Michael Amrami
Writer '18
For years now, our education system has been based on the demonstration of knowledge through the use of standardized tests. While some might argue that standardized testing has been useful in displaying a student’s academic progress, there has been much controversy with the testing’s promise as it is seen as a restriction to the creatively surging minds of educated individuals. As students are simply being taught to pass a high-stakes test, innovation in the classroom is being left out and passion in school is being decommissioned. The tests have been argued to be in support of preparing students for “the real world,” however they do not exhibit valid benefits that support the claim. Creativity is not valued in standardized tests, students do whatever is necessary such as taking performance drugs or cheating to pass the tests, the tests don’t feedback on ways to improve academically, teachers are over concentrated on teaching to the test rather than valuing the information necessary for them, the tests are taken in artificial learning environments that restrict interaction present in the real world, etc., therefore why do they claim to measure academic ability?
Recently, there has been an upsurge in criticisms against standardized testing all across the country. FairTest, the national center for fair and open testing, makes the claim against standardized testing. Newly developed standardized tests are seen encouraging “a narrowed curriculum, outdated methods of instruction, and harmful practices such as grade retention and tracking.”
Additionally, it is mentioned directly that “[standardized tests] do not measure the ability to think deeply or creatively in any field.” In comparing the “real world” with the world of standardized testing, there clearly are almost no similarities. Mostly all sources that talk about the pros and cons of standardized testing, excluding the biased creators, notice the negativity in that the tests do not even closely represent a real life situation. Teachers have begun to only cover the material seen on the standardized tests, and many students as a result do not learn how to interpret information individually and apply complicated knowledge. The ability measured by the standardized tests resembles the actions of cows: the cow will chew its food just enough to swallow it, then later will cough up bits of the unfinished food. The ability the tests measure is that of how well a student can digest information, and then spit it out in the correct manner to earn a point.
A main issue that supports the claim that standardized tests do not measure a student’s economic ability rises in socioeconomic factors. In an article written for TIME Magazine, the idea that “lower income students, as well as black and Latino students, consistently score below [the] privileged” is recognized. The tests given nationwide demand a significant bias in the basic principles of advantages and disadvantages. The gap between the rich and poor for standardized test scores “[has] grown by almost 60% since the 1960s,” and it can be generalized that “wealthy students will do better than less wealthy students” on these tests. Wealthier students can learn the method to take the tests with greatest success by hiring tutors to teach them test-taking techniques to “beat the test,” while others who may not be able to afford that luxury are seen as less capable. Creating a gap between students, the tests do not measure academic ability, but rather measure on the basis of opportunity.
Standardized tests evidently do not measure the abilities of students. Instead, they are hindering educatory progression in schools nationwide while quelling ingenuity, passion, and boundless thought. Therefore, should their administration continue, or be held back for the betterment of study? A battle against standardized testing will continue to thrive in the succeeding years, and thrive under the support from the fact that standardized tests, overall, do not accurately measure our abilities.
Writer '18
For years now, our education system has been based on the demonstration of knowledge through the use of standardized tests. While some might argue that standardized testing has been useful in displaying a student’s academic progress, there has been much controversy with the testing’s promise as it is seen as a restriction to the creatively surging minds of educated individuals. As students are simply being taught to pass a high-stakes test, innovation in the classroom is being left out and passion in school is being decommissioned. The tests have been argued to be in support of preparing students for “the real world,” however they do not exhibit valid benefits that support the claim. Creativity is not valued in standardized tests, students do whatever is necessary such as taking performance drugs or cheating to pass the tests, the tests don’t feedback on ways to improve academically, teachers are over concentrated on teaching to the test rather than valuing the information necessary for them, the tests are taken in artificial learning environments that restrict interaction present in the real world, etc., therefore why do they claim to measure academic ability?
Recently, there has been an upsurge in criticisms against standardized testing all across the country. FairTest, the national center for fair and open testing, makes the claim against standardized testing. Newly developed standardized tests are seen encouraging “a narrowed curriculum, outdated methods of instruction, and harmful practices such as grade retention and tracking.”
Additionally, it is mentioned directly that “[standardized tests] do not measure the ability to think deeply or creatively in any field.” In comparing the “real world” with the world of standardized testing, there clearly are almost no similarities. Mostly all sources that talk about the pros and cons of standardized testing, excluding the biased creators, notice the negativity in that the tests do not even closely represent a real life situation. Teachers have begun to only cover the material seen on the standardized tests, and many students as a result do not learn how to interpret information individually and apply complicated knowledge. The ability measured by the standardized tests resembles the actions of cows: the cow will chew its food just enough to swallow it, then later will cough up bits of the unfinished food. The ability the tests measure is that of how well a student can digest information, and then spit it out in the correct manner to earn a point.
A main issue that supports the claim that standardized tests do not measure a student’s economic ability rises in socioeconomic factors. In an article written for TIME Magazine, the idea that “lower income students, as well as black and Latino students, consistently score below [the] privileged” is recognized. The tests given nationwide demand a significant bias in the basic principles of advantages and disadvantages. The gap between the rich and poor for standardized test scores “[has] grown by almost 60% since the 1960s,” and it can be generalized that “wealthy students will do better than less wealthy students” on these tests. Wealthier students can learn the method to take the tests with greatest success by hiring tutors to teach them test-taking techniques to “beat the test,” while others who may not be able to afford that luxury are seen as less capable. Creating a gap between students, the tests do not measure academic ability, but rather measure on the basis of opportunity.
Standardized tests evidently do not measure the abilities of students. Instead, they are hindering educatory progression in schools nationwide while quelling ingenuity, passion, and boundless thought. Therefore, should their administration continue, or be held back for the betterment of study? A battle against standardized testing will continue to thrive in the succeeding years, and thrive under the support from the fact that standardized tests, overall, do not accurately measure our abilities.