The Pros And Cons Of Standardized Testing

In August of 2004, a New Mexico high school teacher reported that many students didn’t take their standardized testing seriously because it didn’t affect their grades. Instead, this junior class at New Mexico Valley High School had “fun” with their testing, filling in answers in shapes such as Christmas trees, battleships, and hearts (Contreras). Though many teens understand that standardized testing isn’t completely helpful, school corporations still administer them. Why? Many would say that they assess the teachers and measure the intelligence and performance of students, but it is arguable that they are unnecessary and measure the amount that students care and/or pay attention instead.
Against popular belief, standardized testing does not

measure student intelligence. Gerald Bracey, an American education policy researcher, stated that standardized testing only shows a percentage of the goals of education, but do not generally test important factors such as creativity, motivation, leadership, and integrity (Harris). Student knowledge can also be impaired by a type of performance anxiety called test anxiety. Fear of failure and poor test history can cause a child to be unable to answer questions correctly due to extreme worry. From a young age, students are under a tremendous amount of pressure due to the high requirements for tests as small as the ISTEP and NWEA up to the extremely demanding SAT and ACT. Moreover, it is still possible for educators to manipulate testing information when reputations and jobs are at stake. In July of 2011, a report based on the Atlanta Public Schools regarding cheating on standardized tests was released. A widespread conspiracy about178 teachers, principals, and administrators changing answers on a statewide test was uncovered after a period of ten years. This reportedly occurred because of unreasonable targets and a superintendent that would not accept failure. Not only are students being pressured to pass these tests but teachers and principals are risking losing their jobs over student performance (Greenhaven Press).
Standardized testing supporters, however, could argue that these tests do encourage learning and accurately measure student intelligence. A study by John Bishop of Cornell University stated that U.S. students who were required to pass a standardized test for high school graduation learned more science and math and were more likely to complete homework than those who did not need to take this test. However, in 2001, a study by the Brookings Institution proving that 50-80% of test score improvements were temporary and caused by fluctuations having nothing to do with changes in learning (Olson). Additionally, those in support of these tests may also believe that higher performance on tests result in higher performance in other aspects of life. In reality, there are better assessments of future performance than standardized tests. Characteristics like “grit” and “resilience” are shown as actual measures of success as they prove the strength of character instead of testing abilities (Tough). Also, Google has stopped taking job candidates’ test scores into account due to the fact that they found no relationship between those measures and job performance (Busteed).