Majority of students in the United States will take some form of a standardized test. Usually, we will have taken either aptitude or achievement formats of standardized tests, and on average, each student takes approximately 112 standardized tests from kindergarten to 12th grade. Students remain in testing conditions for 25 hours a year which accounts for 2.34% of the school year (Waldman). A simple, innocent look towards the standardized testing system may present an illusion of equality and fairness for all students in the public schooling system. However, true analysis of the scoring methods and scores themselves reveal a different story. A story that shows the faults in testing students repetitively over their primary educational years.

Starting in 2002, President George W. Bush signed the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). A heavily bipartisanship effort led to the increase of federal involvement in educational accountability. School would be evaluated on their students performances based primarily on tests. These tests were administered at the state level, and cut-offs for proficiency would also be determined at the state level. It required all schools to record 100% proficiency, or there would be consequences, mostly financial. Due to this heavy stress of high academic performance, focus shifted to standardized testing as it became the “be-all and end all of education” (Ravitich). Yet, the sudden shift to repetitive testing resulted in no change in scores, and they occasionally decreased compared to previous years. A proposal to increase the standards of American education actually left the institution in a degraded place.

Beyond scores and performance, NCLB did not fulfill on the ideological values of true education. There is a rise in a new testing atmosphere that requires teachers to “teach to the test”. It has overtaken the education system in that the pressure of academic performance has led to significant curriculum changes. Initially, schools had to shift their ideology to tests, so art programs, extracurriculars, electives, and more would be cut from schedules (Kohn). Even after schools cut these programs in hopes of improving their scores, federal funding would be low, so the programs would often never return afterwards. NCLB paved a faulty road for our educational system, leaving it in scraps today.

The program has been updated with newer initiatives such as the Race to the Top and Every Student Succeeds Act, both under President Obama’s administration. However, with these new interventions, there were still issues of heavy testing. Beyond that, even more monetary rewards were granted for improved testing performance; whereas, that money could have been granted to the loss of programs that had been cut by many schools earlier.

The tests are also becoming heavily criticized for the reflection it creates on socioeconomic status. There is an overwhelming correlation with scores and student performances to the economic background of families and the community (Kohn). Students that come from supportive and well-off communities score better compared to those from poorer and minority communities. These links are easily explained by accessibility and resources in different areas. Places that are considered to be well-off will have greater opportunities in allowing their students to learn the proper material for the tests. Test-prep centers are growing across the nation. In fact, some schools with the appropriate resources offer it to their students themselves. Underserved communities, on the other hand, suffer from lack of proper classroom sizes, supplies, and instruction. Ironically, it is these same schools that are funded less due to their low performances on tests.

There has been increased discussion about what the possible alternatives are and what new initiatives can be passed to prevent the same mistakes from occurring again. Ideas have been floated to decrease testing times by redefining some purposes of tests. The hope is to change perspective on teaching students valuable content, instead of eliminating creativity from classrooms (Waldman). There is continued research being conducted on individualized education as well as international systems. There is still work being done.

Overall, schools are still being tested heavily across all ages. Previous initiatives with goals of elevating the American education system to higher standards have actually resulted in an opposite effect. The initiatives have increased pressure on school administrations and increased pressure on students. The true value of education has been lost at times, and we are now trying to find our way back to allow every student to succeed.

Works Cited:

Kohn, Alfie. “Fighting the Tests: A Practical Guide to Rescuing Our Schools.” Alfie Kohn, 11 Jan. 2015, www.alfiekohn.org/article/fighting-the-tests/.

Ravitch, Diane. “The Common Core Costs Billions and Hurts Students.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 23 July 2016, www.nytimes.com/2016/07/24/opinion/sunday/the-common-core-costs-billions-and-hurts-students.html.

Waldman, Caroline. “TESTING OVERLOAD?: New Study Finds U.S. Students Are Spending Time Taking Redundant Tests.” Alliance For Excellent Education, 10 Nov. 2015, all4ed.org/articles/testing-overload-new-study-finds-u-s-students-are-spending-time-taking-redundant-tests/.