In “What are the Pros and Cons of Standardized Testing,” Spark Admissions argues two outlooks on standardized testing. Standardized testing is any mandatory test that everybody in an area has to take, and they all have to do them under certain conditions. Some examples are SC Ready, MAP, SC PASS and the ACT. Students take these tests to measure their knowledge on a topic and compare them with other students. Standardized testing should not be required in schools because it can cause students to lose confidence in themselves, students with more wealth are the ones more likely to succeed, and the tests are unfair to some students with special needs.
To begin with, standardized testing should not be required in schools because it can cause students to lose confidence in themselves. Spark Admissions mentions this in paragraph 14, saying “Another argument is that standardized testing causes otherwise successful students to lose confidence in themselves and their abilities.” This means that if students get a score or grade they aren’t comfortable with they could start thinking they aren’t good or smart enough. Therefore, standardized testing should not be required in schools because students losing confidence in themselves
…show more content…
Spark Admissions makes this point in paragraph 12 when they say “In fact, research suggests that the best predictor of success on the SAT is socioeconomic status rather than one’s education or grade level.” This means that even if an unwealthy kid is smarter than a wealthy one, the wealthier kid is more likely to succeed on these standardized tests. This proves that standardized testing shouldn’t be required because the tests are supposed to show improvement and education on a topic. Even while draining confidence and only measuring wealth, these tests also are almost never fair to students with special
Standardized testing not only stresses out students, but it also leads the teachers to go in a dilemma whether to focus on the curriculum or to get students ready for the standardized testing. No one has ever enjoyed taking a test in his or her entire educational history. Similarly Mr. Estrada’s 4th grade class was not every excited about taking standardized test. Each student has his or her own level of learning. As the students were taking the test, I noticed some students were panicking, while others were confused.
This is certainly an important factor: because high schools have differing grade scales, plus some amount of grade deflation or inflation, having a nationally consistent test is useful. However, while the SAT may be standardized, it is far from equitable. It has been found to have significant bias, particularly income-wise: as Biamonte (2013) found, the difference in average SAT scores between the lowest and highest income groups is nearly 130 points per section, adding up to a hefty difference across the test’s three sections. This disparity is partially explained by the use of aforementioned coaching methods; test prep classes and tutoring services are often pricey, a score-boosting luxury only available to those in higher income brackets.
Standardized tests are very common in today’s modern society. They are used as a tool to measure a person’s performance and indicate how their estimated performance will be in a college class. Every year hundreds of students take the ACT or SAT in order to get accepted into their college of choice and to receive scholarships, but they fail to see the problems with these standardized tests. As more and more people take these tests, the national average score falls causing doubt in the extremely important system. This is leading people to question whether or not the ACT and SATs are accomplishing what they were created to do.
These assessments, which consider a wider range of skills and information than traditional standardized tests, can provide a more thorough understanding of a student's abilities. The administration of these assessments could cost more time and resources, and the scoring could be flawed or inaccurate. Although these problems may arise, it could be a better alternative than having to use standardized tests. Lastly, schools should revert to test-optional policies like they did in 2020. Caralee J. Adams, who wrote “College-Entrance Testing: ‘Defining Promise: Optional Standardized Testing Policies in American College and University Admissions’”, said that a new study found that there were "’no significant differences’ between the college grades and completion rates of students who submit ACT or SAT scores with their college applications and those who do not” (Adams pp.1).
School’s are using standardized testing for the wrong reason. “A standardized test is any examination that’s administered and scored in a predetermined, standard manner. There are two major kinds of standardized tests: aptitude tests and achievement tests” (Popham, 1999). The most common examples of aptitude tests are the SAT and the
Standardized tests cause stress and failure among students. Standardized tests should be banned in the U.S. because of the stress and weight it adds to a student's grades and education after high school. Tests separate groups of kids based on their capability giving them the illusion that they aren't as smart as their friends, taking a toll on their mental health and stability from a young age. Standardized testing does not provide an accurate representation of what a student has learned and provides unnecessary stress throughout the school career. Standardized tests negatively affect public schools is the claim of Standardized Testing Has Negatively Impacted Public Schools``By Bobbie A. Solley.
