The Effects of Testing

17 May 07
Taylor Effling

In each of these three essays, the authors focus on the effects that testing and grading have on students in school. Each of these essays presents the problems associated with standardized testing and offers solutions to these problems.
In "A Proposal to Abolish Grading", Paul Goodman explains how grading by institutions is pointless and that each employer should rather have their own job-aptitude test . He suggests that parents and students would be the chief objectors to abolishing grading. I would have to agree, I believe that some parents are very competitive, they always want their child to be the best. Also, some students always want to get the highest grade and be the best, growing up I was much like this. Paul Goodman goes on to say, "if one can establish in the student the belief that one is testing not to grade and make invidious comparisons but for his own advantage, the student should normally seek his own level, where he is challenged and yet capable, rather than trying to get by." I agree with this also, too many times when a child doesn’t do well they label themself as being dumb. Once a child believes he isn’t as smart as the rest, they will stop trying, and think that they are incapable of learning or completing a task.
In Howard Gardner’s "Test for aptitude, Not for speed", he suggests that getting rid of timed tests would be effective as there are hardly any jobs in life which require great speed. I feel timed tests are important in some ways, they show that an individual knows that material better and is able to answer quickly. I agree that people with disabilities should be given more time and that they should screen for disabilities. Getting rid of timed tests would allow everyone a fair chance to finish and it would give a person time to show their total abilities. When a person knows they are being timed, they may feel an increase in pressure and anxiety. This may cause them to become nervous and not do as well as they would on an a test that wasn’t timed. I agree that most people probably wouldn’t take that much more time. Overall, not having timed tests would be most beneficial as everyone would have a fair chance to complete all problems to the best of their ability.
In Diane Ravitch’s "In Defense of Testing", she tells how no one likes testing, but it is necessary for our well being. Her statement, "test and standards are a necessary fact of life" seems very true to me. Exams in schools tell public officials how efficiently programs are working and where more money needs to be spent. I believe the No Child Left Behind Act is not necessary though. I think it is actually hurting our public school systems, as teachers are making the material easier just so all students can meet the requirements set by the act. I agree with Diane Ravitch’s idea of a good test, as many times multiple choice tests encourage guessing. On the Stanford Aptitude Tests as a younger child, I remember many of friends saying they just guessed on it to get done with it quicker. So many tests also include information which they don’t expect the average student to be able to answer, but they put it on there to see if any exceptional students can do it.
Every one of these essays provided good information about testing and grading within our school systems and the set backs and benefits associated with it. I feel standardized testing will always be a part of our education system. It seems to be the most efficient way, and also is cost effective. You would need a lot more people to correct a non-multiple choice test, rather than have a computer scan 100 tests/minute as it is now. I could see them doing away with time constraints though, as more and more people have trouble finishing the tests.