Standardized tests have been the bane of most student’s misery in their academic careers for well over 50 years now. Since their arrival in school systems across America they have become far more pressure-packed and omnipresent than ever before. Students are taking far more standardized tests in their academic careers then was once ever intended. Standardized tests were originally used as entrance exams for government jobs in China, in the Western world exams were favored stemming from the Greeks preference for using the Socratic method (Fletcher). As the Industrial Revolution took place and took kids off the farms and into schools the standardized test manifested itself into an efficient way to test large numbers of students quickly. The only problem with finding a way to test a large group of people in an efficient manner is that these tests do not consider the differences the students all have because of such a diverse population of student in our school system. Standardized tests are incapable of accurately measuring a student’s abilities or intelligence because they only measure analytical and memorization skills, the implementation of them in classrooms harshly affects the quality of learning, and the test are inherently bias at their core and cannot fairly measure student’s abilities on an even playing field.

When standardized tests were first introduced they made complete sense because the students who could afford to go to school at that time were all white males that were upper middle class and could afford to go to school and so the test could, to an extent, accurately test large groups of students. As the century began to progress and our country began to develop more, we learned three major things and noticed changes per Bob Sternberg, a very decorated professor at Cornell University. The first major change was that the population of students that were taking the test became much more diverse. There was no longer as many males or whites and people from diverse backgrounds, cultures, and socio-economic classes began to enter the school system and take these tests. The second thing we learned was that these tests were first introduced to step away from using one’s social class and wealth to determine college admission but instead it should be based on your ability and talent. A study showed that there was a direct correlation between socio-economic status and test scores and the test was no longer an accurate replacement for socio-economic status. The final thing we learned is that there is a wider range of skills needed to succeed then just the skills that standardized tests measure. 

Today, you need such a diverse range of skills to be successful in whatever it is you decide to do. The skills back in the early 1900s, when standardized tests were first introduced, are far different then what is needed today to be successful. You do need the memory and analytical skills that standardized tests do measure, but you also need to be creative and be able to adapt to an ever changing and evolving environment around you in a flexible way (Sternberg). You also need practical skills to execute your ideas and have the ability to convince others your ideas are for a common good. We continue to use these tests to try and gauge the ability of students to succeed and their intelligence but don’t consider the hundreds of other skills needed to be successful. Just because one student on a test can memorize the correct steps in an equation does not mean that same student has the common sense to make anything work in the real world which does not contain one specific equation for success, it requires the ability to adapt. So why are we using the same tests from 100 years ago when we know they can’t accurately measure a student’s abilities or intelligence? We don’t use the same medical practices from 100 years ago so why aren’t we adapting these tests to fit the needs of a very different society then what it once was? 

When thinking about standardized tests many think of how much they weigh on college acceptance and whether students pass or fail. What people tend to forget is the effect they have on the quality of learning in the classroom. These tests are “changing the nature of teaching, narrowing the curriculum, and limiting student learning” (National Council of Teachers of English).  With the increased number of standardized tests woven into the education system and the raised stakes of them they have severely changed the role of the teacher in the classroom. On top of teacher’s regular obligations, they are now being tasked with mundane tasks as a result from standardized tests like compiling, constructing and evaluating the data from the tests. One study has found that teachers lose between 60-110 hours of valuable learning time testing and the mundane tasks around it. Higher up officials in the school system are passing down mandatory subjects and materials that teachers are required to teach and use to prepare for standardized tests. The problem with this is that these officials are not in the classroom and interacting with the students every day, like a teacher is, so they can’t meet the actual needs of all the different students in a classroom. Teachers creative ability in the classroom is being stripped because of standardized testing and are taking away from the organic flow of creativity and intelligence that is supposed to naturally happen in a learning environment. 

Along with restricting the ability of teacher’s authority and quality of learning in the classroom, standardized tests directly impact students in a negative way. By placing a numerical value on a student and how intelligent he/she is, you are ultimately saying you are only worth how smart you are and all the other unique things that make you special, don’t matter. There are so many other qualities in life that make a student successful like curiousness and sociability and these tests are basically saying they don’t matter. Once a student has been lumped into the category of being “non-proficient” it is almost impossible for them to see themselves as anything more (NCTE). Research has shown that students who tend to do well on standardized tests are ones that think these tests are inaccurate and invalid measures of their ability and are just a mere way of playing the “game” of school (NCTE).  If we decide that a student is less or more then another student based on their level of academic success on standardized tests, we are making those with creative minds, who have often been some of the brightest minds in the past, but not as smart, believe that they cannot accomplish anything.

