Kelsey Webb
Thursday, May 17

As students, we are valued by our finals, grade point averages, and letters that range from A to F. Most students will be able to tell you what percent their final was worth before they can remember what was on the final exam.
Paul Goodman, Howard Gardner, and Diane Ravitch discuss the system of testing and its flaws. Goodman states that "A good teacher can recognize the situation [of a qualified student flunking], but the computer wreaks its will." Goodman points out that the testing system as evolved but not enough. He concludes that grading should be abolished and testing should be used "only and entirely for pedagogic purposes as teachers see fit." I agree with the statement that teachers should be used to determine the quality and ability of a student, not a computer or a standardized exam. However, teachers must be qualified to make the assumption.
Gardner also finds flaws in the testing system, specifically with the time allotted for tests. He asks that every student be allowed extra time if they want it, not matter what their disability. Despite his assumptions and evidence, he received response letters both against and for his point of view. Thomas M. Johnson, Jr. makes a valid point that the standardized tests measure the "student's ability to perform under pressure." Garver Moore brings the harsh side to the issue by stating boldly that these types of tests, specifically the SAT, is not meant to make the test-takers feel good. Beyond the negativity, I really related to Janet Rudolph's comments. She is right; humans are not clones of each other, but are unique and talented in a variety of ways. "We humans do not fit into standardized boxes..."
Ravitch takes the alternative view point by defending tests. She agrees that the system is not perfect, by stating that tests used today “often rely too much on multiple-choice questions, which encourage guessing rather than thinking.” However, she stresses the importance of testing teachers as well. Ravitch uses the analogy of pushing someone into a deep pool before teaching them to swim is just the same as passing students that are unable to read or write. Tests are a way to ensure that a student is qualified to succeed to the next level of education.
The authors each make valid points, whether they are for or against implementing tests to students. I can’t say that I agree with one author completely, but rather with parts of each. Timing can put too much pressure on students, but how else can standards be used? Basically, tests need to be used to create qualified individuals. As a student pursuing a law degree, I want to be able to perform my job the correct way and I want to work with other qualified professionals. From the defendant’s point of view, I would not want to be represented by someone that skipped law school or failed their LSAT. My suggestion to the ideas on testing is to allow tests to change. The College Board should be considering alternative methods, maybe an ACT that isn’t entirely multiple choices. Perhaps the Writing Test (currently optional) should be required. Students need to be able to think before simply guessing A, B, C, or D.