This house would end national testing

National testing will result in teachers "teaching to the test". Students will be taught how to take tests instead of learning skills and knowledge that will help them become good citizens. This is because teachers will be judged based on how well their students do at tests, not on other important things like whether they are better behaved, more confident or learning faster. As Charles Murray describes, his children's school lost their best English teacher because he said 'I want to teach my students how to write… not teach them how to pass a test that says they can write’[1]. With national testing, they will become good test takers but will miss out on the joy of learning for learning’s sake. Subjects like art and music that are not covered on the national tests could be cut so that more time can be spent teaching students to pass the test[2]. Children’s education would become focused on a yearly test.

Teaching to the test" happens only when schools decide to test without changing what and how they teach. A good teacher using their time properly will be able to teach both the skills necessary for the national test, and the 'life skills' needed to be a good citizen. In the United Kingdom for example, fifteen schools account for around one third of places at its top university, Oxford¹.This is despite the fact that all students take the same tests. These good schools, with the best teachers, are able to provide both the teaching required to get the best grades and the important life skills. Therefore, national testing does not have to lead to teachers 'teaching to the test'. Anyway, there is little to worry about; the school day allows plenty of time for students to learn the information for tests and still take part in additional activities and attend classes that teach more of the life skills.
¹ Cook, C. (2011, July 8). Elite schools take third of Oxbridge places. Retrieved July 11, 2011, from Financial Times:

improve this

Using a national test to check if schools and their teachers are good enough, or if students are learning fast enough, is not right. It is unfair on students, and will lead to good teachers being forced out of their jobs, making problems worse. Teachers point out that they are being judged on results, but that results are affected by other things, like the size of classes and the background of the student. A better option is to look at everything the student has done, not simply one test. Instead of testing a student on just one day, an assessment should use teacher reports, teacher-created tests, and student presentations that take place over the entire school year. In other words, they should ask 'did the child's knowledge and skills grow at least one year's worth? That is the important question, not whether this third grade scores better than the previous year's third grade.'¹This would especially benefit students who are not good test takers. Finland is one such example of a state that has no national testing, the government instead looks at an '8 to 10 per cent sample of pupil's work to check on performance'². Finland is the same country which has consistently been ranked the world's best education system for almost all of the past decade².
¹ McClatchy. (2008, December 11). Commentary: No Child Left Behind needs revision. Retrieved July 8, 2011, from McClatchy: 
² Garner, R. (2011, June 6). Are Finnish schools the best in the world? Retrieved July 12, 2011, from The Independent:

improve this

A national testing is the fairest means to judge the quality of schools, teachers and students. Schools and teachers know what they will be judged on at the start of each year; they are aware of what they have to teach and if their students do not do well, they should be held responsible for that failure. It make schools and teachers answerable for what goes on in the classroom. If schools and teachers are doing a good job, they have nothing to fear.
As for students themselves, English teacher Stephanie Butler says 'If I don't know the weaknesses of my students, how can I know best to help them?'.¹ A national test is therefore necessary to judge students, both for the teachers, planning lessons, and the government as a whole, which takes that information and uses it to give funding to weaker schools.
¹ ABC News. (2007, May 29). Report Child: No Child Left Behind. Retrieved July 8, 2011, from ABC Good Morning America:

improve this

The idea of national testing may seem like a good idea until you start to actually try to agree the standards that teachers must teach to. Agreeing what must be taught is difficult enough in a local setting; nationally such agreement is probably not achievable. Which historic figures should all students learn about? What parts of history are most important? Should creationism be taught in science or religious education? Maribeth Wilkerson, a graduate student of education, argues 'public schools are serving a particular community, so for that community to not have a say in what's taught and how doesn't seem right'¹. Also, and partly as a result, good standards are difficult to come up with. Standards are either too vague so that the test-makers and teachers do not know what material to focus on, or they are too detailed so that teachers and students are swamped by the large number of subjects that must be covered. For instance, in the United States, standards are expected to improve with time, leading to fears that even if schools and students improve, they will not do so quick enough to meet national expectations². Some even fear that 'by 2014, virtually every school across our country will have failed the unrealistic mandates of No Child Left Behind'², the program that enforces national testing.
¹ Curtis, D. (2011, July 11). Local educators want to take back schools: Will march on Washington July 30. Retrieved July 12, 2011, from Fosters:
² RDF. (2011, July 10). 'No Child' has schools left behind. Retrieved July 12, 2011, from Redlands Daily Facts

improve this

Developing acceptable national standards is not easy, but other countries have demonstrated that creating a good standard of tests that inspire students and teachers is possible. Excellence is created by bringing together the right people, examining textbooks, and looking at standards already put in place by many national teachers' associations. In the United States, the quality of education that students receive previously depended on what state, county, and town they live in. This broke the principle of equality that is a key part of the values of the country. If all teachers are aware of the expected standards their students should be attaining, the quality of education for all children can go up.