When real learning is taking place in the classroom it is most often driven by curiosity and the student is self-propelled to get to the bottom of that problem. Learning in a classroom is supposed to be natural and organic and when it meets these needs, most of the time it results in greater success and satisfaction from the student. In classrooms, instead of taking the slightly harder route of measuring what makes each individual student intelligent in their own way we have instead turned to the easier way of standardized tests. These tests measure insignificant abilities of the student and are instead measuring how well the student was taught information that is irrelevant. Using standardized tests that don’t accurately measure a student’s intelligence to shape their futures, determine the pay of teachers, establish the quality of school administrators or neighborhood schools is an injustice to all involved (Strauss & Brady). It is irresponsible of the test makers to ignore the problem of finding a way to measure original thought just because it might be slightly harder or more time consuming. Younger children often think in abstract ways and these tests chastise those who think outside the box and make them think they are not good enough.

Another flaw that riddles standardized testing is that they have been found by multiple studies to be inherently bias at their core. Shockingly, standardized tests tend to penalize women and other minority students to a greater extent than other groups. Women and minority students on average earn better grades in college then what was originally predicted by their test scores (Sacks).  Specifically, the SAT has been found to be one of the most biased standardized tests and it also happens to be one of the most widely used and recognized standardized tests in the country. The SAT has been criticized for many years now for the cultural advantage it provides for wealthy whites. Many blame the test for the widening gap between whites and minorities in regards to achievement. The critical reading and writing sections of the SAT are use topics that are most associated with the white demographic and the passages are frequently about subjects that, on average, white, upper class students have been more exposed to (Collins).

Studies have shown that standardized tests have many flaws and cannot accurately predict a student’s success in college past the first year, so why are we still using them as one of the heaviest factors in college acceptances? The National Center for Education Statistics claims the SAT is an aid for predicting the success of students in college, but the National Center for Fair and Open Testing claims that the test is only designed to predict the success of first-year college grads. The SAT has not been able to predict grades beyond that or graduation rates. Just like Jessica Weaver said “In a realistic situation, you would never be trapped alone in a room without resources. They may test whether or not you remember geometry from 10th grade, but they don’t have any real bearing on someone’s success…”

Just like with any controversial issue, there are those who are opposed to it and those who support it. Justin Baeder, a consultant and principle activist for the implantation of standardized testing, believes that if we are providing schools with tax dollars then why shouldn’t we have a way of holding them accountable for delivering results through standardized testing. He believes that standardized tests are crucial to providing basic information in how schools perform in comparison to each other and standardized are needed to identify injustices and achievement gaps in the school system (Baeder). Though it is true that there needs to be a way of holding schools accountable for results when using the tax payer’s dollars, we cannot rely solely on standardized tests for those results. For starters, when we put emphasis on standardized tests to determine whether schools will still receive funding we are taking focus off learning in the classroom and instead put that on solely passing these tests by means of memorization to keep the funds coming in. Baeder’s claim that standardized tests are needed to identify gaps and provide basic information are skewed because it has been proven that these tests are discriminatory, inaccurate and do not consider all the different aspects that make up a student’s success or their ability to succeed. I agree that there needs to be ways to hold school’s accountable and to measure the achievement gaps between schools, using a system that is outdated and proven to be discriminatory does a disservice to our education system and the students taking these standardized tests. 

The issue of standardized testing is not new and these conversations have been happening for years now. People refuse to listen to the problems that come with standardized testing because it has come to be a million-dollar industry through tests such as the ACT and SAT. Standardized tests do have benefits to them and when they were first introduced the intent was correct. Since then they have morphed into something that is negatively impacting students instead of doing its original purpose. If we want to keep standardized testing in our education system, we need to rework how they are constructed. Firstly, the tests need to be reworked so that they are fair to everyone regardless of race, gender, ethnicity or social class. 
