cons of standardized testing essay

20 Standardized Tests Pros And Cons

Standardized tests are tests that require each student to answer the same set of “standard” questions, and are graded in a uniform and consistent manner. Standard testing has been a topic of debate for many parents, students, and schools in the era of neoliberal education .

Concerns over standardized testing range from how reliable they are in reflecting students’ abilities, to how they could have potential negative impacts on students that may be knowledgeable but struggle with high-stakes test environments.

Still, there are advantages to standardized testing. Standardized tests can be immensely useful to gain a pulse on the quality of the curriculum, and whether it meets specified learning goals and objectives. Standardized tests also help point out areas for improvement in education, and emphasize aspects of students’ education that could be lacking.

There are many legitimate reasons to be in favor of standardized testing, as there are reasons to be against it. Let’s go over the top 20 pros and cons of standardized testing so you can decide for yourself whether you’re in favor or against standardized tests.

Summary: Are Standardized Tests Good or Bad?

Pros of standardized testing, 1. they help you track the progress of education.

Schools need metrics they can reliably use to evaluate students’ progress and see whether teachers are successfully implementing the curriculum. Standardized tests provide a way for school boards and regulatory bodies to determine whether stated educational objectives are being met according to the grade level.

Administering standardized tests on a yearly basis also helps to form a year-over-year analysis of progress made, and introduces benchmarks from which school boards can evaluate whether they have strayed or surpassed the existing average of education being taught. It’s important for schools to be able to compare their academic performance between years, and standardized testing is a reliable way to do so.

2. They help you Identify Areas for Improvement

Standardized testing brings light to areas of the curriculum that are lacking, and can be used to formulate education plans for improvement in those areas. For example, if standardized tests within a school showed that the average test results in math were below grade level, this is helpful for that school to know they need to improve their math curriculum and teaching.

Schools need to understand whether they are meeting their identified learning objectives , and standardized tests offer a way to determine whether they are fulfilling their identified learning goals or not.

3. They Keep Schools Accountable

The value of standardized tests goes beyond that of the individual school, especially when results are used to compare school performance on the national level. When data from standardized tests are generated on a national level, this allows for comparisons between regions and geographic locations, so it’s clear which areas lack in their education and require additional reinforcement.

Standardized testing is an instructive way for governments to gain a pulse on which regions are performing up to standard, above the standard and below the standard. In cases where the results are below average, this expresses that more support or resources are needed to address the educational gap; whereas, in areas where test scores were higher, we can look to such schools to understand what they are doing better and learn from them.

4. Standardized tests are consistent and uniform

Standardized tests provide a reliable and objective method to assess student achievement and learning. While removing all aspects of impartiality is difficult when it comes to scoring tests, since standardized tests require all test-takers to answer the same set of questions, it creates a greater degree of consistency and objectivity in the test results.

Standardized tests are graded by machines or blind reviewers. This is another measure that standardized tests take to achieve a higher degree of impartiality in assessing the test scores.

5. Standardized Tests are Efficient

Most standardized tests are evaluated by machines or AI, which makes assessing standardized tests efficient, less costly and time-consuming. Standardized tests are easy to process, generate significant amounts of education data and create a high-level picture of the state of education.

Essentially standardized tests offer government and regulatory bodies an efficient, low-cost method of extracting large amounts of education data without the burden of substantial associated costs and time investment.

6. They allow you to Compare Students

Parents, students, teachers, school boards and broader governments benefit from the data of standardized tests in seeing where any particular student falls according to the median grade average. The sum of test scores allows schools to make internal comparisons of their performance, comparisons between schools in the same area and schools in different areas.

7. They are clear and Unambiguous

Test scores are black and white and leave no room for interpretation. Student assessments can often be fraught with partiality and subjectivity on the part of the person marking the test.

With standardized tests, the results are unambiguous, clear and impartial.

8. They Can Motivate Students

Students that want to do well on standardized tests are more motivated to study and learn the course material to get a better grade. For some students, a standardized test is an effective motivator to get students to learn better and take school more seriously.

Students are well aware of the importance of high test scores, particularly with respect to the SATs. Lots of students take these tests seriously and spend significant time preparing so they can do well on them.

9. They Provide Consistency Across Education Programs

Education is not limited to the public school setting. Education is offered by various organizations, institutions and homes. Parents that decide to homeschool their kids benefit from the standardized tests because this shows whether their teaching met or exceeds public school standards .

Similarly, private schools and charter schools also benefit from standardized tests by being able to make these same comparisons between their education curriculum and that of traditional public schools.

10. They Instil Good Learning Habits

All tests require students to prepare to be able to take them and do well. Standardized tests are no different. They encourage students to study hard, to develop good study habits that stick and to learn the course material.

Ultimately, all learning is good learning, and while standardized testing has various issues (which we will discuss) the underlying aim to encourage learning and see what progress is made is a positive aspect of education which ought to be encouraged.

Cons Of Standardized Tests

1. they are not accurate reflections of student ability.

Lots of students struggle with test-taking and face anxiety when it comes to these types of assessments. Level of stress, mood and emotional state can all impact a person’s ability when it comes to completing these kinds of assessments. As a result, it makes it difficult to know whether these tests are truly reflective of students’ skills and competencies.

For students that face greater difficulty with test-taking, it is possible that standardized tests produce inaccurate results which could have other, negative impacts on the student’s well-being and potential future opportunities.

2. They Cause Stress

Standardized testing can be a major source of stress for students and teachers alike. It’s well-known that many students don’t perform well on tests, however, this doesn’t necessarily mean that these students are any less knowledgeable or educated than the students that do perform well.

Standardized tests create performance anxiety, and many students feel overwhelmingly bound by these test scores to get accepted into top schools. Teachers are also indirectly assessed by standardized tests because student performance is reflective of how well kids are being taught. Evidently, when students do not perform well because of stress-related factors, this does not reflect negatively on the teacher, though it may be interpreted that way.

3. Teachers ‘Teach to the Test’

When students need to prepare students for standardized tests, this can impact the way they teach the course material and it can result in teachers ‘teaching to the test,’ rather than the real goal of ensuring students truly understand the material.

Teaching to the test often involves rote learning (memorization of answers) rather than serious engagement with the process of learning. Education theorist Paolo Friere called this the ‘ banking model ‘, which discourages creative and process thinking, and instead encourages shallow memorization of information.

This could have the effect of a more surface-layer education, or the material only being understood by students at a shallow level since they are learning how to do well on the test rather than learning the contents of the subject in and of themselves.

4. They Negatively Impact Student Self-Esteem

When students score poorly on standardized tests, it’s easy for students to feel that these grades are indicators of their overall intelligence and their capacity to do well. Unfortunately, test scores can seriously impact a student’s own sense of their educational capabilities, and they can hinder their progress moving forward.

For example, if a student doesn’t test well, they might simply believe they are not good at school, or that they aren’t smart or cut out for it. Consequently, the student’s attitude towards education and learning is impacted, and they may be disengaged moving forward in their education.

5. They Pose Barriers to Future Opportunities

The SAT (Scholastic Aptitude Test) is a standardized test that is used for admissions to colleges in the United States. The SAT has garnered significant criticism in recent years, with nearly 1600 schools in the US opting out of standardized tests as part of the “test-optional” movement .

Students that do not score well on the SATs have a much harder time getting admitted to top colleges and post-secondary institutions. The issue is that in cases where SAT scores are not reflective of the individual student’s abilities, then their test results impact their future opportunities based on this inaccurate assessment of their academic temperament and potential.

6. They Disproportionately Favor White Students

Studies repeatedly show that non-minority students and white students from more affluent communities score better on standardized tests than their non-white counterparts.

While the disparity in test results stresses the need to address educational gaps in underserved communities, the gap also raises questions about the fairness of the test questions themselves (or other factors that might cause the disparity.)

Whatever the reason for the gap in education across white students and non-white students, this gap in test scores creates further inequality and inequitable access to higher education.