improve this

Teachers and parents, who pay most of the school costs, either through taxation or fees, should be able to choose what is taught there. Particularly in large countries, schools across the country are very different and should be able therefore to teach different things. However, national testing means that every school would have to teach the same information to their students. In the United States, each state has previously set its own curriculum (set of courses) and tests - after all, they pay 90% of the costs of schooling¹. When national testing was introduced however, communities were forced to replace their own testing methods with the national test. This therefore removes the right of communities to run their schools as they feel is best.
¹ Wallis, C., & Steptoe, S. (2007, May 24). How to fix No Child Left Behind. Retrieved July 8, 2011, from Time

Most schools already are similar, even if they don't realise it. Most high school students are preparing for the same college entrance exams and so have to study what is needed to do well in these tests. Also, only a few textbook makers produce texts for high school students so most schools having to teach similar courses anyway. Furthermore, to allow local teachers and parents to determine what is taught in their own schools can only lead to a big gap between the quality of learning in one school as opposed to another. Teachers and parents in rich parts of the country are going to be better at creating a curriculum for school-children, therefore the government, to be fair, should pick the best one and make all schools teach it.

Any system of standardized testing (where everyone is given the same test) assumes that all students learn at the same rate. But this is not the case. Talented students and un-talented students should not be measured by the same test. Handing down a standard national test from the top is bound to end up with a "one-size-fits-all" result that doesn't suit the weakest or the best students. In the United Kingdom, national testing was introduced in 1988. By 2002, 90% of students at the best schools got the top grade, whilst 300,000 of the United Kingdom's worst pupils failed to pass. The national test 'has not only become too easy for the academically able, but it is still too difficult for the bottom 40 per cent, who cry out for… courses to help them make sense of their last three years of compulsory schooling’[1].  A ‘one-size-fits-all’ national test does not adequately measure the ability of the student, and fails to motivate students in their education. The best students find them too easy, the worst students find them too difficult.

[1] Clare, J. (2003, August 5). One-size-fits-all exams fail the worst as well as the best. Retrieved July 11, 2011. 

improve this

Standardized testing is not perfect, but it helps to sets useful standards that help student learning. It is important that a nation has a general frame of reference on where students should, on average, be at various stages in their education. Standardized testing helps do this by setting a baseline level of achievement at each grade, where the average student is expected to be. While some students may perform above or below this standard, the important thing is judging the general educational trends across society, so that governments can help guide their national educational system onto a globally competitive path.

improve this

National testing will result in teachers "teaching to the test". Students will be taught how to take tests instead of learning skills and knowledge that will help them become good citizens. This is because teachers will be judged based on how well their students do at tests, not on other important things like whether they are better behaved, more confident or learning faster. As Charles Murray describes, his children's school lost their best English teacher because he said 'I want to teach my students how to write… not teach them how to pass a test that says they can write’[1]. With national testing, they will become good test takers but will miss out on the joy of learning for learning’s sake. Subjects like art and music that are not covered on the national tests could be cut so that more time can be spent teaching students to pass the test[2]. Children’s education would become focused on a yearly test.

Teaching to the test" happens only when schools decide to test without changing what and how they teach. A good teacher using their time properly will be able to teach both the skills necessary for the national test, and the 'life skills' needed to be a good citizen. In the United Kingdom for example, fifteen schools account for around one third of places at its top university, Oxford¹.This is despite the fact that all students take the same tests. These good schools, with the best teachers, are able to provide both the teaching required to get the best grades and the important life skills. Therefore, national testing does not have to lead to teachers 'teaching to the test'. Anyway, there is little to worry about; the school day allows plenty of time for students to learn the information for tests and still take part in additional activities and attend classes that teach more of the life skills.
¹ Cook, C. (2011, July 8). Elite schools take third of Oxbridge places. Retrieved July 11, 2011, from Financial Times:

