Reforming Standardized Tests Most of my academic career has been spent preparing for standardized tests. Tests that, although at the time seemed unimportant and a waste of time, actually ended up shaping my academic future. In third grade, my Virginia SOLs determined whether I was eligible for vision classes, which are the elementary equivalent of AP classes. In fifth grade, a series of different tests determined whether I was placed in advanced classes in middle school and whether I could skip a math test. In high school, I had to pass a number of SOLs to graduate, but more importantly, I had to take the PSAT, SAT, and ACT, which overall determined where I am now. Throughout my years of taking these tests, I felt unprepared and felt the whole thing was pointless. Although the majority of my time in class was spent preparing for these tests, I did not see the point in taking them. For this reason, the conduct and performance of standardized tests should be reformed. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get an Original Essay Standardized testing constantly affects students every day, regardless of their grade level. Due to the No Child Left Behind Act signed by George W. Bush in 2002, all states are required to test all students in grades three through eight in reading and math (Klein). This law was signed to ensure that students, especially those in poorer school systems, learn. Although this concept is admirable and sounds good on paper, the effects have been the opposite. Many states failed to meet the quota of students passing the tests and the overall learning environment was greatly negatively affected (Klein). Due to the emphasis on math and reading, schools now tend to focus more on these two subjects than other subjects such as science, history and the arts. Tim Walker found that: “In a 2011 national survey, two-thirds of teachers said many academic subjects had been crowded out by the increased emphasis on math and language arts. About half said art and music were marginalized, while 40 percent said the same for foreign languages; 36 percent for social studies; and 27 percent for science. The results were particularly striking at the elementary level, where 81 percent of teachers said more time spent on math or language arts meant less time on other subjects” (Walker). Some students just aren't as good at math and English as they are in other subjects, but because of the emphasis on these subjects, they are seen as less intelligent when in reality, they are simply not not tested on their skills. This is not just about students, teachers must teach according to the rules. In my elementary, middle, and high schools, my teachers would get a book with everything we were supposed to be tested on, and from there, the teachers would get together and develop lesson plans together. Teachers did not have the opportunity to be creative and plan their own lesson plans, because if their students performed poorly on the test, it reflected the teacher's teaching. Another problem that arises with standardized testing at the elementary, middle, and high school levels is thatthe testing environment is stressful and scary. Children are not allowed to receive help on any of the questions and they are not allowed to talk or actually take breaks because these tests are timed (Mulholland). As a result, students who need to talk about their problems are punished, as well as those who take tests more slowly than their peers. It seems more like they are being interrogated rather than tested on their abilities. High school and maybe college students are capable of sitting still, but forcing a third or fourth grader to sit and take a multiple-choice test that takes hours is torture. Then teachers, whose job it is to help and nurture young minds, can only sit back and watch their students suffer, which completely undermines their job descriptions. A teacher described the helplessness of one of his students as follows: “She completely collapsed and I couldn't do anything to help her, I couldn't help her with the test. I could just let her take a little break at that point, but she was going to run out of time and she was watching the clock, she knew it” (Mulholland). Other teachers have reported that their students described these tests as describing their destiny, which in a way is somewhat true, but no ten-year-old should be put under that pressure, they are just children (Mulholland). Therefore, some changes need to be made in terms of testing young children. For starters, the way these students should be tested should be changed. Some students are better at multiple areas, some better at interactive methods, some better at writing. Regarding this idea, perhaps multiple assessments should be conducted, or a test should have several different items. If a child does not do well in the multiple choice section, but performs much better in the short answer section, this would reflect in the test scores and show that they are thinking differently about problems. They could also be tested in the form of projects, games or reports, as these not only test a student's abilities, but also how they work to get the answer. It gives students the opportunity to show their strengths, where regular standardized tests fail to see these abilities. Additionally, students could test more on subjects they are good at. For example, if a student wrote a report on the Revolutionary War, the newspaper itself would also test his English skills, and if it reported what percentage of colonists were soldiers, it would test his math abilities. The New York Performance Standards Consortium is a group of twenty-eight public schools that use these assessments instead of "normal" standardized tests, and students in these schools have had lower graduation and admission rates. higher university (Kamenetz). Higher graduation rates and college acceptances are what every school should be striving for and with the results these schools have achieved, schools should move more towards these ideas as it further helps students and teachers to long term. Anya Kamenetz believes that there should also be a test that tests students' social and emotional skills, because "research shows that at least half of the chances of long-term success are determined by non-academic qualities like courage, perseverance and curiosity” (Kamenetz). This could improve the way teachers teach, because if a child is notexcited about going to school every day, he won't be as motivated and his test scores won't be as good. A person's personality reflects a lot about them and their education. It is important for teachers to be aware of how their students feel about their school and their future because they have a big impact on whether students drop out, attend community college, apprenticeship or university. Standardized testing continues through high school. The SAT and ACT are required to apply to colleges, and more standardized tests are required to apply to graduate schools. These standardized tests make sense. Whether undergraduate or postgraduate studies, colleges and universities receive applications from across the country. The SAT, ACT, and other standardized tests for graduate programs are the best way to test every student equally. Where having a 3.5 GPA at one school may be more difficult than having a 4.0 GPA at another school, the SAT and ACT are the only tests where every student takes the exact same test. at the same time, regardless of state and county. Therefore, it makes sense for colleges to rely on scores because they can see where each student stands compared to other students in their class. The problem that arises with the SAT and ACT is the monetary problem. It costs money to take the SAT and ACT, and more so, where it's supposed to be a test that tests every student's basics equally, those with more money have an advantage. This problem arises when students pay thousands of dollars for courses to help them prepare for the test, or private tutors can help students prepare for the test. Dylan Hernandez describes that these tests that are “meant to be an equalizer in ranking students based on their raw test-taking skills were only widening the American achievement gap” (Hernandez). Hernandez, from Flint, Michigan, was exposed to this reality when he had the chance to attend a summer program at Phillips Exeter. There, in addition to college courses, they offered an optional SAT prep course, which amazed Hernandez as to why such smart and wealthy people would want to study even more (Hernandez). What he found was that these students from "Super ZIPS" (wealthy, educated neighborhoods) not only wanted to do well on the SATs, but also wanted to score well enough to put them "in the top percentile of students in the United States and make them National Merit Scholars in the fall” (Hernandez). It's amazing because, for me, my teachers and advisors told me and my peers to take the SAT and ACT once without studying to see how we did and then get ourselves a prep book and with that you should be fine, because as Hernandez mentioned, the test is designed in such a way that you are not supposed to study to get it. Hernandez describes the same phenomenon in his hometown, but says the secret he discovered through this program was that "to get into elite colleges, you have to train for standardized tests with the intensity of 'an athlete' (Hernandez). This doesn't seem fair, because a test that's supposed to be equal for everyone ends up determining whether or not you're lucky based on where you live/how much your parents make. Additionally, universities award scholarships based not only on GPAs, but also on test scores, so for the less fortunate, the poor, who need the scholarship money to go to,.