7. Education is not a ‘one-size-fits-all’ situation

Everyone is different—this means we all learn at a different pace, and have different academic aptitudes and preferences. Education should not be viewed through a cookie-cutter or ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach; that said, standardized testing looks to apply education and understand its outcomes in this way.

Standardized tests are not inclusive of differing learning styles and applies the same set of rules for each student completing the assessment. Treating each student the exact same fails to recognize important ways in which we learn and understand educational materials.

8. Standardized Tests are Not Comprehensive

When it comes to standardized tests, it’s important that schools do not see test scores as a comprehensive reflection of a student’s academic capabilities. Besides this, schools should not base their admissions decisions on the sole basis of test results, because this ignores other factors that are relevant to the student’s skills and competencies.

Exclusively relying on the results of standardized tests to form decisions on student admissions to schools would result in many students being denied admission unfairly. Just because a student may not have performed well on a single assessment, this shouldn’t be the sole determinant for whether they get into a good college or not. Other metrics for student assessment must be considered in these admissions processes.

9. Students Learn to the Test

Just like teachers can teach to the test, students can learn to score well on the test too. The problem is that learning to the ‘test’ underdetermines real learning of the subject material.

This encourages learning not for learning’s sake, but for the sake of scoring high on a test. Learning should be encouraged for its own purposes, and standardized testing places the focus on scores rather than learning in itself.

10. Exams Do Not Show College Readiness Soft Skills

Proponents of standardized testing argued that the tests would help highschool students prepare for college and make the transition smoother.

Despite their belief, the numbers tell a different story. High test scores on standardized tests have not correlated with greater student readiness to enter college. It is also not clear how it would result in students being more prepared for college in the first place.

Rather, the number of schools that are dropping the requirements for standardized testing is skyrocketing. These schools are making it optional for students to take standardized tests, and are part of the “test-optional” movement.

When it comes to standardized testing, the important thing is that the test scores are not seen as the total picture of a student’s abilities, but rather as part of a broader assessment or understanding. Testing data should be used to gain a general sense of how education is going, and whether learning objectives are being met or not. Standardized tests shouldn’t be seen as comprehensive, and schools should not base their admissions decisions solely on the scores of standardized tests.

Dalia Yashinsky (MA, Phil)

Dalia Yashinsky is a freelance academic writer. She graduated with her Bachelor's (with Honors) from Queen's University in Kingston Ontario in 2015. She then got her Master's Degree in philosophy, also from Queen's University, in 2017.

• Dalia Yashinsky (MA, Phil) #molongui-disabled-link Third Variable Problem: Definition & 10 Examples
• Dalia Yashinsky (MA, Phil) #molongui-disabled-link 15 Double Standards Examples
• Dalia Yashinsky (MA, Phil) #molongui-disabled-link 15 Examples of Inclusive Language
• Dalia Yashinsky (MA, Phil) #molongui-disabled-link 15 Denying the Antecedent Examples (Logical Fallacy)

Chris Drew (PhD)

This article was peer-reviewed and edited by Chris Drew (PhD). The review process on Helpful Professor involves having a PhD level expert fact check, edit, and contribute to articles. Reviewers ensure all content reflects expert academic consensus and is backed up with reference to academic studies. Dr. Drew has published over 20 academic articles in scholarly journals. He is the former editor of the Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education and holds a PhD in Education from ACU.

• Chris Drew (PhD) #molongui-disabled-link 25 Positive Punishment Examples
• Chris Drew (PhD) #molongui-disabled-link 25 Dissociation Examples (Psychology)
• Chris Drew (PhD) #molongui-disabled-link 15 Zone of Proximal Development Examples
• Chris Drew (PhD) #molongui-disabled-link Perception Checking: 15 Examples and Definition

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Examining the Pros and Cons of Standardized Testing

• An Introduction to Teaching
• Tips & Strategies
• Policies & Discipline
• Community Involvement
• School Administration
• Technology in the Classroom
• Teaching Adult Learners
• Issues In Education
• Teaching Resources
• Becoming A Teacher
• Assessments & Tests
• Elementary Education
• Secondary Education
• Special Education
• Homeschooling
• M.Ed., Educational Administration, Northeastern State University
• B.Ed., Elementary Education, Oklahoma State University

Like many issues in public education , standardized testing can be a controversial topic among parents, teachers, and voters. Many people say standardized testing provides an accurate measurement of student performance and teacher effectiveness. Others say such a one-size-fits-all approach to assessing academic achievement can be inflexible or even biased. Regardless of the diversity of opinion, there are some common arguments for and against standardized testing in the classroom .

Standardized Testing Pros

Proponents of standardized testing say that it is the best means of comparing data from a diverse population, allowing educators to digest large amounts of information quickly. They argue that:

It's accountable.  Probably the greatest benefit of standardized testing is that educators and schools are responsible for teaching students what they are required to know for these standardized tests. This is mostly because these scores become public record, and teachers and schools that don’t perform up to par can come under intense examination. This scrutiny can lead to the loss of jobs. In some cases, a school can be closed or taken over by the state.

It's analytical.  Without standardized testing, this comparison would not be possible. Public school students in Texas , for example, are required to take standardized tests, allowing test data from Amarillo to be compared to scores in Dallas. Being able to accurately analyze data is a primary reason that many states have adopted the Common Core state standards .

It's structured.  Standardized testing is accompanied by a set of established standards or an instructional framework to guide classroom learning and test preparation. This incremental approach creates benchmarks to measure student progress over time.

It's objective.  Standardized tests are often scored by computers or by people who do not directly know the student to remove the chance that bias would affect the scoring. Tests are also developed by experts, and each question undergoes an intense process to ensure its validity—that it properly assesses the content—and its reliability, which means that the question tests consistently over time.

It's granular.  The data generated by testing can be organized according to established criteria or factors, such as ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and special needs. This approach provides schools with data to develop targeted programs and services for improving student performance.

Standardized Testing Cons

Opponents of standardized testing say educators have become too fixated on scores and preparing for these exams. Some of the most common arguments against testing are:

It's inflexible.  Some students may excel in the classroom yet not perform well on a standardized test because they're unfamiliar with the format or develop test anxiety. Family strife, mental and physical health issues, and language barriers can all affect a student's test score. But standardized tests don't allow personal factors to be taken into consideration.

It's a waste of time.  Standardized testing causes many teachers to teach to the tests, meaning they only spend instructional time on material that will appear on the test. Opponents say this practice lacks creativity and can hinder a student’s overall learning potential.

It can't measure true progress.  Standardized testing only evaluates one-time performance instead of a student's progress and proficiency over time. Many would argue that teacher and student performance should be evaluated for growth over the course of the year instead of one single test.

It's stressful.  Teachers and students alike feel test stress. For educators, poor student performance may result in a loss of funding and teachers being fired. For students, a bad test score may mean missing out on admission to the college of their choice or even being held back. In Oklahoma, for example, high school students must pass four standardized tests in order to graduate, regardless of their GPA. (The state gives seven standardized end-of-instruction (EOI) exams in Algebra I, Algebra II, English II, English III, Biology I, geometry and U.S. history. Students who fail to pass at least four of these exams can’t get a high school diploma.)

It's political.  With public and charter schools both competing for the same public funds, politicians and educators have come to rely even more on standardized test scores. Some opponents of testing argue that low-performing schools are unfairly targeted by politicians who use academic performance as an excuse to further their own agendas.

• School Testing Assesses Knowledge Gains and Gaps
• What Are Some Pros and Cons of the Common Core State Standards?
• Pros and Cons of Teaching
• The Pros and Cons of a Four-Day School Week
• Performance Based Pay for Teachers
• The Buildup of Standardized Testing Pressure
• Pros and Cons of Using a Traditional Grading Scale
• T.E.S.T. Season for Grades 7-12
• The Pros and Cons of Allowing Cell Phones in School
• Pros and Cons of School Uniforms
• The Pros and Cons of Block Schedules
• 10 Pros and Cons of Being a School Principal
• What are the Pros and Cons of Charter Schools?
• Contrasting Growth and Proficiency Models for Student Achievement
• Pros and Cons of Teacher Tenure
• Pros and Cons of Year-Round School

Listen Live

BBC World Service

The latest news and information from the world's most respected news source. BBC World Service delivers up-to-the-minute news, expert analysis, commentary, features and interviews.