improve this

Using a national test to check if schools and their teachers are good enough, or if students are learning fast enough, is not right. It is unfair on students, and will lead to good teachers being forced out of their jobs, making problems worse. Teachers point out that they are being judged on results, but that results are affected by other things, like the size of classes and the background of the student. A better option is to look at everything the student has done, not simply one test. Instead of testing a student on just one day, an assessment should use teacher reports, teacher-created tests, and student presentations that take place over the entire school year. In other words, they should ask 'did the child's knowledge and skills grow at least one year's worth? That is the important question, not whether this third grade scores better than the previous year's third grade.'¹This would especially benefit students who are not good test takers. Finland is one such example of a state that has no national testing, the government instead looks at an '8 to 10 per cent sample of pupil's work to check on performance'². Finland is the same country which has consistently been ranked the world's best education system for almost all of the past decade².
¹ McClatchy. (2008, December 11). Commentary: No Child Left Behind needs revision. Retrieved July 8, 2011, from McClatchy: 
² Garner, R. (2011, June 6). Are Finnish schools the best in the world? Retrieved July 12, 2011, from The Independent:

improve this

A national testing is the fairest means to judge the quality of schools, teachers and students. Schools and teachers know what they will be judged on at the start of each year; they are aware of what they have to teach and if their students do not do well, they should be held responsible for that failure. It make schools and teachers answerable for what goes on in the classroom. If schools and teachers are doing a good job, they have nothing to fear.
As for students themselves, English teacher Stephanie Butler says 'If I don't know the weaknesses of my students, how can I know best to help them?'.¹ A national test is therefore necessary to judge students, both for the teachers, planning lessons, and the government as a whole, which takes that information and uses it to give funding to weaker schools.
¹ ABC News. (2007, May 29). Report Child: No Child Left Behind. Retrieved July 8, 2011, from ABC Good Morning America:

improve this

The idea of national testing may seem like a good idea until you start to actually try to agree the standards that teachers must teach to. Agreeing what must be taught is difficult enough in a local setting; nationally such agreement is probably not achievable. Which historic figures should all students learn about? What parts of history are most important? Should creationism be taught in science or religious education? Maribeth Wilkerson, a graduate student of education, argues 'public schools are serving a particular community, so for that community to not have a say in what's taught and how doesn't seem right'¹. Also, and partly as a result, good standards are difficult to come up with. Standards are either too vague so that the test-makers and teachers do not know what material to focus on, or they are too detailed so that teachers and students are swamped by the large number of subjects that must be covered. For instance, in the United States, standards are expected to improve with time, leading to fears that even if schools and students improve, they will not do so quick enough to meet national expectations². Some even fear that 'by 2014, virtually every school across our country will have failed the unrealistic mandates of No Child Left Behind'², the program that enforces national testing.
¹ Curtis, D. (2011, July 11). Local educators want to take back schools: Will march on Washington July 30. Retrieved July 12, 2011, from Fosters:
² RDF. (2011, July 10). 'No Child' has schools left behind. Retrieved July 12, 2011, from Redlands Daily Facts

improve this

Developing acceptable national standards is not easy, but other countries have demonstrated that creating a good standard of tests that inspire students and teachers is possible. Excellence is created by bringing together the right people, examining textbooks, and looking at standards already put in place by many national teachers' associations. In the United States, the quality of education that students receive previously depended on what state, county, and town they live in. This broke the principle of equality that is a key part of the values of the country. If all teachers are aware of the expected standards their students should be attaining, the quality of education for all children can go up.

improve this

Teachers and parents, who pay most of the school costs, either through taxation or fees, should be able to choose what is taught there. Particularly in large countries, schools across the country are very different and should be able therefore to teach different things. However, national testing means that every school would have to teach the same information to their students. In the United States, each state has previously set its own curriculum (set of courses) and tests - after all, they pay 90% of the costs of schooling¹. When national testing was introduced however, communities were forced to replace their own testing methods with the national test. This therefore removes the right of communities to run their schools as they feel is best.
¹ Wallis, C., & Steptoe, S. (2007, May 24). How to fix No Child Left Behind. Retrieved July 8, 2011, from Time

Most schools already are similar, even if they don't realise it. Most high school students are preparing for the same college entrance exams and so have to study what is needed to do well in these tests. Also, only a few textbook makers produce texts for high school students so most schools having to teach similar courses anyway. Furthermore, to allow local teachers and parents to determine what is taught in their own schools can only lead to a big gap between the quality of learning in one school as opposed to another. Teachers and parents in rich parts of the country are going to be better at creating a curriculum for school-children, therefore the government, to be fair, should pick the best one and make all schools teach it.

