This argument goes along with the other two mentioned and explained above. There isn’t much that is positive to say about these assessments. It places so much pressure on students to perform well and pressure on teachers to teach what is going to be on the test. This brings negative energy to classrooms. An article by Greg Jouriles helps explain why we don’t need these tests.
We certainly do need methods to assess a student’s academic achievement; the grading system, however, fails to measure students’ work accurately and instead becomes the sole focus of learning. Students often believe that the grades they receive reflect what they have learned, but as shown this is not always the case. Works Cited Catalano, Tammy, Megan Gross, Jennifer Kurth, Stephanie Lovinger. “Grading Students with Significant Disabilities in Inclusive Settings: Teacher Perspectives.” Journal of the International Association of Special Education 13.1 (2012): 41-57. ERIC.
Cheating and teaching to the test do not allow for all around learning. Also students that are not ready to take the same tests as others provide inaccurate results about the students. When the United States switches to and evaluative standard that is based on conceptual learning, problem solving, and real life application skills, this will be an accurate way of measuring a student’s intelligence.
Studies have proven that testing is not beneficial to a student’s educational growth. Testing in high school is affected by different factors; therefore results can be unreliable and not beneficial to the growth of students. A well created test can measure learning and diagnose a student’s weakness (Merrow, 4). In testing, the idea is for the student to get the correct answer on information they know and incorrect answers on the information they do not. However, a testing error may occur.
Higher education, more than economics The economic position taken by management in relation to increasing use of educational technology for teaching, in part falls under the quality agenda for student parity of experience and institutional marketability against competition. Students take a similar economic argument and support the management position, citing a need for flexibility and value for money. However, Redding (2005), Sharrock (2000) and Molesworth (2009) question the notion of students as consumer, and parity in teaching and learning across programmes is strongly rejected. Sharrock and Redding both discuss that for many academics the notion of consistency, parity and continuous improvement based on targets and grades should not apply in higher education. Students, subjects and learning vary too widely and students they argue, cannot and do not know what they want or need from HE until they have completed their education.
The problem with education today is that teachers have lost sight of what is important. Many teachers have become more and more political; making sure that the material is covered and the students can regurgitate the information. Even if the student can recite the material, the problem is that, often they do not understand it. Standardized test such as the SAT(standardized aptitude test) and CIM's (certificate of initial mastery) only promote this type of "teaching". These tests only test in a single dimension it only shows what a student knows not what a student has learned.
First, tests don’t fully measure all important aspects of education, and second, tests only measure small parts of students ' knowledge (Philp Harris). Standardized testing cannot truly measure achievement correctly because there are no specific rules to what achievement really consists of and can only measure small parts of knowledge because of these inaccurate measures of knowledge students begin to feel anxious. There are many studies showing how testing causes high anxiety for students therefore causing a drop in performance when taking tests. Test taking can cause students to experience psychological issues that result in a failing grade on the test. Test anxiety can also affect the students` motivation to learn and because of this I believe the stakes for standardized testing should be
Though these tests were made to evaluate a students rough estimation of skill, they were not made to evaluate their entire education. Teachers should not be completely held accountable for test scores either. These scores hold too much power over schools and educators. Failure on a standardized test should mean “improvement needed”, not “you should just give up!”. These tests create anxiety caused by the consequences surrounding them.
The current curriculums being applied to today's educators are inadequate and encourage more memorization than application. Grades, Glasser argues, dissipates coercion by students working less and rebellion. The negative responses received from students are often misinterpreted by teachers as a fault toward their teaching. Students under a "Non-Quality" curriculum are expected to learn many inapplicable, temporary, information in hopes of having high marks on standardized testing. Dr.Glasser refers to this information as "throwaway" information.
Students may be strong in other areas outside of essay writing; it is not fair to discredit and disregard their efforts and achievements. Students who cannot write well are simply not well rounded. For this reason, incomprehensive students should still be able to perform well in school but not excellent. For instance, a student can be highly skilled in departments such as math and science but subjects like english and writing may come as a challenge to them. Students like these should not earn the best marks in courses where writing is essential.