The overall idea and purpose behind standardized testing is giving teachers and administration an annual review of how the education system is progressing. However, this topic has remained controversial ever since its use skyrocketed in the 2002 No Child Let Behind Act, which mandated for all 50 states to hold yearly testing. There are many pros and cons that follow these assessments, such as whether they conduct fair or unfair evaluations of teacher's work, are good or bad predictors of future success, and if they improve or do not improve student performance. These thoughts raise the question of how seriously should we be looking into these test scores to determine academic development.
 |
| President George Bush signing the No Child Left Behind Act |
As a student, who completed almost every year of school being evaluated by standardized tests, such as the Tennessee Comprehensive Assessment Program (TCAP), ACT, SAT, and more, I do hold opinions on this topic. Some students, including myself, are simply just not the best test takers. Assessments, especially those covering a large, broad range of material, can cause lots of anxiety and unnecessary pressure. When applying to college, I was very proud of the grade point average I had earned throughout my high school career, yet my scores on the ACT and SAT did not correlate even remotely close to this number. I have always been a good student with a strong work ethic, but the stress tests like these brought me always hurt my scores. I believe many students can also relate to this ordeal. Although I believe there are positives to standardized testing, especially when used in broad circumstances, I do not think it should be the only representation used when evaluating academic growth and achievement.
No comments:
Post a Comment