This research topic is particularly interesting to me because of a few reasons. First, I am a student, and I have personally been affected by standardized testing, especially during high school when I was applying to colleges. Second, I am an education major, so developing a stance on this very prominent debate is important in my field. That being said, I personally believe that a lot more goes into determining a student's progress than just one, or few, test. Some students suffer from test anxiety, and when a child is young, especially those in elementary school, this could stop them from progressing to the next grade level, or a high school student could be denied by a college because they did not score high enough on the SAT or ACT. A student could show amazing performance throughout the year only to have a test determine their fate. Standardized testing personally affected me when I was applying to colleges because my SAT/ACT scores were not high enough. I had a friend who did not receive the best grades in high school, but because he happened to do well on the SAT, he was accepted into Clemson University while I was offered a place in the bridge program. Though I was not particularly interested in Clemson University, it did affect my view on how good of a student I am. If affected my overall view on my ability to take tests and I questioned my performance in the classroom. This experience makes me qualified to discuss standardized testing because of my past and my future in education. 


In Alfie Kohn's article "The case against standardized testing: raising the scores, ruining the schools," he answers the most commonly asked questions that address the sacrifices made on behalf of students in order to drive their test scores upward. He backs up his claim with supporting evidence that condemns the negative side effects of standardized testing and how imperfect the tests are. The author, Kohn, values fair and accurate testing on behalf of students in order to show their true abilities, and his opinions are credible due to the fact he is a Brown University graduate who has spent many years studying, writing, and lecturing in the areas of education, parenting, and human behavior. The authors of "Standardized Testing: Harmful to Educational Health," D. Monty Neill and Noe J. Medina, summarize their article by saying how test scores limit programs students can enter as well as their placement in schools. They continue by giving evidence on how the quality of standardized tests are poor, and in turn when tests continue to shape curriculum, students are stuck in a vicious cycle of inaccuracy. The credibility of their claims becomes valid through their backgrounds. Monty Neill is the current executive director for The Center for Fair and Open Testing (FairTest) and has an extensive background with initiated national and state coalitions of education, civil rights, and other organizations that work toward the fundamental changes on the assessment of children. Noe J. Medina is a published author in the topics of class, race, gender and equality, making him aware of the fallacies of standardized testing. The final article "Standardized Testing from the Administrative Perspective," by Lee Sproull and David Zubrow, discuss the topic of standardized testing with school officials to personally get accurate results on how testing affects more than just the student. They discuss how administrators' jobs have been at risk because of their students' performances on tests, and therefore teachers are shaping their curriculum to meet standards. In 


conclusion, administrators prefer information other than test score when making evaluations about students, and they believe a lot more goes into a child's future. Both Lee Sproull and David Zubrow work at Carnegie-Mellon University, and their work in this article is supported by a grant from the Carnegie Corporation of New York. 

The discussion on whether standardized testing should be considered a major mile marker when determining student progress is debatable in terms of measuring a students' progress. Some people believe that a student should be able to show their abilities on paper, thus creating a standard of tests all students should be able to not only complete, but pass as well. On the other hand, scholars recognize that there are more to students than a test. Some students suffer from test anxiety, or they simply perform better without the pressure. Most scholars can agree that there should be a proper way to measure student success, but measuring their success with unfair testing is not a solution. Rather, students should be observed and show performance on informal testing such as projects. The perspective of my sources generally line up and validate my beliefs behind standardized testing, concluding that these tests are inaccurate representations of student ability. 
