Arguments Against Standardized Testing

The use of standardize tests have been increasing dramatically since 2002. It is mostly due to the implement of NCLB which assigned annul testing in all fifty states. In addition to that, NCLB use the standardized test score to indicate if students learn what they should have learned. Nonetheless, standardized tests are not a reliable measure of student performance. For instance, mass testing are usually conduct in multiple choice. Constructed response test question that requires thoughtful and creative response by student are usually too expensive to grade. Not to mention, the narrowed curriculum heavily concentrate on preparing students for a standardized test. Berliner writes, “many teachers noted the creative subjects were being squeezed

United States government believes that the pressure of high-stakes testing will close students’ achievement gap. When in fact, the high-stakes not only creates academic difficulty, but it also marginalize minorities. Initially, high-stakes testing forces educator to concentrate instruction most likely to be tested. It diminish the overall quality of learning as demonstrates by Natasha K Segool’s 2013 article “Heightened Test Anxiety Among Young Children: Elementary School Students' Anxious Responses To High-Stakes Testing,” Segool claims, “More students reported moderate test anxiety (59% vs. 44%) and fewer students reported low test anxiety (32% vs. 45%) about NCLB testing versus classroom testing. Overall, 25% of students reported increased test anxiety about the NCLB assessment and were reclassified into a higher test anxiety level” (496). Evidently, Student anxiety increase when they are apprehensive about the exams procedures and consequences. NCLB high stakes testing did not give student the motivation to learn and contribute a higher achievement. Instead, it actually creates more academic

Since the lack of alignment between standard and alternate exams, students with disabilities are expected to meet the same standard as the standard student. Yet, this creates a serious consequence for student with disability. In “High-States Testing and Student With Disabilities,” Antonis Katsiyannis suggests, “By allegedly failing to take into account the needs of students with disabilities, the defendants had created a test that left more than 500 students with disabilities statewide with possible denial of a diploma in the spring of 2004” (198). Student with disabilities and the other disadvantage subgroups are the only few that are not making AYP. For student with disabilities, they come across the most challenging academic obstacles. Despite student with disability are study in an unfavorable condition, many of them shows the intension to continue their education progress. Without commensurate achievement, we are dismissing the academic progress of student with disability. After all, the aspiration of NCLB was to benefit the disadvantage subgroup, and the United States government claims to equalize education opportunities for all student. In contrast, the effect of NCLB actually marginalized the disadvantage