on these tests and the preparation on the test schools are teaching the students how to do the tests rather than increasing their creativity. The United States has one traditional belief and value, which
According to Bascom, James, 9 reasons why Common Core is bad for education, 20, Jan 2016, tfpstudentaction.org , Common Core was never evaluated or peer reviewed by teachers or education specialists, nor did parents have any say in their development or implementation.”Common Core is clearly being a harm to the education of children. If parents and teachers don’t even know about the standards of common core, how bad can it be? It is like an essay or story that hasn’t been proofread. That is a lot worse than something proofread. That too, the teachers have experience of teaching, so them proofreading would be very helpful.
As a student studying early childhood education, I have learned about how there is economic inequality when it comes to education. The purpose of education is to ensure every child has the opportunity to excel in academics, socially and in life. Social economic status, such as education, income and occupation, sometimes inhibits education four education system from achieving these goals. Congress passed the “No Child Left Behind Act” in 2001 which boosted education equality and success for elementary and secondary school aged children. However, it failed to address early education (i.e.
As seen with the video titled “The Race of Life” students who have both parents in their home are automatically given an advantage in school than those who are raised by single parent households (Section 2/14/18). This inhibits how many students receive education about how to participate in democracy, leaving them unable to engage in even the simplest civics related discussions. Students who are not wealthy receive unfair education to those who are. This inherent inequality is best stated in Richard Rothstein’s piece where he describes the different reasons students can be performing badly in school simply because of the socioeconomic status they were born into. He says “The individual predictors of low achievement are well documented… With fewer family resources, their college ambitions are constrained (Johnson, In Progress)” (Rothstein 2).