I am interested in this research question because I don't think it is a topic that is talked about enough, and when it is talked about it just gets brushed away. Whether it is the SAT, ACT, or the different standardized tests distributed in elementary schools, I think a lot of money and time is wasted. From my personal experience, the standardized tests throughout elementary school required at least a month's preparation. This preparation took away from whatever we were learning because instead of it being about something interesting, we would come up with a strategy on how to answer the most multiple choice questions in the allotted time. Our time spent in class learning how to problem solve was replaced with learning how to make an educated guess in a short time frame. Luckily, I did not experience test anxiety, but for those kids who did it was unfortunate because they were stressing out for no reason. The standardized tests that I took when I was younger were mostly used as a reflection of the school instead of a reflection of the child, so it was okay if you didn't get the highest grade. I am qualified to write about this topic because I have experienced it first hand and have witnessed the many consequences of standardized testing. 

In Sasha Zucker's "Fundamentals of Standardized Testing", she goes through the reasons that these tests were implemented in the first place, and the components of the tests. The main goals of the tests are to measure the student's knowledge, improve overall teaching, and help the students succeed going forward. 

One of the main reason's that Zucker states as to why these tests are important is that they create an equal platform between the different teachers, and remove any potential bias. This way all of the students have the same chance to succeed. Another reason for the tests is so that the school districts can be held accountable for their academic standards and can easily be identified if they need improvement.

Sasha Zucker provides us with a fairly credible source because it was published in the Pearson's assessment report. Zucker also references the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 and explains how it is related to standardized testing. Zucker is obviously biased towards standardized testing as she has evidence to back up why she supports it. 

The Phi Delta Kappa published a journal made up of interviews with teachers where they discussed the negative affects of standardized testing. These teachers talk about how the standardized tests have narrowed the curriculum that they have time to teach. They have also taken the fun out of learning for the children and teaching for the teachers.

The teachers featured in the journal expressed concern over the loss of hands on learning and subjects such as science. The preparation for standardized testing takes up so much classroom time the teachers are forced to cut back on certain areas. The teachers were also unhappy with the unnecessary stress that they saw their students experiencing because of the tests. 

The journal published in The Phi Delta Kappa is a credible source because it is a compilation of interviews with teachers, who are a reliable source given the fact that they administer the tests. It is clear that these teachers are against standardized testing because of what it has done to their classrooms.

The Washington Post article "Elementary School Teachers: How PARCC Is Affecting Our Classrooms" includes an open letter from a superintendent who has chosen to express his own concerns with the standardized test. He feels as thought it diminishes the student's love for learning, does not accommodate all styles of learning, and takes away from real classroom learning.

The letter expresses concern about the loss of real math and reading that is replaced with learning how to skim a passage and answer the questions in the 75 minutes that the test allows. This is not proper learning, and the letter also mentions how this type of learning is not what is going to inspire kids to want to learn.

This article is credible because along with the authors short summary of the letter, the actual letter was also published making the article both a primary and a secondary source. This article is strongly against standardized testing because of the "fake" learning that it introduces, along with the fact that it doesn't account for different learning abilities. 

My research question is arguable because some people agree with standardized testing and what it stands for, and others don't. I can prove this through the sources that I have found. There were no real agreements between my articles that were against and supporting standardized testing. There were agreements with my articles that were against testing, including a loss of valuable learning time, and how it doesn't make the children love to learn they way they should. The different perspectives of the sources helps me get a better understanding of the argument as a whole, but they do not necessarily change where I stand on the subject. Unless, of course, it is against testing. One thing that I definitely have to do as I move forward in the writing process is focus my research question on a specific negative affect of standardized testing. That way, my final paper will be more concise rather than all over the place.