• Higher Education

For and against standardized tests: Two student perspectives

• Samantha McIver and Joshua Palackal

A standardized test. (via Shutterstock)

WHYY is your source for fact-based, in-depth journalism and information. As a nonprofit organization, we rely on financial support from readers like you. Please give today.

Brought to you by Speak Easy

Thoughtful essays, commentaries, and opinions on current events, ideas, and life in the Philadelphia region.

You may also like

Philadelphia won’t use test scores for admissions to selective schools for 2022-23

The policy grew out of necessity — very few students this spring have taken or will take the state test due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

3 years ago

Will this tweak in Pa. law send student test scores soaring?

The standardized tests scores of chronically absent students will no longer count against teachers, schools, and the state.

5 years ago

5 ways the SAT has tried to reinvent itself

The SAT has undergone many, many changes over the years. Here’s a brief look at some of its redesigns.

Want a digest of WHYY’s programs, events & stories? Sign up for our weekly newsletter.

Together we can reach 100% of WHYY’s fiscal year goal

Standardized tests aren’t the problem, it’s how we use them

Subscribe to the brown center on education policy newsletter, andre m. perry andre m. perry senior fellow - brookings metro @andreperryedu.

March 30, 2021

This piece originally appeared in  The Hechinger Report ; the version below has been lightly edited for style.

Education Secretary Miguel Cardona is refusing to back down on a federal requirement that states must administer standardized tests this year, although a letter to state leaders from the Department of Education last month said that states will have flexibility on how to apply results. States concerned about the safety of administering a test during a pandemic may implement shortened versions of assessments.

This relief from the hammer of accountability, if not from the tests themselves, has gotten a mixed reception from anti-testing advocates, school leaders, and teachers who are still trying to ready schools for face-to-face learning. They’re right: Greater accountability and standardized testing won’t give students the technology they need, give teachers the necessary PPE to stay safe, or give families the income to better house and feed themselves during the pandemic so that kids can focus on learning. And if there was ever a time to see how misguided our accountability systems are in relation to addressing root causes of achievement disparities, it’s now.

On its face, relieving students, teachers, and families from the grip of test-based accountability makes sense. We know student achievement, particularly in low-income schools and districts, will dip due to circumstances related to the pandemic and social distancing. We know the source of the decline.

And we currently use standardized tests well beyond what they were designed to do, which is to measure a few areas of academic achievement. Achievement tests were not designed for the purposes of promoting or grading students, evaluating teachers, or evaluating schools. In fact, connecting these social functions to achievement test data corrupts what the tests are measuring. In statistics, this is called Campbell’s Law. When a score has been connected to a teacher’s pay or job status, educators will inevitably be drawn toward teaching to the test, and schools toward hiring to the test and paying to the test, rather than making sure students get the well-rounded education they need and deserve.

However, there is still a role for testing and assessment. We need to know the full extent of the damage from the last 12 months beyond the impact on academics. For one, the federal government should have states take a roll call to see who hasn’t been in school. The government must also assess families’ technological needs if it is to properly support the states financially. In other words, states should be using multiple assessments to address the range of needs of students and their teachers. This is what the focus of academic and non-academic assessment should have always been, not a means to punish the people who are dealing with conditions that erode the quality of an education.

As many have said in different contexts, the pandemic exposed existing structural inequalities that are driving racial disparities. This is as true in education as it is in other sectors. Limited broadband and computer access, home and food insecurity, deferred maintenance on buildings, uneven employment benefits among non-teaching school staff, and fewer resources for schools that serve children of color were throttling academic achievement before the pandemic. They will certainly widen achievement gaps during and after.

As a condition for receiving a waiver, Cardona is requiring states to report on the number of chronically absent students and students’ access to computers and high-speed internet, a request that raised the ire of some Republican lawmakers. Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.) and Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-N.C.) objected in a March 25 letter that the requirements for information on chronic absenteeism and access technologies as conditions are “not permitted under ESEA as amended by ESSA.” The letter continued: “They are both outside the scope of what states are seeking to be waived and violate specific prohibitions on the Secretary requiring states to report new data beyond existing reporting requirements.”

Cardona is right in his effort to use tests properly. Gathering information is essential if we really care about closing gaps in educational opportunity and achievement. Information shines light on structural problems. When the effects of structural problems on student learning are ignored, teachers and school boards are blamed for any deficiencies in student performance. Racism ends up pointing a finger at Black education leaders, teachers, and kids for disparities that result from systemic racism.

This is why we should rethink how we use tests in the future.

States have historically found ways to starve majority-Black and -Brown districts of the resources they need to thrive. Let’s be clear: We need to hold racist policies and practices accountable.

Segregation and school financing systems that reinforce segregated housing arrangements reflect the application of racist attitudes about Black people and communities that show up in outcomes. And since No Child Left Behind ushered in an era of accountability in 2001, those accountability systems have largely failed to address those sources of inequality. Black districts in particular have felt as much pain from testing as from the negative conditions that surround schooling. School and district takeovers, mass firings, and the imposition of charter schools have not been applied fairly or evenly because testing didn’t identify the real problems.

Amid a pandemic, testing is a necessary inconvenience to help us understand how we can better address structural racism and other root causes of academic disparities. But if tests aren’t used as a way to support Black districts, students, and families by leading to solutions for structural inequities, then they will only facilitate the epidemic of racism that existed before the pandemic.

Related Content

Tom Loveless

March 18, 2021

Anna Saavedra, Morgan Polikoff, Dan Silver, Amie Rapaport

March 23, 2021

Education Policy K-12 Education

Brookings Metro Governance Studies

Brown Center on Education Policy

Vanessa Williamson

April 29, 2024

Sopiko Beriashvili, Michael Trucano

April 26, 2024

Richard V. Reeves, Ember Smith

Effects of Standardized Testing on Students & Teachers: Key Benefits & Challenges

The use of standardized testing to measure academic achievement in US schools has fueled debate for nearly two decades. Understanding the effects of standardized testing—its key benefits and challenges—requires a closer examination of what standardized testing is and how it’s used in academic settings.

Developing ways to effectively and fairly measure academic achievement is an ongoing challenge for school administrators. For those inspired to promote greater equity in education, American University’s online Doctor of Education (EdD) in Education Policy and Leadership provides the knowledge and training to address such challenges.

What Are Standardized Tests?

Standardized tests are examinations administered and scored in a predetermined, standard manner. They typically rely heavily on question formats, such as multiple choice and true or false, that can be automatically scored. Not limited to academic settings, standardized tests are widely used to measure academic aptitude and achievement.

The ACT and SAT, standardized tests used broadly for college admissions, assess students’ current educational development and their aptitude for completing college-level work. Standardized academic achievement tests are mandatory in primary and secondary schools in the US, where they’re designed and administered at the state or local level and used to assess requirements for federal education funding.

Standardized testing requirements are designed to hold teachers, students, and schools accountable for academic achievement and to incentivize improvement. They provide a benchmark for assessing problems and measuring progress, highlighting areas for improvement.

Despite these key benefits, standardized academic achievement tests in US public schools have been controversial since their inception. Major points of contention have centered on who should design and administer tests (federal, state, or district level), how often they should be given, and whether they place some school districts at an advantage or disadvantage. More critically, parents and educators have questioned whether standardized tests are fair to teachers and students.

Effects of Standardized Testing on Students

Some of the challenging potential effects of standardized testing on students are as follows:

• Standardized test scores are often tied to important outcomes, such as graduation and school funding. Such high-stakes testing can place undue stress on students and affect their performance.
• Standardized tests fail to account for students who learn and demonstrate academic proficiency in different ways. For example, a student who struggles to answer a multiple-choice question about grammar or punctuation may be an excellent writer.
• By placing emphasis on reading, writing, and mathematics, standardized tests have devalued instruction in areas such as the arts, history, and electives.
• Standardized tests are thought to be fair because every student takes the same test and evaluations are largely objective, but a one-size-fits-all approach to testing is arguably biased because it fails to account for variables such as language deficiencies, learning disabilities, difficult home lives, or varying knowledge of US cultural conventions.

