Standardized Testing

Do higher test scores really mean smarter students?
Advocates for standardized testing claim that the tests are used to determine how effective a school is. If the students do not do well on the tests, the school is determined to need support in order to improve the way they teach. The tests supposedly contain information that determines the proficiency of a student and whether they are ready to move on to the next grade level. Advocates believe that they work to raise standards and make it so that students work to meet that level in order to move-on or graduate. (Frontline testing)

On the other hand, there are many more people who are opposed to standardized testing. They argue that standardized testing hinders creative thinking, redirects teaching methods and tests material that is more of less unimportant in the real world. The biggest argument I came across however, comes from Diane Ravitch, the author of The Death and Life of the Great American School System. She not only argues these points in her article In Need of a Renaissance, she goes even farther to say that they are "dumbing down the schools." She explains that testing has changed the way that teachers teach and that they are now teaching to the test rather than teaching important material. She says,

The schools will surely be failures if students graduate knowing how to choose the right option from four bubbles on a multiple-choice test, but unprepared to lead fulfilling lives, to be responsible citizens, and to make good choices for themselves, their families, and our society.

She continues with this and explains that the tests often evaluate a student's proficiency in reading and mathematics, but these are not the most important skills learned in school. What can be argued as more important in the long run is the want to learn, the ability to devise questions, to experiment with different ways of reaching an objective, and simply to be creative and think differently. These skills could never be tested in a multiple-choice test.
Even more shocking was her comments on states cheating on the tests in order to make their scores higher; this can be choosing specific students to take the test (or not to take the test) or they may even attempt to change their scores in one way or another.
In my opinion, Diane is absolutely correct. I have never been an advocate of standardized testing, mainly because I am not a good tester. I second guess myself during tests and make silly mistakes all the time. When I was applying to college I dreaded taking the SATs, knowing that I wouldn't get a very high score because I am also a very slow tester (time was always another issue for me). But even before then, we have the MCAS here in MA and it always just seemed really silly to me. I remember each year around MCAS time my teachers would stop in the middle of their lesson and do MCAS prep. If the tests are suppose to evaluate what we know, why do we need all this prep? This is a key example of teaching to the test...for 2 weeks in math we would work on nothing but past math problems that have been seen on the MCAS. Language Arts classes always included writing assignments that would be similar to those we would see on the MCAS and we would learn the way the graders would like to read the essays. This completely wipes out any opportunity for creativity when writing.

Another point she made that really stuck out to me was the constant search for short cuts and quick answers to improving education. This reminded me of a book I read called The McDonaldization of Society in which they explain that Americans want speed and efficiency in everything. It amazes me that we even see that in education; of all things to search for the most efficient means, I feel education should be left alone. If anything, teachers need to work harder and longer in order to successfully provide a quality education for their students.