Home
Austin Gonzales
Instructor Metz
English 101 Sec. 6
23 February 2012
The Negative Impact of Standardized Testing
After reading the articles we read in class and analyzing there arguments I have taken the stance against Standardized Testing. Both sides respectively have good arguments, but Two Cheers for Standardized Testing by John F. Covaleskie lacked strong evidence as to why testing is good. The argument against testing has solid evidence to back up its argument. Its argument is stronger in its evidence and its support.
The first question that should be raised about testing is that are we testing what really matters? To answer the first thing to focus on is the content of the tests. Tests are often all multiple choice bubble answers with a time limit to each section. Kids are more worried about the time rather than actually answering the question correctly. I can remember racing through every question because I knew any question I did not answer would be negative points. But what is more important is that these tests do not effectively show how well we can perform. In the work world you have a time limit to get work done, but your time limit is not 30 minutes to bubble in 20 math questions.
Kohn first states: “Test have lately become a mechanism by which public officials can impose their will on schools, and they are doing so with a vengeance”. Schools with lower test scores receive less funding than other schools. And they are doing this to kids from ages six to sixteen. Kids do not need to be tested at the ages of six: “Few countries today give these formal examinations to students before the age of sixteen or so” (Kohn). Standardized testing is condemned by experts but we still do it. It shows that the democratic process comes before the education of the students. If the result of how well a kid does on a test determines how much his school receives than kids are under enormous pressure. Not to mention that if they fail a section they have to retake a course they may have already taken.
The problem also arises from the politicians themselves. If the politicians who are for standardized testing really want to see education go up then they would invest in educational tools other than testing.
Testing allows politicians to show they’re concerned about school achievement and serious about getting tough with students and teachers. Test scores offer a quick-and-easy—although, as we’ll see by no means accurate—way to chart progress (Kohn).
The main reason the educational system tests, is to measure the progress of students and teachers, but if politics is the main decision maker than that is defeating the purpose of testing. In a way it contradicts its self. The goal of testing is to help raise the education in America, but it is also negatively impacting it. Charting and comparing the progress of students is hard because no kid is the same. The constant variable of testing is the tests themselves. All kids take the same test. But we cannot rely on a test to determine the direction to where the education of kids is going. It just does not seem logical to do that. Instead they could spend the money on tests to pay for other things to improve the schools like better books, computers, and databases to find better information.
1. I know I am not finished, but is it well organized?
2. Am I defending my argument well?
3. What else other topics could I use to defend my argument?
Instructor Metz
English 101 Sec. 6
23 February 2012
The Negative Impact of Standardized Testing
After reading the articles we read in class and analyzing there arguments I have taken the stance against Standardized Testing. Both sides respectively have good arguments, but Two Cheers for Standardized Testing by John F. Covaleskie lacked strong evidence as to why testing is good. The argument against testing has solid evidence to back up its argument. Its argument is stronger in its evidence and its support.
The first question that should be raised about testing is that are we testing what really matters? To answer the first thing to focus on is the content of the tests. Tests are often all multiple choice bubble answers with a time limit to each section. Kids are more worried about the time rather than actually answering the question correctly. I can remember racing through every question because I knew any question I did not answer would be negative points. But what is more important is that these tests do not effectively show how well we can perform. In the work world you have a time limit to get work done, but your time limit is not 30 minutes to bubble in 20 math questions.
Kohn first states: “Test have lately become a mechanism by which public officials can impose their will on schools, and they are doing so with a vengeance”. Schools with lower test scores receive less funding than other schools. And they are doing this to kids from ages six to sixteen. Kids do not need to be tested at the ages of six: “Few countries today give these formal examinations to students before the age of sixteen or so” (Kohn). Standardized testing is condemned by experts but we still do it. It shows that the democratic process comes before the education of the students. If the result of how well a kid does on a test determines how much his school receives than kids are under enormous pressure. Not to mention that if they fail a section they have to retake a course they may have already taken.
The problem also arises from the politicians themselves. If the politicians who are for standardized testing really want to see education go up then they would invest in educational tools other than testing.
Testing allows politicians to show they’re concerned about school achievement and serious about getting tough with students and teachers. Test scores offer a quick-and-easy—although, as we’ll see by no means accurate—way to chart progress (Kohn).
The main reason the educational system tests, is to measure the progress of students and teachers, but if politics is the main decision maker than that is defeating the purpose of testing. In a way it contradicts its self. The goal of testing is to help raise the education in America, but it is also negatively impacting it. Charting and comparing the progress of students is hard because no kid is the same. The constant variable of testing is the tests themselves. All kids take the same test. But we cannot rely on a test to determine the direction to where the education of kids is going. It just does not seem logical to do that. Instead they could spend the money on tests to pay for other things to improve the schools like better books, computers, and databases to find better information.
1. I know I am not finished, but is it well organized?
2. Am I defending my argument well?
3. What else other topics could I use to defend my argument?