Effects of Standardized Testing on Teachers

Teachers as well as students can be challenged by the effects of standardized testing. Common issues include the following:

• The need to meet specific testing standards pressures teachers to “teach to the test” rather than providing a broad curriculum.
• Teachers have expressed frustration about the time it takes to prepare for and administer tests.
• Teachers may feel excessive pressure from their schools and administrators to improve their standardized test scores.
• Standardized tests measure achievement against goals rather than measuring progress.
• Achievement test scores are commonly assumed to have a strong correlation with teaching effectiveness, a tendency that can place unfair blame on good teachers if scores are low and obscure teaching deficiencies if scores are high.

Alternative Achievement Assessments

Critics of standardized testing often point to various forms of performance-based assessments as preferable alternatives. Known by various names (proficiency-based, competency-based), they require students to produce work that demonstrates high-level thinking and real-world applications. Examples include an experiment illustrating understanding of a scientific concept, group work that addresses complex problems and requires discussion and presentation, or essays that include analysis of a topic.

Portfolio-based assessments emphasize the process of learning over letter grades and normative performance. Portfolios can be made up of physical documents or digital collections. They can include written assignments, completed tests, honors and awards, art and graphic work, lab reports, or other documents that demonstrate either progress or achievement. Portfolios can provide students with an opportunity to choose work they wish to reflect on and present.

Performance-based assessments aren’t a practical alternative to standardized tests, but they offer a different way of evaluating knowledge that can provide a more complete picture of student achievement. Determining which systems of evaluation work best in specific circumstances and is an ongoing challenge for education administrators.

Work for Better Student Outcomes with a Doctorate in Education

Addressing the most critical challenges facing educators, including fair and accurate assessment of academic achievement, requires administrators with exceptional leadership and policy expertise. Discover how the online EdD in Education Policy and Leadership at American University prepares educators to create equitable learning environments and effect positive change.

EdD vs. PhD in Education: Requirements, Career Outlook, and Salary

Education Policy Issues in 2020 and Beyond

Path to Becoming a School District Administrator

American University School of Education, Creative Alternatives to Standardized Test Taking

Scholars Strategy Network, How to Improve American Schooling with Less High-Stakes Testing and More Investment in Teacher Development

The Washington Post Magazine , “The Demise of the Great Education Saviors”

U.S. Department of Education, Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA)

Request Information

12 Advantages and Disadvantages of Standardized Testing

Standardized testing has been around for several generations. In the United States, standardized tests have been used to evaluate student performance since the middle of the 19th century. Virtually every person who has attended a public or private school has taken at least one standardized test.

The advantages and disadvantages of standardized testing are quite unique. On one hand, these tests provide a way to compare student knowledge to find learning gaps. On the other hand, not every student performs well on a test, despite having a comprehensive knowledge and understanding about the subject matter involved. Here are some of the key points to consider.

What Are the Advantages of Standardized Testing?

1. It has a positive impact on student achievement. According to a review of testing research that has been conducted over the past century, over 90% of students have found that standardized tests have a positive effect on their achievement. Students feel better about their ability to comprehend and know subject materials that are presented on a standardized test. Even if a perfect score isn’t achieved, knowing where a student stands helps them be able to address learning deficits.

2. It is a reliable and objective measurement of achievement. Standardized tests allow for a reliable measurement of student success that isn’t influenced by local factors. Local school districts and teachers may have a vested interest in the outcomes of testing and the desire to produce a favorable result can create inaccurate test results. Because standardized tests are graded by computers, they are not as subject to human bias or subjectivity, which makes them a more accurate reflection of student success.

3. Standardized tests allow for equal and equivalent content for all students. This means a complete evaluation of students from an equal perspective can be obtained. Using alternate tests or exempting children from taking a standardized test creates unequal systems, which then creates one group of students who is accountable to their results and another group of students that is unaccountable. It is a system that looks at every child through equal eyes.

4. A standardized test teaches students prioritization. Standardized testing covers core subject materials that students need for success in other subject areas. Without reading, for example, it would be difficult to learn how to write properly. Without mathematics, it would be difficult to pursue scientific concepts. The goal of a standardized test is to cover core subject materials that will help students excel in other related subjects, giving them the chance to master core curriculum items so they can move on to correlating subjects with greater ease.

5. It allows school districts to discover their good teachers. Good teachers understand that test preparation drills and specific core instructions to “teach to a test” are not the best way to encourage learning. Repetition does not produce test score gains, but teaching a curriculum that allows students to explore a subject according to their interests, with teacher guidance, will do so. Test-taking skills and memorization do not promote understanding and districts which take these actions continually show low overall standardized testing scores.

What Are the Disadvantages of Standardized Testing?

1. It has not had a positive impact on student education. Since 2002, when the United States added more emphasis to standardized testing, it has dropped in global education rankings. From 2002-2009, the US went from being ranked 18th in the world in mathematic to being ranked 31st in the world. The rankings in science also dropped in a similar way, while reading comprehension remained largely unchanged. According to the National Research Council, even incentive programs tied to standardized testing results are not working to improve student comprehension, understanding, and knowledge.

2. Standardized testing can be predictable. Students who are aware of patterns can determine what the answers to a standardized test could be by only knowing a handful of answers with certainty. This predictability reflects the natural human bias that occurs in every action or reaction we have in any endeavor. It also means test scores can be high without reflecting student understanding. Brookings found that up to 80% of test score improvements in test scores can have nothing to do with long-term learning changes.

3. They assume that all students start from the same point of understanding. Standardized tests may allow for a direct comparison of data, but they do not account for differences in the students who are taking the tests. In the US, standardized tests could be considered discriminatory in some regions because they assume that the student is a first-language English speaker. Students who have special needs, learning disabilities, or have other challenges which are addressed by an Individualized Education Plan may also be at a disadvantage when taking a standardized test compared to those who do not have those concerns.

4. Standardized tests only look at raw comprehension data. Students learn in a variety of ways. People have many different strengths that may not be reflected in the context of a standardized test. Traits like creativity, enthusiasm, empathy, curiosity, or resourcefulness cannot be tracked by these tests, even though they are highly desirable traits in modern careers. A standardized test could determine the knowledge a student has about musical theory, but it cannot judge the quality of a composition that a student might create.

5. Teacher evaluations have been tied to standardized test results. Many teachers are being evaluated on the work that their students do on a standardized test. Based on the classroom grades achieved, a teacher might receive a raise or be fired from their job. This creates a host of learning problems. For starters, only the students who are performing poorly on testing simulations receive a majority of the attention from the teacher, leaving good students to fend for themselves. Teachers then begin to “teach to the test” instead of teaching subject materials to obtain needed results. This creates a reduction of higher-order thinking, reduces complex assignments, and prevents cognitive understanding.

6. Standardized tests narrow the curriculum. According to the Center on Education Policy, from 2001-2007, school districts in the United States reduced the amount of time spent on social studies, creative subjects, and science by over 40%. This results in the average student losing more than 2 hours of instruction time in these areas so that they can focus on subjects that are on standardized tests, such as reading and math.

7. More time is spent on test preparation instead of actual learning. Many school districts, especially those with lower test scores, spend more classroom time on test preparation than learning the curriculum. In 2010, New York City took the extraordinary measure of including 2.5-hour test preparation sessions on scheduled school vacation days.