Certainly, some people say that standardized testing is the only way to determine growth and achievement within students. But, these tests don’t usually provide an entire measure of educational attainment. They don’t give attributes such as a sense of wonder, leadership, compassion, curiosity, and critical thinking. Daniel Koretz, a psychometrician stated, “…tests can measure only a portion of the goals of education, which are necessarily broader and more inclusive than the test could possibly be”(humbleisd.net). Standardized tests can at best only measure if a student is good at their core classes.
In addition, low income students struggle to succeed in tests such as the SAT's. The SAT and ACT tests are unfair for low income families who happen to also be minorities. These families can't provide tutors or extra help, which negatively affects test scores. Admissions that rely on test scores tend to generate a bias against low income families (Soares). Finally, standardized tests leave students with disabilities without accommodations.
“Standardized tests are unfair and discriminatory, because students with diverse backgrounds and skill levels are expected to answer questions written for the white, abled majority. " I think this point is very hard to argue with because if these tests are written for the white students, then how are students with a different background or diversity supposed to do well? One improvement could be that maybe there isn’t just one test for the whole country or the state, but instead there are multiple tests for multiple regions. Certain regions get certain tests because of the situation they are in. This makes sense and I believe it would improve the scores and even if it didn’t
It does not account for the students who are very intelligent but poor test takers. According to Whitby Schools, “We view standardized testing data as not only another set of data points to assess student performance, but also as a means to help us reflect on our curriculum” (Nixon). Although this is an understandable statement, it is inaccurate to say standardized tests can be used to assess student performance. Many students are poor test takers and their true knowledge may not be reflected in their performance. Not only that, substandard test takers will not accurately display the effectiveness of the curriculum.
Requiring standardized tests could ensure students are fully prepared for college and give them better opportunities once they make it there. In 2020 the University of California Standardized Testing Task Force did a yearlong review of testing as a college admissions tool, and found that, “The value of admissions test scores in predicting college success has increased since 2007, while the value of grades has decreased, due in part to high school grade inflation and different grading standards.” This is just another thing that goes to show grades are not the most reliable factor when deciding whether a student is ready for
Spark Admissions explains the advantages and disabilities of standardized tests. Schools should continue to use standardized testing because it gives inclusive opportunities, it gets students ready for future testing, and shows progress. Schools should continue to use standardized testing because it gives inclusive support. “Standardized tests can give students from under-performing high schools a chance to prove that they have mastered ample academic material despite their circumstances” (8). Standardized testing gives kids a chance to show how talented they are in that subject without their
In addition, research finds that “The children of the affluent score higher on average than those of lower income groups”(Finneran). When it comes to standardized tests, it is seen that they seem to favor those of higher classes, and It’s absurd for colleges to use standardized test scores when determining a student's admission when uncontrollable factors can make a major difference in how they score on the test. Although some may argue that certain standardized tests were originally created to give all students an equal chance at getting into college, due to the nature of today's world, the inclusivity the test strived to provide is gone. Consequently, standardized tests can no longer be seen as a way to give all students an equal chance, in fact, they only create more division. All in all, due to how unfair standardized tests can really be for students, colleges should not use these test scores to determine student
Research consistently demonstrates that students from disadvantaged backgrounds tend to perform worse on standardized tests than their more affluent counterparts. According to a study conducted by researchers at Stanford University, "socioeconomic status accounted for more than half of the variance in test scores" (Reardon et al. 1053). Factors such as limited access to resources, lack of quality education, and cultural biases within the testing format contribute to this disparity. The resulting achievement gap perpetuates inequality, hindering opportunities for students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds and impeding social
Students all learn differently, and those gaps can be a big disadvantage with tests that are, according to the text, “To create a standard”(5), only to leave you behind. The state uses standardized testing to group students’ intelligence. In paragraph 15, the author states,”Anyone who deviates from that ideal, for whatever reason, is automatically at a disadvantage,” putting them at risk for failure. So many students are put into special classes just because they are not able to do well on standardized tests. All of the deviations in students’ different ways of learning can