In 2015 the SAT scores where the lowest grades in ten years. Honestly without the big SAT and PARCC testing, the world would be much easier. It would be less nerve racking. For instance, it would be more humane for the children. If the test scores are low, gives children stress, and the testing is inhumane, especially why are the poor little children, and teachers taking the test? No one needs to go through the situation of taking the SAT’s or any test.
One reason why children should not be taking the standardized test is because the children fail the test anyways. Accordingly to Harris, “Contrary to popular assumptions about standardized testing, the tests do a poor job of measuring student achievement. They fail to measure such important attributes as creativity and critical thinking skills. Studies
…show more content…
Especially for kids to take. Genuinely it does not seem like the people who made the test did not think of the pitty children, and they did not know what they were doing. Ferguson agrees and conveys “The first SATs were pitiless with time: 97 minutes to answer 315 questions”(Ferguson). If people are giving minors these convoluted test and do not give them enough time. That is inhumane. Additionally test givers do not show a valuable way of showing children acuity. At least someone is getting the point. "Even in assessing the goals that can be measured well, tests are generally very small samples of behavior that we use to make estimates of students' mastery of very large domains of knowledge and skill." So apart from not doing a very good job of measuring achievement in such areas as creativity or persistence, standardized tests have another serious limitation: whenever a small part of a domain is made to stand in for the larger whole, we must be very careful about the inferences we draw from the data we obtain”(Harris). This is inhumane because the test givers do not seem like they know what to do. Does anyone else realize