The advantages and disadvantages of standardized testing show that it can be a useful tool for student evaluation, but only when it is used correctly. Like any system, it can be abused by those who are looking for shortcuts. That is why each key point must be carefully considered before implementing or making changes to a plan of standardized testing.

pros and cons of standardized testing : A Comprehensive Analysis

Standardized testing is a common method of evaluating student performance and academic achievement in many countries around the world. The use of standardized tests has been a topic of debate among educators, policymakers, and parents for many years. Some argue that standardized testing provides valuable information about student learning and can help identify areas where improvements are needed. Others believe that standardized testing is a flawed approach that fails to account for the diversity of student learning styles and abilities. In this essay, we will explore the pros and cons of standardized testing.

Table of Contents

• 1 The Significance of Standardized Testing in Modern Education
• 2 Pros of Standardized Testing:
• 3 Cons of Standardized Testing:

The Significance of Standardized Testing in Modern Education

Standardized testing is a widely used method of evaluating student performance in many educational institutions around the world. These tests are designed to measure student learning and academic achievement in a consistent and objective manner. The results of standardized tests are often used to hold schools, teachers, and students accountable for their academic progress, and to identify areas where additional support and resources may be needed.

However, the use of standardized testing is not without controversy, as some argue that it is a flawed approach that fails to account for the diversity of student learning styles and abilities. Despite this, standardized testing remains an important tool for educators and policymakers to assess student performance and inform instructional decisions.

Pros of Standardized Testing:

• Objectivity: Standardized tests are designed to be objective, which means that all students are evaluated using the same criteria. This eliminates the potential for bias or subjective grading.
• Accountability: Standardized testing provides a means of measuring student performance and holding schools, teachers, and students accountable for their academic progress.
• Comparison: Standardized tests can be used to compare the performance of students from different schools, districts, or countries. This can help identify areas where improvements are needed and provide a benchmark for academic achievement.
• Feedback: Standardized testing provides feedback to students, parents, and teachers about student strengths and weaknesses. This can help identify areas where additional support is needed and inform instructional decisions.
• College Admission: Standardized test scores are often used as a factor in college admission decisions. High scores on standardized tests can increase a student’s chances of being accepted into a desired college or university.

Cons of Standardized Testing:

• Limited Assessment: Standardized tests provide a limited assessment of student learning and do not account for differences in learning styles, interests, or abilities.
• Stress: The pressure to perform well on standardized tests can cause stress and anxiety for students. This can lead to a negative impact on academic performance and mental health.
• Teaching to the Test: The emphasis on standardized testing can lead to a focus on test preparation rather than a more comprehensive and meaningful education.
• Inaccurate Results: Standardized tests are not always an accurate measure of student learning or academic achievement. Factors such as test anxiety, cultural differences, and language barriers can impact test results.
• Limited Feedback: Standardized tests provide limited feedback on student performance and do not provide information on specific areas where students need additional support or intervention.

Conclusion:

The use of standardized testing is a controversial issue in education. While standardized tests can provide valuable information about student learning and academic achievement, they are not without limitations. Standardized tests are objective, provide accountability, and can be used to compare student performance. However, they can also cause stress, encourage teaching to the test, and provide limited feedback on student performance. It is important for educators, policymakers, and parents to consider the pros and cons of standardized testing and to use multiple measures of assessment to gain a more comprehensive understanding of student learning and academic achievement.

You may like it

american university vs george washington university

Pros and Cons of Physical Education: Exploring the Benefits and Challenges

Best Paying Jobs in Building Operators: Top 10 High-Paying Roles in Building Maintenance and Management

Car Mechanic Trade School: Best Auto Mechanic Programs 2024

how to become a flight attendant in 2024! Step-by-step with tips

lifeline free tablet: How to Get Lifeline Free Tablet in 2024

Leave a comment cancel reply.

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

Debating the Value of Standardized Tests

More from our inbox:, trump’s followers, motivated by fear and envy, a citizen’s plea, slaughtering animals for food.

To the Editor:

Re “ Don’t Ditch Standardized Tests. Fix Them ,” by Jessica Grose (Opinion, nytimes.com, Jan. 17):

Ms. Grose is incorrect when she says, “Without standardized testing, we won’t know where to put the most resources.” I taught in half a dozen schools in two of our nation’s largest school districts, and in my current job training teachers, I’ve been in dozens more. It takes about five minutes in a school building to know if it needs more resources.

And yet, regardless of the ever-changing policy on standardized tests, the same schools across our nation suffer from underfunding year after year. The problem has never been that we don’t know where the gaps are. We simply remain unwilling to fund adequate schools for all our nation’s children.

There may be curricular and pedagogical arguments in favor of testing, but to claim that such tests will finally get us to apportion funds to the schools that need them most is belied by our history. We need to change our mind-set about how we fund schools, not the quality of our measuring sticks.

Jeremy Glazer Glassboro, N.J. The writer is an assistant professor of education at Rowan University.

Jessica Grose doesn’t mention a standardized testing organization that many school districts around the nation use. NWEA, Northwest Evaluation Association , is a nonprofit organization that provides standardized tests in reading, math, language usage and science. Teachers like me use these three times each school year.

Results are available immediately, and the two most relevant tests, reading and mathematics, take a total of about three hours to administer. The data these tests provide are fantastic. We use the results immediately to plan instruction.

In Colorado, the tests required by our state consume two full weeks of learning time, and results are not available until the following school year.

Todd Lederman Evergreen, Colo.

Jessica Grose correctly highlights the value of testing from a statistical point of view: We need to know how poor students compare to rich ones, for example. Immediacy of feedback is also useful, which Ms. Grose details through her reference to “through-year assessment” in Texas and Florida, which replaces the old “one big test” model.

No testing is perfect, though, and as a Florida parent and educator, I can report firsthand on the drawbacks of “through-year assessment.” Students experience this new approach as three big tests — that is, as more testing, not less — and feel stressed about testing throughout the year rather than just in the spring.

Worse, children are tested on grade-level standards from the start: For example, a fourth grader will be tested on what they are supposed to know at the end of fourth grade just weeks into the fall. The result? Students often bomb the first test, which is on content they haven’t even been taught.

It is unfair and damaging to them, making even the brightest students feel dumb and discouraged. It’s crushing to student morale, leaving parents to wipe away the tears of a child who feels like a failure. Whatever good testing is, this isn’t it.

Peter Westmoreland St. Petersburg, Fla. The writer is a professor of ethics at the Applied Ethics Institute, St. Petersburg College.

Jessica Grose hints at an important point: We’re asking younger generations to adapt to the age-old standardized test rather than asking it to adapt to them. The pen-and-paper system can’t work well for those who spend most of their day on a screen.

That’s why it may be time to use another system altogether: video games. I’ve played some engineered by employers to test critical thinking and evaluate an applicant’s strengths and weaknesses. These games adapted to my responses in real time and provided a more nuanced view of my value, which standardized tests can’t do. Games are also more fun and immersive, so it’s hard to get distracted during them.

Serious innovation in standardized testing will be the best bet for future generations — and today we may have enough technology and frustration with the status quo to carry it through.

Aman Majmudar Chicago The writer is a senior at the University of Chicago.

Re “ Too Much Bluster in Iowa ” (column, Jan. 14):

Maureen Dowd is puzzled about why Donald Trump’s “devoted fans don’t mind his mean streak.”

She’s not alone. My theory is that for many Trump followers the devotion has its roots in a toxic mixture of repressed envy and adoration. He’s rich, his mouth is unfiltered, he unfailingly plays offense (even when he’s on the defense), and he presents himself as unaccountable to anyone or anything.

That surely makes him an avatar to the kind of ordinary person who doesn’t have a shot at being extraordinary, but Mr. Trump, who defies norms, lets them dream.

Magdalene Ruzza New York

I read “ MAGA Has Devoured American Evangelicalism ,” by Michelle Goldberg (column, Jan. 13), and then later saw the movie “Mean Girls” … and I thought, “Wow, what a parallel!”

Might those Trump followers be like the Plastics, who follow after the bully just to try to avoid getting bullied themselves? They have no respect for the bully and might even loathe the bully, but heaven forbid they should appear in the Burn Book (or vilified on Fox News).

How refreshing it would be if our country could focus on what is necessary and productive rather than on slinging insults to gain personal power.

