How Does Standardized Testing Improve The Quality Of Education

Removing standardized testing would help improve the quality of education. Consider how many hours teachers spend drilling “tips and tricks” on boosting scores, how much schools pay for the tests, and how many colleges and universities reject eager students based on their scores. Where does the purpose of education fit into this slanted system? Although the purpose of education varies, most opinions share a common theme of applying knowledge and molding character to benefit the community. John Dewey states, “The purpose of education has always been to every one in essence, the same—to give the young the things they need in order to develop in an orderly, sequential way into members of society.” Most American high school students refer to the popular site, College Board, to stay updated about their journeys to college. The Scholastic Aptitude Tests (SAT), American College Testing (ACT), and Advanced Placement exams are comprised into this non-profit organization. College Board aims to provide a “successful transition from secondary education to college education.” The real question facing this testing system deals with students who do not do well on these exams. Do standardized tests really foster learning? Instead of standardized testing, the American Department of Education should consider alternative methods of determining students’ academic achievements. Primarily, standardized tests focus on rhetoric and reasoning under a strict time frame. The system does not allow students to express their creativity nor show their real academic talents. Therefore, many students often do poorly resulting in lower scores. This reflects upon their schools’ reputation, and the scores hurt their chances of attending selective colleges and universities. Schools should recognize how scores do not measure success. Carl Brigham, psychology professor at Princeton University, developed the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) to predict success in college. Clearly, numbers do not define one successful or unsuccessful. In 2007, Saul Geiser and Maria Veronica Santelices of University of California Berkeley conducted an experiment to determine which system, standardized test scores or high school grade point average, better predicted college success. By analyzing college cumulative grade point averages and four-year graduation rates, Geiser and Santelices agreed on high school grade point average being the better option, but not the only indicator. This and test results only equate to thirty percent of college GPA, while the remaining seventy percent depends on other variables such as academic involvement, financial aid, and access to resources. Regarding academic achievement, not every student learns at the same pace as others. Even though the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) intended to improve academic performance for all students, the standardized testing portion contradicted the act’s intention. The contradiction presents itself in the evident achievement gap involving learning disabilities, race, and socioeconomic status. Standardized testing blocks those with learning disabilities from displaying any potential. For example, a dyslexic student will more than likely score lower on the reading comprehension section because he or she will not have the time to fully grasp the reading concepts as well as other students. The biased scoring system is not suited for disabled learners, and implicitly suggests their limited futures. Minority students face similar issues when taking these exams especially if a language barrier is involved. Discrimination exists when minorities have not had the opportunity to acquire the knowledge needed to reach the exams’ standards. Unfortunately, African American and Hispanics’ academic achievement compared to their Caucasian counterparts illustrates this unfairness. For instance, a minority student from a poor and unsafe environment would not receive the encouragement and assistance needed for the exams. Also, students whose parents did not grow up in America may not understand the process and importance of standardized …show more content…
David Z. Hambrick of Michigan State University supports this by stating the “SAT is largely a measure of general intelligence.” Furthermore, he relates SAT scores with IQ scores. Hambrick fails to address what he means by general intelligence. What defines general intelligence? Most people perceive general intelligence as possessing more book knowledge in verbal and scientific skills. Intelligence breaks down into specific categories. Howard Gardner’s Multiple Intelligences lists and explains various intelligences. Throughout his theory, Gardner attempts to prove how people can have and gain more knowledge outside the