Tests, Are they for the Best?

Everyone is going to have their own opinions toward what they feel is the best way for testing. Some people believe that tests should be abolished, others just want them to be changed up a little and then there are some who do not want anything to change and think tests are given just as they should be given. Reading through three different opinions I came across things that i agreed with and other that I did not.
In Paul Goodman's opinion, he stated that he wished to see tests abolished. This I do not agree with. Yes, tests are strenuous, but at the same they are there to help the teachers or professors figure out who is understanding and who is not. With this type of information available to the teachers, they are able to change their ways of teaching for certain students. Without tests how else would the teachers know if the students are actually understanding or just saying that they do in order to be left alone. Goodman states that there are many good reasons for tests, but if they are aimed to discover weaknesses then they should not be given. In a way I agree with Goodman. Tests should not be what determines whether or not a person is held back or pushed up the ladder. It should simply be there for teachers' purpose to figure out how well they are teaching and if the students are understanding.
As for timing the tests I totally agree that they are meant for aptitude not speed. Howard Gardner made a good point when he included that students with special needs are allowed more time on specific test such as the SAT's. He asked why others that do not have problems taking tests are denied extra time during exams. I agree. Students that have special needs should be given extra time to take tests, but so should other students who just simply ask for that extra five minutes. How do we know if a student taking a test under a strict amount of time is going to do better than if they had all day to take the test? More than likely if we allowed students to take there time of certain tests we would see a higher grade average than those who were timed.
Granted this is a tough thing to decide because in all of these situations we have to know where to draw the line. One student should not be able to take all day to work on one test because if that was the case then there would not be anything getting accomplished in the schools. All that I am trying to get across is that students that do not have the special needs should also be allowed that take that extra ten to fifteen minutes if it is needed.
In Diane Ravitch's opinion, she made a good point of how to test should be set up or what they should consist of. I believe as well as Ravitch that a good test should consist of a mix of essay, problem solving, short answer, and even some multiple-choice questions. This allows students a greater change toward a higher grade. With these type of tests, if a person was not good at essay questions then they would be able to make it up throughout the rest of the test. And the same could go for any other person. If they had problems with a certain part of a test then if would be okay because then not all of the test would be set up in that type of format. They would have a mixed format, which would give some people a better chance of doing well on the tests.
With all three of the opinions, there was no right or wrong one that I was able to pick out. They all clearly stated their point of view and they all backed themselves up with examples that helped the readers better understand what they were getting across. Again, there were certain things in each opinion that I completely agreed with and there were some that I did not.