Mary Heller Poughkeepsie, N.Y.

In a democracy, we have to go into an election knowing one side will lose. In a presidential election we become emotionally invested, which makes defeat one of the toughest losses we have to endure.

In a democracy we have to be strong enough to accept defeat. More than that, if your candidate loses, you should still hope good things will happen in America while the other guy is in office. That’s what it means to be an American.

When it comes down to it, we are all one. You don’t have to like the other guy, but don’t hate him. He should be respected for America’s sake.

To refuse to acknowledge your candidate’s defeat, to hate the other guy — and worse yet, to hope he totally fails, with no regard for the country’s well-being — is un-American. Wallowing in hate, embracing it and spreading it, over time wreaks havoc on the mind. How is your mind?

Tom Hebbeln Davenport, Iowa

Re “ South Korean Legislators Pass a Ban on Dog Meat ” (news article, Jan. 10):

I was relieved to read that South Korea recently prohibited slaughtering dogs for food. It is heartbreaking that these animals, cherished by many of us as members of our families, were being regarded essentially as pieces of meat. Yet that is the fate of billions of animals that suffer on factory farms around the world.

Humans have drawn arbitrary lines between the animals we eat and those we see as companions without considering that they all have feelings. I hope this milestone moment can help us to realize that we can live well without killing and eating any animals, whether dogs, cats, pigs or cows.

Gene Baur Arlington, Va. The writer is president and a co-founder of Farm Sanctuary.

• Free Consultation
• The Spark Advantage
• Who We Serve
• About Admissions Consultants
• Testimonials
• College Admissions
• BS/MD Programs
• Private School Admissions
• Transfer Admissions
• Results by Year
• > College Admissions

Pros & Cons of Standardized Testing for College Admissions

Debates around standardized testing have been around for as long as standardized test scores have been part of education in the United States. Some argue that students undergo too much testing: by their high schools, by the state, for college admissions, etc. Others argue that standardized tests, such as the SAT and the ACT, are the only fair way to evaluate student achievement.

During the past seventy-five years, arguments about the value of the SAT and the ACT have not eliminated these tests. Yet, these tests have changed. The SAT, for instance, was originally intended to be an IQ test, a perfect encapsulation of a student’s intelligence. Now, college admissions officers know that an SAT score is not a whole picture of a high school student’s abilities. It’s just one piece among many they use to evaluate applicants.

Nevertheless, knowing some of the pros and cons of standardized testing can help you better understand the American education system as a whole and how to approach it.

The Pros of Standardized Testing for College Admissions

Below, you can find some of the major arguments in favor of standardized testing. Schools, colleges, and states that require standardized testing generally believe these to be true, even if they are also aware of some of the downsides to standardized tests (see below).

Standardized Testing Is Fair

This is probably the biggest argument proponents of standardized testing, using the SAT or ACT for college admissions, make: it’s fair. It’s a single test, taken under equal conditions, to measure student achievement fairly. By this logic, standardized test scores from the SAT and ACT are some of the only aspects of a student’s academic performance that aren’t determined by their town or school.

It Creates a Universal Standard for Education

The obvious purpose of standardized testing is to create a standard. Proponents of standardized testing argue that some kind of examination outside of school curricula—which can vary widely by school district—can help an education system better compare students from very different backgrounds because all these students took the exact same test. By measuring students against that universal standard, it becomes easier to evaluate and rank them.

It Holds Teachers and Students Accountable

In the same way that standardized tests provide a standard to measure students, they can also help set larger educational standards for schools across a state or country. Standardized tests make educational initiatives like No Child Left Behind or the Common Core more concrete by checking students’ academic progress. If students in particular school districts are struggling to perform at grade level, superintendents and governments know to get involved.

The SAT and ACT Shows Analytical Progress

Standardized testing can also help standardize individual students’ educations. In addition to comparing students against one another or identifying problematic schools or districts, standardized tests can also illustrate student progress over time. Taking the same or similar tests over the years can allow students to indicate measurable improvement.

It Provides an Inclusive Opportunity

Standardized tests, such as the SAT and ACT, can give students from under-performing high schools a chance to prove that they have mastered ample academic material despite their circumstances. Because standardized tests are not tied to any one high school curriculum, they can offer an inclusive opportunity for students to highlight their successful performance. Proponents argue that standardized testing can help level the playing field in public education.

Many Professionals Must Take High-Stakes Standardized Tests

Finally, while much of the arguing around standardized testing is focused on high school students and younger, the fact is that standardized testing is often a fact of life well beyond secondary school. Anyone who wants to become a doctor, lawyer, teacher, engineer, actuary, architect, or practitioner of another specialized profession will eventually have to excel at a standardized test. Given that, why not become familiar with test-taking in secondary school?

The Cons of Standardized Testing

On the other hand, many people do not consider the SAT and ACT to be valuable or valid assessment tool for evaluating student performance. This is why some school systems are pushing back on things like Common Core state standards and ever more colleges are becoming test-optional . Below you’ll find some of the main arguments against standardized testing.

The SAT and ACT Don’t Measure Intelligence—Only Wealth

While proponents argue that standardized tests provide an objective measure of student achievement, the data is more complicated. In fact, research suggests that the best predictor of success on the SAT is socioeconomic status rather than one’s education or grade level. Opponents of the SAT argue that this inequity arises because wealthy families have the time and money for test preparation resources and services, which essentially means that a good score can be purchased.

It Restricts Teachers’ Effectiveness and Creativity

Another major argument is that an over-reliance on test data to measure student performance negatively impacts teachers’ ability to actually do their jobs. A standardized test at the end of the school year can disrupt a teacher’s curricular plan and force him or her to cover material that might be less relevant to his or her students. Similarly, many teachers find constant testing over the course of the year to be disruptive and unproductive to student learning.

The SAT and ACT Can Negatively Impact Students’ Confidence

Another argument is that standardized testing, such as the SAT and ACT, causes otherwise successful students to lose confidence in themselves and their abilities. Many students suffer from test anxiety, meaning that they do not perform at their usual level because they find the experience of test-taking so stressful. Evaluating a student’s performance only through an impartial test can also negatively affect graduation rates if low scores demoralize students.

The SAT and ACT Unfairly Affect Public School Funding

Because standardized testing data is a matter of public record, it affects funding for public schools. However, many private schools are exempt from state and federal testing requirements, which means that those students are not bound to the same testing cycle. Meanwhile, public schools that face more significant challenges can end up being cut off from the state and federal support they need if their test results are not making the grade.

It’s Unfair to Certain Types of Learners

In addition to being unfair to low-income students, standardized tests often misrepresent the academic abilities of English Language Learner (ELL) students and students with special needs . Although testing accommodations exist, these tests are still designed with a particular student in mind. Opponents of standardized tests argue that anyone who deviates from that ideal, for whatever reason, is automatically at a disadvantage.

The SAT and ACT Don’t Predict Future Success

Ideally, a standardized test would evaluate not just what a student knows already, but also his or her learning potential. After all, colleges that use the SAT and ACT do so because they want to admit students who will succeed on their campuses. But opponents of these tests point to research that suggests that, in fact, the SAT and ACT are poor predictors of student success at the undergraduate level.

Final Thoughts

Ultimately, students and families don’t always have much of a say in what standardized tests they do or don’t have to take. That decision is generally up to schools, school districts, college admissions offices, and graduate and professional programs. No matter where you come down on the arguments for and against standardized testing, there’s a good chance you’re going to have to take a few of them over the course of your education.

Nevertheless, being knowledgeable about the subject can make you a more informed and prepared test-taker. Knowing what the goals of these tests are, as well as their potential downsides, will ultimately be an advantage as you navigate the process. If you are wondering how you can start improving your grades and test scores, or if you’re looking for help designing a test strategy for you, reach out to one of our expert admissions consultants here !

Subscribe to our newsletter for college admissions news

Related articles from the spark admissions blog.

Which Colleges and Universities Will Be Test-Optional for the Class of 2025?

