In “What are the Pros and Cons of Standardized Testing,” Spark Admissions argues two outlooks on standardized testing. Standardized testing is any mandatory test that everybody in an area has to take, and they all have to do them under certain conditions. Some examples are SC Ready, MAP, SC PASS and the ACT. Students take these tests to measure their knowledge on a topic and compare them with other students. Standardized testing should not be required in schools because it can cause students to lose confidence in themselves, students with more wealth are the ones more likely to succeed, and the tests are unfair to some students with special needs.
To begin with, standardized testing should not be required in schools because it can cause students to lose confidence in themselves. Spark Admissions mentions this in paragraph 14, saying “Another argument is that standardized testing causes otherwise successful students to lose confidence in themselves and their abilities.” This means that if students get a score or grade they aren’t comfortable with they could start thinking they aren’t good or smart enough. Therefore, standardized testing should not be required in schools because students losing confidence in themselves
…show more content…
Spark Admissions makes this point in paragraph 12 when they say “In fact, research suggests that the best predictor of success on the SAT is socioeconomic status rather than one’s education or grade level.” This means that even if an unwealthy kid is smarter than a wealthy one, the wealthier kid is more likely to succeed on these standardized tests. This proves that standardized testing shouldn’t be required because the tests are supposed to show improvement and education on a topic. Even while draining confidence and only measuring wealth, these tests also are almost never fair to students with special