Before I jump into this debate it will be necessary to give a brief history on standardized testing, what it is and how it came about. As part of the research for my topic, I looked at a Frontline article on the PBS website called, “Testing Our Schools.” This article, which was produced by John D. Tulenko, documents interviews with educators, policy makers, and test makers in regards to the standardized testing debate. From this, I became informed about the history of standardized testing, which grew its roots when a1983 report titled, “A Nation at Risk,” said American schools were, “Drowning in a tide of mediocrity,” and threatening the countries economic stability (Testing Our Schools). This increase

I was informed of another negative side to testing when I looked at the website, “AlterNet.org,” which had an interesting article called, “Back to School: Corporate Standardized Testing,” written by Dennis Fox. AlterNet is a no-profit organization led by Don Hazen and Leda Dedrich. Hazen, the executive director, has an MA in counseling and a BA in politics from Princeton University. Dederich, the director of online projects, graduated with honors from UC Berkley’s Comparative Literature Program. From their article, I found that our nations private schools add even more controversy in the air of standardized testing, since they remain exempt from the policies of public schooling. Public school students will have to take the tests, while those parents rich enough to afford private schooling wont have to worry about potential failure. “That so many tests supporters-including many state legislators-send their own kids to private schools adds to the cynicism” (Back to School).

Fundamentally, the purpose is to measure the quality of schools and their students, creating new standards to be reached and consequences that will be felt when they are not. Many states are accordingly adopting so called, “High Stakes,” testing, termed so because of the serious nature of the tests outcome. For example, a high school senior will have to take a test that is strictly pass or fail that will determine whether or not the student may graduate. On a personal standpoint, I feel that these tests do have generally positive purposes, but when it comes down to weighing out the facts, they may actually be damaging to our youth. At a minimum, I feel that these tests are biased towards a large variety of students and are in need major reform. Students should not be drastically penalized by these tests until they prove themselves accurate and efficient, even if the road of change is an all-uphill battle.

Advocates also feel that comparably equal state and nation-wide tests would also unify the students as, “they learn the same material in a similar way” (High Stakes Testing). Teachers will also feel united amongst themselves and their pupils, since their agendas would share the same interests. In theory, if everyone is taught the materials in basically the same way, it will slowly separate the gap in successful and unsuccessful education. From this, the test supporters feel that educational standards will rise with new challenges, the tests acting as a, “springboard for discussion for students, parents and teachers” (High Stakes Testing). Also, the annual testing would pro

Some topics in this essay:
Stakes Testing, Jennifer Prescott, Schools Fundamentally, Education Reform, Rise Challenge”, Worth Risk”, Literature Program, Lani Guinier, Testing Teachers, John Tulenko, standardized testing, stakes testing, testing schools, history standardized testing, pass fail, history standardized, feel tests, private schools, commonly heard, testing intriguing, teachers feel,