Categories: College Admissions

Which Colleges and Universities Will Be Requiring the SAT or ACT for the Class of 2025?

What Does Test Blind Mean?

Spark admissions has the highest college admissions success rate in the country..

Contact us to learn more about our admissions consulting services.

Schedule Your Free Consultation

Home — Essay Samples — Education — Pedagogy — Standardized Testing

Essays on Standardized Testing

Hook examples for standardized testing, anecdotal hook.

"Picture this: a stressed student sitting at a desk, pencil in hand, facing a standardized test that could determine their future. We've all been there, but what are the real consequences of these high-stakes exams?"

Rhetorical Question Hook

"Is standardized testing a fair and accurate measure of a student's knowledge and abilities, or is it merely a snapshot of their test-taking skills on a given day?"

Startling Statistic Hook

"In the United States, students take over 112 standardized tests on average by the time they graduate from high school. Are we truly measuring learning, or drowning in a sea of assessments?"

"Albert Einstein once said, 'Not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be counted counts.' How does this wisdom from one of the greatest minds in history apply to our obsession with standardized testing?"

Historical Hook

"Standardized testing has a long history dating back to China's imperial exams. How has this centuries-old practice evolved, and what lessons can we learn from its past?"

Narrative Hook

"Let me take you on a journey through the life of a student preparing for the SAT. Their experiences, challenges, and triumphs reveal the true impact of standardized testing on individuals."

Contrast Hook

"In an era of personalized learning and diverse educational approaches, standardized testing seems like a one-size-fits-all solution. But does it truly accommodate the unique needs and talents of every student?"

Emotional Appeal Hook

"Behind every test score is a student's ambition, a teacher's dedication, and a family's hopes. Standardized testing decisions can carry immense emotional weight—what happens when they don't align with our aspirations?"

Shocking Scenario Hook

"Imagine a world where students are reduced to mere test scores, where creativity and critical thinking are overshadowed by the pursuit of higher metrics. Is this the future we want for our education system?"

Curiosity Hook

"What if I told you that Finland, a country renowned for its educational success, has minimal standardized testing? Exploring this unconventional approach may challenge our notions of assessment."

Should Standardized Testing Be Abolished?

The pros and cons of standardized testing in education, made-to-order essay as fast as you need it.

Each essay is customized to cater to your unique preferences

+ experts online

The Impact of Standardized Testing on The American Education System

The issues and negative effects of standardized testing, the many downsides of standardized testing in schools, standardized testing should be abolished in american schools, let us write you an essay from scratch.

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

The Reasons Why Standardized Testing Should Be Abolished

Standardized testing - not a fair representation of kids’ intelligence, standardized testing as a form of competition in the education system, ainsworth’s strange situation: pros and cons, get a personalized essay in under 3 hours.

Expert-written essays crafted with your exact needs in mind

The Issues of Standardized Testing in No Child Left Behind Act

Negative effects of the distribution of standardized tests within american classrooms, the problems associated in the administration and scoring of standardized testing, a reflection on taking an implicit association test, the issue of double standards for iq testing, standardized testing in american colleges, a critical research on the effectiveness of college acceptance exams, are examinations a good measure of intelligence, standardized tests in education: controversies and alternatives, advantages and limitations of cat in education, the standardized testing debate: its role in college admissions, argumentative essay on standardized testing, standardized testing: a flawed measure of academic achievement.

A standardized test is a method of assessment built on the principle of consistency: all test takers are required to answer the same questions and all answers are graded in the same, predetermined way.

Achievement tests, Aptitude tests, College-admissions tests, International-comparison tests, Psychological tests.

Relevant topics

• Stem Education
• Service Learning
• Importance of Education
• Physical Education
• Academic Interests
• Academic Challenges
• Single Sex Schools
• Extracurricular Activities

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Bibliography

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

• Admissions Event Registration
• Admissions Inquiry
• Merit Scholarship
• SpiritWear Store
• Alumni Stories
• Parent Portal
• Whitby Difference
• Whitby Education
• Whitby Experience
• Whitby in the News
• Whitby Campus
• Parent Involvement
• Board of Trustees
• Head of School Search
• Stepping Stones
• Physical Education
• Cocurriculars
• Secondary School Counseling
• Community Service
• Signature Experiences

• Privacy Policy

The Pros and Cons of Standardized Testing

Whitby School

Standardized testing has ignited a national debate in the last few years (or decades), and many parents feel understandably concerned about their children being judged on the basis of tests that, in some cases, don’t seem to reliably correlate with actual learning or with successful college and career outcomes.

In the United States, both public and private schools use standardized assessments each school year. In public schools, students must undergo many tests to ensure they are meeting state or federal standards. Private schools have more leeway, although at Whitby we do require our students from Grade 2 on to complete the Comprehensive Testing Program from the Educational Records Bureau and the International Schools Assessment from the Australian Council for Educational Research.

At Whitby, we believe that standardized testing can benefit students—as long as it’s looked at in the right light. Below we’ll discuss some of the benefits of standardized assessments, as well as some of the ways standardised assessments can be negative for students.

Pro # 1. Standardized testing is a metric for learning

When Whitby students are assessed through standardized testing, we gain a valuable metric we can use to check the quality of our curriculum. With exams created and given by an independent organization, standardized test scores are useful because they come from a neutral source and give us data that we can compare to other independent schools across the United States and with other international schools across the globe.

Pro # 2. Standardized testing helps pinpoint areas for improvement

When we receive standardized test data at Whitby, we use it to evaluate the effectiveness of our education program. We view standardized testing data as not only another set of data points to assess student performance , but also as a means to help us reflect on our curriculum. When we look at Whitby’s assessment data, we can compare our students to their peers at other schools to determine what we’re doing well within our educational continuum and where we need to invest more time and resources.

Pro # 3. Standardized tests can help schools evaluate progress

Assessment data is also useful for year-over-year internal comparisons. We compare data over a number of years to find trends—and then trace any changes back to their source. If the math scores of our fourth grade students suddenly jump, we want to identify what change led to the improved performance, and how we can continue to implement this within our curriculum. We’re also able to use a student’s historical assessment data to monitor their progress and uncover any challenges they may need to overcome (as well as identifying places where they have already improved and excelled.)

Now let’s take a look at what we view as the most concerning aspects of standardized assessment:

Con #1. Test scores can impact confidence

A big disadvantage of standardized testing is that it’s easy to interpret a student’s score as the sole judgement of that student’s ability. We’re constantly emphasizing at Whitby that the number is only one point of data within an array of internal assessments across many subject areas that provide us with information on a student’s learning progress. There are many cases where students have demonstrated clear understanding within a subject or concept through various assessments, but aren’t as skilled at taking multiple choice tests. Nevertheless, it can be hard on a student if they feel that they didn’t perform as well as they’d like. In worst case scenarios, instead of determining the entire picture of learning through a review of all assessment data with their teachers, a student might determine their success based on a standardized test score that is taken once a year..

Con #2. There’s pressure to “teach to the test”

When standardized exams become all important in a school or district, it has a massive impact on teaching and learning. Educators frequently start “teaching to the test” if they feel that their evaluations (and jobs) solely depend on how well students perform. Educators may also stop trying new techniques and teaching methods in the classroom. With every minute counting on the way to their students’ next exam, teachers will worry that an untested method will backfire and their students will score worse than before. This comes at the cost of inquiry, engagement, creativity and risk taking in student learning.

Con #3. Scores don’t provide a true picture of a student’s ability

Far too many people wrongly assume that standardized testing data provides a neutral authoritative assessment of a child’s intellectual ability. Cultural factors, unfamiliarity with testing methods, test anxiety, and illness can wreak havoc with how well a student performs. For that reason, it’s important to dig deeper when looking at a student’s test scores. Does a low score indicate a lack of knowledge about the subject or a problem with taking the standardized test? For example, an excellent writer could struggle with picking out the right answer in a multiple choice grammar and punctuation test. Yet that same student could excel at composing well-thought out, logical essays about the literature they read and enjoyed in class.