Any system of standardized testing (where everyone is given the same test) assumes that all students learn at the same rate. But this is not the case. Talented students and un-talented students should not be measured by the same test. Handing down a standard national test from the top is bound to end up with a "one-size-fits-all" result that doesn't suit the weakest or the best students. In the United Kingdom, national testing was introduced in 1988. By 2002, 90% of students at the best schools got the top grade, whilst 300,000 of the United Kingdom's worst pupils failed to pass. The national test 'has not only become too easy for the academically able, but it is still too difficult for the bottom 40 per cent, who cry out for… courses to help them make sense of their last three years of compulsory schooling’[1].  A ‘one-size-fits-all’ national test does not adequately measure the ability of the student, and fails to motivate students in their education. The best students find them too easy, the worst students find them too difficult.

[1] Clare, J. (2003, August 5). One-size-fits-all exams fail the worst as well as the best. Retrieved July 11, 2011. 

improve this

Standardized testing is not perfect, but it helps to sets useful standards that help student learning. It is important that a nation has a general frame of reference on where students should, on average, be at various stages in their education. Standardized testing helps do this by setting a baseline level of achievement at each grade, where the average student is expected to be. While some students may perform above or below this standard, the important thing is judging the general educational trends across society, so that governments can help guide their national educational system onto a globally competitive path.

improve this

National testing, and the public information they provide, can allow parents to choose between schools for their children. In the United States, if a school fails to meet targets two or more years running, the school must offer children the chance to transfer to higher-performing local schools, receive free tutoring, or attend after-school programs. It also must provide information for parents by requiring states and school districts to give parents detailed report cards on schools and districts explaining the school's national test performance. It must also notify parents of schools that do not meet standards, giving them a way to weigh different school options. Schools must also inform parents when their child is being taught by a teacher or substitute who does not meet "highly qualified" requirements. All these measures permit parents more choice in deciding where best to send their child.

National testing may appear to offer more choice, but schools will not accept "failing" students, for that would bring their own statistics down. Underperforming children therefore often have no choice to transfer from one school to another, for schools frequently deny underperforming students access - as a means of keeping up their school's test scores so as to avoid being labelled "failing" and punished.

National testing provides a set of test results which can be used to compare schools in different parts of the country. The government can use the data to find the weakest schools, with the worst-performing students, and ensure that they receive the support needed to improve their test scores. As Steve Peha notes, though it was often accepted in the United States that certain students were at a disadvantage, it took the introduction of national testing to find the problem and come up with solutions¹. M. Hall Stanton Elementary, a grade school in Philadelphia, had just 12% of fifth-graders reading at grade in 2002; by 2006, this number was 70%, thanks to government support and a Principal who is a big fan of testing (Wallis & Steptoe, 2007). Without national testing, the state may remain unaware of problems, like M. Hall Elementary, which may be easily fixed. If all students are to get a high-quality education, national testing is needed to highlight the worst schools and ensure students are not disadvantaged by their location.
¹ Peha, S. (2011, July 5). Dispiriting numbers on Education, Civil Rights. Retrieved July 12, 2011, from National Journal: 
² Wallis, C., & Steptoe, S. (2007, May 24). How to fix No Child Left Behind. Retrieved July 8, 2011, from Time

improve this

National testing will not tell the state much at all about school performance, or at least nothing more than they already knew. They are so many different things that affect test results that to judge a school's performance based only on national tests is wrong. Furthermore, to compare schools in poor areas with schools in rich areas is not fair on the former, which are thereafter deemed so-called 'underperforming schools'. As Connecticut Commissioner Betty Stenberg describes, 'We won't learn anything new about our schools by giving these extra tests'¹. As if to prove the point, in California, 'as public school spending has declined…student achievement test scores have gone up’². This demonstrates that there is no clear link between the amount of government funding and the quality of schools.

