Reforming Standardized Testing Most of my academic career has been devoted to standardized test preparation. Tests that, although they seemed unimportant and a waste of time at the time, actually ended up shaping my future in academia. In third grade, my SOLs in Virginia determined whether I was eligible for vision classes, which are the elementary equivalent of AP classes. In fifth grade, a different set of tests determined whether I was placed in advanced middle school classes and whether I could skip a math test. In high school, I had to pass a certain number of SOLs to graduate, but more importantly, I had to take the PSAT, SAT, and ACT, which overall determined where I am now. During the years I spent taking these tests, I felt unprepared and thought it was all for nothing. Although most of my class time was spent preparing for these tests, I couldn't understand why I took them. For this reason, the creation and conduct of standardized tests should be reformed. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay Standardized tests consistently affect 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 third through eighth grades in reading and mathematics (Klein). This law was signed to ensure that students, especially those in poorer school systems, are learning. While this concept is admirable and looks great on paper, the effects have been opposite. Many states have failed to meet the quota of students who pass the tests and the overall learning environment has been greatly affected in a negative way (Klein). Because of 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 that many academic subjects had been left out by a greater focus on math and language arts. About half believe that art and music are marginalized, while 40% say the same for foreign languages; 36% for social studies; and 27% for science. The results were especially striking at the elementary level, where 81% of teachers reported that extra time spent on math or language arts meant less time for other subjects” (Walker). Some students are simply not as good at math and English as they are at other subjects, but because of the emphasis on them, they are considered not as smart when in reality they are simply not tested on what they are good at. This doesn't just affect students, teachers need to teach according to the rules. In my elementary, middle, and high school, my teachers were given a book that contained everything we needed to be tested on, and from that, the teachers met and planned lessons together. There was no room for teachers to be creative and plan their own lesson plans, because if their students performed poorly on the test, then it was a reflection of the teacher's teaching. Another problem that comes with standardized testing at the elementary, middle, and high school levels is that the testing environment is stressful and scary. Children are not allowed to receive help on any of the questions and is notThey are allowed to speak or take breaks because these tests are timed (Mulholland). As a result, students who need to discuss problems are punished, as are those who take the test more slowly than their peers. It feels more like they are being interrogated rather than tested on their abilities. High school and perhaps middle school students are capable of sitting still, but forcing a third or fourth grade student to sit down and take a multiple-choice test that takes hours to complete is torture. So, 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 description. A teacher describes the helplessness of one of her students as: “She had a complete meltdown and I couldn't do anything to help her, I couldn't help her with the test. I could have just let her take a little break then, but then her time would be up and she was looking at the clock, she knew it,” (Mulholland). Other teachers reported that their students described these tests as a description of their fate, which in a sense is true, but no ten-year-old should be put under such pressure, they are just children (Mulholland. Therefore, some changes need to be made in terms of testing young children to begin with, the way these students should be tested should be changed. Some students are better at multiple tasks, some interactively, some at writing. As for this idea, perhaps multiple assessments should be conducted, or a test should have several different items where if a child fails to do well in the multiple choice section, but does much better in the short answer section, then that would reflect in the test results and show that they think about problems differently. They could also be tested in the form of projects, games or reports because these not only test a student's skills but also how he works to get the answer. It gives students the ability to showcase their strengths, where regular standardized tests fail to see these abilities. Additionally, students would be able to test more on topics they are good at. For example, if a student wrote a report on the Revolutionary War, the paper itself would also test his English skills, and if they included the percentage of colonists who were soldiers, that would test his math skills. The New York Performance Standards Consortium is a group of twenty-eight public schools that use these assessments instead of “regular” standardized tests, and students at these schools have had higher graduation rates and college acceptances (Kamenetz). Higher graduation rates and college acceptances are what every school should be aiming for and with the results these schools have achieved, schools should lean more towards these ideas because they help students and teachers more in the long run. Anya Kamenetz believes 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 such as grit, perseverance and curiosity” (Kamenetz). This could improve the way teachers teach because if a child isn't excited about going to school every day, they won't be as motivated and won't do as well on tests. A person's personality reflects a lot on him and his education. It is important for teachers to beaware of how their students feel about their school and future because teachers have a big effect on whether students drop out, go to community college, apprenticeship schools or universities. Standardized testing continues through high school. The SAT and ACT are required when applying to colleges, and more standardized tests are required to apply to graduate schools. These standardized tests make sense. Whether undergraduate or postgraduate, colleges and universities receive applications from all over the country. The SAT, ACT, and other standardized undergraduate tests are the best way to test every student fairly. 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 exact same time, regardless of his state and county. Therefore, it makes sense for universities to rely on scores because they can see where each student stands compared to other students in their class. The problem that comes with the SAT and ACT is the monetary issue. It costs money to take the SAT and ACT, and especially where it should be a test that fairly tests each student's baseline, those with more money have an advantage. This problem occurs with students who pay thousands of dollars for tuition to help them prepare for the test, or with private tutors, who can help students prepare for the test. Dylan Hernandez describes that these tests, which were “supposed to be an equalizer in ranking students based on raw test-taking skills, did nothing but widen the American achievement gap” (Hernandez). Hernandez, of Flint, Michigan, was exposed to this reality when he was fortunate enough to participate in a summer program at Phillips Exeter. There, along with academic classes, they offered an optional SAT prep course, which left Hernandez stunned as to why such intelligent 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 they wanted to score good enough to place them “in the top percentile of students in the U.S. and name them National Merit Scholars in the fall,” (Hernandez). This is surprising because, to me, my teachers and counselors told me and my peers to take the SAT and ACT once without studying to see how we did, and then get a prep book and with that we should be okay, because as Hernandez said, the test is designed so that you don't have to study for it. Hernandez describes the same phenomenon in his hometown, but says the secret he discovered through this program was: "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 is supposed to be the same for everyone ends up determining whether or not you have any luck with where you live/how much your parents earn. Furthermore, colleges base scholarships not only on GPAs but also on test scores, so the less fortunate, the poor, who need the scholarship money to go to college, are given the share get the short end of the stick because richer people are given scholarships. Not because they are smarter, but because they were lucky enough to be able to afford expensive preparatory courses. Therefore, universities should consider whether or not students have taken preparatory courses in relation to,.