It’s also easy to assume that students who score high in math are good at processing information and reasoning abstractly, but that’s not always the case. In fact, researchers have found that high standardized scores have little correlation with memory, attention and processing speed. High test scores could simply mean a student excels at rote memorization and multiple choice test taking.

Our Final Assessment

Standardized testing is truthfully a very difficult issue, because we do need internal and external assessments to measure student success. Assessments are useful when they’re used as data to help schools improve the quality of the teaching and learning. They become harmful, however, when tests are used to judge students’ natural abilities and when educators are put under pressure to “teach to the test.” Schools and parents should always look at standardized tests not as a value judgement on the student, but as an additional data point that can provide some perspective on student learning.

Topics assessment

You may also like:

Browse topics.

• Passion for Learning (33)
• Global Citizenship (22)
• Whole Child Development (21)
• inquiry-based learning (15)
• Parenting (14)
• Primary Years Program (14)
• International Baccalaureate (12)
• Summer Learning (12)
• Perspective (11)
• Technology (11)
• Digital Citizenship (9)
• lifelong learning (9)
• Community (8)
• Empowerment (8)
• Collaboration (7)
• language (7)
• Middle Years Program (6)
• Co-Curriculars (5)
• IB Schools (5)
• Innovation (5)
• Middle School (5)
• Montessori (5)
• IB Learner Profile Traits (4)
• Professional Development (4)
• Reflections (4)
• distance learning (4)
• educational trends (4)
• Athletics (3)
• E-learning (3)
• Makerspace (3)
• Mathematics (3)
• Student Assessment (3)
• whitby school (3)
• Coaching (2)
• Curriculum (2)
• Dominican Republic (2)
• Guest Speakers (2)
• Head of School (2)
• Lower School (2)
• Notes from the Classroom (2)
• Spanish language (2)
• Theater (2)
• cultural competency (2)
• individuals and societies (2)
• language immersion (2)
• social responsibility (2)
• social-emotional (2)
• student leadership (2)
• Admissions (1)
• Cross Country (1)
• Exhibition (1)
• Grade 4 (1)
• In the news (1)
• Perspective Unit (1)
• Secondary School (1)
• Sensory skills (1)
• Service (1)
• Tutorials (1)
• Unit of Inquiry (1)
• assessment (1)
• community service (1)
• competition (1)
• confidence (1)
• early childhood learning (1)
• emotional intelligence (1)
• empathy (1)
• executive functioning (1)
• goal setting (1)
• montesorri (1)
• sensory experiences (1)
• Admission Policy
• Mission and Vision
• Annual Reports

• Our Mission

What Does the Research Say About Testing?

There’s too much testing in schools, most teachers agree, but well-designed classroom tests and quizzes can improve student recall and retention.

For many teachers, the image of students sitting in silence filling out bubbles, computing mathematical equations, or writing timed essays causes an intensely negative reaction.

Since the passage of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) in 2002 and its 2015 update, the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), every third through eighth grader in U.S. public schools now takes tests calibrated to state standards, with the aggregate results made public. In a study of the nation’s largest urban school districts , students took an average of 112 standardized tests between pre-K and grade 12.

This annual testing ritual can take time from genuine learning, say many educators , and puts pressure on the least advantaged districts to focus on test prep—not to mention adding airless, stultifying hours of proctoring to teachers’ lives. “Tests don’t explicitly teach anything. Teachers do,” writes Jose Vilson , a middle school math teacher in New York City. Instead of standardized tests, students “should have tests created by teachers with the goal of learning more about the students’ abilities and interests,” echoes Meena Negandhi, math coordinator at the French American Academy in Jersey City, New Jersey.

The pushback on high-stakes testing has also accelerated a national conversation about how students truly learn and retain information. Over the past decade and a half, educators have been moving away from traditional testing —particularly multiple choice tests—and turning to hands-on projects and competency-based assessments that focus on goals such as critical thinking and mastery rather than rote memorization.

But educators shouldn’t give up on traditional classroom tests so quickly. Research has found that tests can be valuable tools to help students learn , if designed and administered with format, timing, and content in mind—and a clear purpose to improve student learning.

Not All Tests Are Bad

One of the most useful kinds of tests are the least time-consuming: quick, easy practice quizzes on recently taught content. Tests can be especially beneficial if they are given frequently and provide near-immediate feedback to help students improve. This retrieval practice can be as simple as asking students to write down two to four facts from the prior day or giving them a brief quiz on a previous class lesson.

Retrieval practice works because it helps students retain information in a better way than simply studying material, according to research . While reviewing concepts can help students become more familiar with a topic, information is quickly forgotten without more active learning strategies like frequent practice quizzes.

But to reduce anxiety and stereotype threat—the fear of conforming to a negative stereotype about a group that one belongs to—retrieval-type practice tests also need to be low-stakes (with minor to no grades) and administered up to three times before a final summative effort to be most effective.

Timing also matters. Students are able to do fine on high-stakes assessment tests if they take them shortly after they study. But a week or more after studying, students retain much less information and will do much worse on major assessments—especially if they’ve had no practice tests in between.

A 2006 study found that students who had brief retrieval tests before a high-stakes test remembered 60 percent of material, while those who only studied remembered 40 percent. Additionally, in a 2009 study , eighth graders who took a practice test halfway through the year remembered 10 percent more facts on a U.S. history final at the end of the year than peers who studied but took no practice test.

Short, low-stakes tests also help teachers gauge how well students understand the material and what they need to reteach. This is effective when tests are formative —that is, designed for immediate feedback so that students and teachers can see students’ areas of strength and weakness and address areas for growth. Summative tests, such as a final exam that measures how much was learned but offers no opportunities for a student to improve, have been found to be less effective.

Testing Format Matters

Teachers should tread carefully with test design, however, as not all tests help students retain information. Though multiple choice tests are relatively easy to create, they can contain misleading answer choices—that are either ambiguous or vague—or offer the infamous all-, some-, or none-of-the-above choices, which tend to encourage guessing.

While educators often rely on open-ended questions, such short-answer questions, because they seem to offer a genuine window into student thinking, research shows that there is no difference between multiple choice and constructed response questions in terms of demonstrating what students have learned.

In the end, well-constructed multiple choice tests , with clear questions and plausible answers (and no all- or none-of-the-above choices), can be a useful way to assess students’ understanding of material, particularly if the answers are quickly reviewed by the teacher.

All students do not do equally well on multiple choice tests, however. Girls tend to do less well than boys and perform better on questions with open-ended answers , according to a 2018 study by Stanford University’s Sean Reardon, which found that test format alone accounts for 25 percent of the gender difference in performance in both reading and math. Researchers hypothesize that one explanation for the gender difference on high-stakes tests is risk aversion, meaning girls tend to guess less .

Giving more time for fewer, more complex or richer testing questions can also increase performance, in part because it reduces anxiety. Research shows that simply introducing a time limit on a test can cause students to experience stress, so instead of emphasizing speed, teachers should encourage students to think deeply about the problems they’re solving.

Setting the Right Testing Conditions

Test achievement often reflects outside conditions, and how students do on tests can be shifted substantially by comments they hear and what they receive as feedback from teachers.

When teachers tell disadvantaged high school students that an upcoming assessment may be a challenge and that challenge helps the brain grow, students persist more, leading to higher grades, according to 2015 research from Stanford professor David Paunesku. Conversely, simply saying that some students are good at a task without including a growth-mindset message or the explanation that it’s because they are smart harms children’s performance —even when the task is as simple as drawing shapes.

Also harmful to student motivation are data walls displaying student scores or assessments. While data walls might be useful for educators, a 2014 study found that displaying them in classrooms led students to compare status rather than improve work.

The most positive impact on testing comes from peer or instructor comments that give the student the ability to revise or correct. For example, questions like , “Can you tell me more about what you mean?” or “Can you find evidence for that?” can encourage students to improve  engagement with their work. Perhaps not surprisingly, students do well when given multiple chances to learn and improve—and when they’re encouraged to believe that they can.