¹http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=5&ved=0CDgQFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nctq.org%2Fnctq%2Fresearch%2F1180459263221.pdf&rct=j&q=claudia%20wallis%20no%20child%20left%20behind&ei=rvYWTqCvM8nEswbH4ZiYDw&usg=AFQjCNFL18GBmPU_8VtcUFpkkM_pl6XIfg&cad=r

²Wallis, C., & Steptoe, S. (2007, May 24). How to fix No Child Left Behind. Retrieved July 8, 2011, from Time

improve this

Standardized tests ensures students learn the most important information. There is some information in the world that is essential to know so that, as adults, schoolchildren can excel in their jobs. Standardized tests help ensure that all students learn this important information. It is true that this information can be difficult, and perhaps even boring, including history, literacy (reading comprehension), and math. Yet, it is, nevertheless, essential, so testing for it and ensuring students know the information is extremely valuable. A recent study of American high school seniors found that just 13 per cent could answer basic questions of American history correctly; national testing ensures that the next generation will be encouraged to learn about such history, in a fair and balanced manner, up and down the country¹.
¹ Banchero, S. (2011, June 15). Students stumble again on the basics of history. Retrieved July 12, 2011, from The Wall Street Journal:

improve this

National testing does not ensure students learn the same, important skills and information. Many essential skills, like the development of confidence, public-speaking skills and innovation cannot be tested. However, the focus on standardized testing encourages teachers to just teach skills and information that will increase test results rather than focus on deeper understanding and life lessons that can be applied in life generally. National testing does not inspire a love of learning. The most important part in education is that students develop a love of learning, so that they seek to learn on their own, outside of school. National testing, however, makes learning such a strict process that it does not inspire such a love of learning, failing the most important test of a good educational system.

improve this

National testing helps narrow the achievement gap for minorities. It seeks to narrow class and racial gaps in school performance by creating common expectations and standards for all. It also often requires schools and districts to focus their attention on the academic achievement of traditionally under-served groups of children, such as low-income students, students with disabilities, and minorities. In the United States for example, the gap between Hispanic students and their white counterparts has not changed since the 1990s¹. Whilst many previous government-created systems of accountability only measured average school performance, allowing schools to be highly rated even if they had large achievement gaps between white and Hispanic students, national testing has publicized these differences. As a result, the stated goal of the Obama Administration regarding education is 'to make the educational success of Latinos a priority. America's future depends on it'¹. If they succeed in doing so, national testing should be thanked for its role in highlighting the problem.
¹ Fuentes, J. (2011, July 10). Solve Hispanic education crisis. Retrieved July 12, 2011, from News Press:

improve this

National tests will not improve educational equality, for they will be tailored towards the dominant group. National tests are written largely by the ethnic majority within states (e.g. white men and women in the United States) with a certain unintentional bias toward these ethnic groups, putting minorities at a slight disadvantage. National testing also effectively penalizes schools that have a diverse population of students. Because diverse schools more frequently have statistically underperforming minority groups, non-native speakers, or disabled groups, they are much more likely to "fail" and be penalized. National testing, therefore, effectively penalizes diversity in schools.

improve this

National testing helps reveal failing teaching methods and forces schools to make changes, for the benefit of the schoolchildren. The focus of testing is to point to teaching methods that are working and ones that are not. It does this by providing common standards, making it possible for teachers and schools to adjust their methods accordingly, based on whether their students are reaching these standards or not. As Claudia Wallis describes of American national testing, everyone can 'agree that the law's greatest accomplishment has been shinning an unforgiving light on such languishing schools and demanding that they do better'¹. At Blaine, an American primary school with a history of failure, the number of fifth to eighth-graders reading on grade level or above rose from 13% to 36% after the introduction of national testing¹. The pressure placed on the school to be accountable, and the threat of sanctions and sackings if they did not improve, can be thanked for this improvement.
¹ Wallis, C., & Steptoe, S. (2007, May 24). How to fix No Child Left Behind. Retrieved July 8, 2011, from Time

ational testing does not make schools and teachers more accountable, it merely pushes them to try harder to cheat to avoid punishment. Because schools and teachers are obsessed about their students doing well at national tests, underperforming students that should pass on to a higher grade are held back for a year simply to avoid the risk that they will take and fail a test. It can also lead to schools denying entry to poorly-performing students as a means of decreasing the chances that the school will be labelled "failing" and sanctioned as a consequence. This can leave underperforming students with no place to go to school and with no future. A 2007 poll found that only 3% of teachers felt that the U.S. Program No Child Left Behind, which includes national testing provisions, helped them to teach more effectively¹.
Furthermore, even if it were the case that national testing makes schools and teachers more accountable, that does not automatically lead to better schools. As Sandra Nicholls points out, 'merely raising the bar does not make a pole-vaulter able to jump higher' (Nichols, 2003).
¹ Kohn, A. (2007, May 31). NCLB: 'Too Destructive To Salvage'. Retrieved July 8, 2011, from Common Dreams:
² Nichols, S. (2003, April 26). When NCLB Standards Meet Reality. Retrieved July 8, 2011, from Education Matters:

improve this