Standardized Testing Argumentative

Standardized testing has become a very controversial topic amongst the nation. There are two sides, one that agrees that these tests are doing well for students and school officials, and another that argues that these tests are hurting the students taking them and should be put to a stop. Norman R. Augustine wrote an article for the need of standardized testing, and Jessie B. Ramey States the ways that the tests are impairing the learning capability of the students. Norman uses three arguments that people opposing the standardized test would most often use.

Personally, I can agree whole-heartedly, seeing as I have testing anxiety and have also been a part of a public-school system for my whole life. Standardized testing puts pressure on even the best students. Degrading and demanding tests such as these should be abolished due to the stress it puts on students, inaccurate success measurement, and critical post-test self judgement. 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.

This movement has become very popular with both parents and students. The idea is that if everybody continues to opt out from test eventually schools will realize that testing is not working and they will change the ‘norm’ of education. However, the only issue is that they do not provide a good alternative method, their main objective is to raise awareness on how stressful test situations are not the answer. They are on the right track but you can’t just wipe out testing and expect students to magically do better.

The system of scoring that is currently used hurts both slower, and advanced students due to its pressure and ease. "Tracking generally hurts slower students but does not help more advanced students" ("How Standardized Testing Damages Education" 1). Tracking of test scores as a school or even class only hurts both sides, advanced students get bored because they have to slow down for the other students, and slower students feel pressured to rush, because of the advanced students. Currently, students spend an immense amount of time studying for both low-risk and high-risk assessments respectively. "Education increasingly resembles test prep" ("How Standardized Testing Damages Education" 1).

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.

Standardized testing is a fundamental part of the American education system and that has been the case for many years. During those years, such testing has provided the education system with some benefits. However, for the most part, this testing has had a detrimental effect on the quality of schools, how teachers teach, the education of students, and the American education system itself. As such, this kind of testing has proved to be more harmful than it is beneficial. As a result, standardized testing should be removed from the American education system because it influences schools to inefficiently use classroom instruction time, encourages inefficient teaching methods, produces inaccurate scores, and restricts the creativity of students, a quality that they need.

Lucy Clark the Author of Beautiful Failure, states, “There is too much focus on academic outcomes and a very narrow view of success with a one-size-fits-all approach that negates individuality.” Lucy Clarks daughter was a student who could not meet the standards she get the education system had setup for her, resulting her in being a failure. It is believed that other kids fear this failure and will do anything to avoid it, resulting in cheating and doing anything to prove they are successful and they will that cookie cutter standard of a student. The school is not always the one setting up these expectations, often there are even higher expectations at home. “Parents cause children to cheat because of the pressure they exert on them,” playwright Francis Owuor said, who conducted a highschool play regarding a boy who would get reprimanded every time he did not meet his parents academic

For example, it can increase the amount of stress, it can affect your child's natural enthusiasm to learn or be educated. Here are my reasons why I think paying your child for good grades isn't one of the best ideas. Initially, parents shouldn't pay their children due to high levels or issues or stress. According to the NEA article it states, "Many teachers, also paying students for good grades leads to practical problems in the classrooms, those of which include pressure to inflate grades

Studies show that this numerical score, otherwise known as VAM (value-added modeling), is both unstable and unfair. The overwhelming tendency for the same teacher’s scores to fluctuate between multiple years concerns the critics of standardized tests and is a major flaw in the system. As stated by Diane Henningfeld, author of Standardized Testing- At Issue, “the true quality of a teacher is likely to change very little over time” (54). The current system, however, frequently penalizes educators when natural fluctuation occurs.

Standardized tests are used commonly in the school systems and they do not measure the overall students’ achievement. For this reason, educators and administrators must take into account how economic elements are affecting the grades on standardized tests. Usually, this group of students averages below the acceptable grades on standardized examinations regardless of the subject. For reasons beyond their control, children from low socioeconomic level face an increased risk of failing standardized examinations. The failure of the tests could cause an overwhelming impact on students, families, the school system, and society at large because eventually, the students may be dropping out of school.

It creates an obsession with test scores as a chief “accountably” metric for students, educators and schools. This system has led to the exams becoming an end instead of a means to an end. For instance, according the Joh Holt, within the learning environment “the air practically vibrates with suspicion and anxiety, the child learns to live in a daze, saving his energies for those small parts of his life that are too trivial for the adults to bother with, and thus remain his.” (E) This represents the crucial and harsh environment students experience when facing tests. It puts unnecessary stress on the minds of students and degrades their self worth into nothing.

As “Education week 's” Ron Wolk’s has said, “The system failed to educate them adequately, and now it punishes them for not being educated. " Ron Wolk is stating that with a school district failing to educate its students, these students have to pay the price by failing the test. High Stakes testing may also affect the district. Low scores could result in the reorganization of schools or a shift of resources to charter schools or private-school vouchers. Who knew that one test could severely damage a community and school

Like Barry Bonds on steroids, the overemphasis on standardized learning and assessments has distorted the true meaning of learning. Even if limited data was made available to “demonstrate” the efficacy of high stakes testing on improving math and reading scores, the negative implications behind testing are never taken into consideration. The very real practical result of years of NCLB-type reforms is that the intellectual life has been squeezed out of classrooms. The phrase “high standards” (or rigorous) by definition refers to standards that everyone won’t be able to meet.

This aspect has resulted into a decrease of time spent in the recess. As a result, children’s’ emotional, social, and academic well-being is compromised in the long run (Ricci 351). Moreover, the fact that the federal funds are only availed to schools which meet specific thresholds, have put schools under pressure to ensure that their students can meet the requirements through standardized tests. As such, schools spend much time evaluating the students’ performance such that whenever “the students are not sitting for the standardized tests, then they are being prepared to sit for the tests” (Kohn 47). As a result, students skip or neglect other important activities such as extracurricular activities such as games in order to prepare adequately for the

In today’s society, especially junior and senior year of high school, everyone is too concerned with standardized testing and standardized testing scores. Professionals are question whether teachers are focused on teaching the subject or teaching the test. According to the article “Teach to the Test?,” Teachers are becoming restrictive to curriculums due to rather educators wanting students to “pass” the test. Teaching to the test can be both good and bad, it is good if curriculums are made correctly that allow students to learn what they are supposed to. Whereas, teaching the test can be equally as bad.