Standardized Testing Argument Essay

Michelle Obama once declared, “If my future were determined just by my performance on a standardized test, I wouldn't be here. I guarantee you that.” If our first lady of the United States of America can be stating that she would have not been successful if she took standardized testing, then why do we base all of our students success on their test scores? Diane Ravitch, one of the major contributors to the No Child Left Behind Act, was once a supporter of standardized testing and believed it could improve public schools. After seeing standardized testing put into place she has now come to the conclusion, the negative impact of high stakes testing and other reforms in the NCLB act. High stakes testing, accountability, and choice involved with the No Child Left Behind Act have hindered American public schools instead of improved the school system.
The fact that teachers are judged on their abilities based solely on the outcome of standardized testing is absurd. This puts pressure on teachers to make sure that there students are doing well on tests, rather than focusing on the student as a whole. Ravitch describes the fault in standardized testing by stating, “The schools will surely be failures if students graduate knowing how to choose the right option from four bubbles on a multiple-choice test, but unprepared to lead fulfilling lives, to be responsible citizens, and to make good choices for themselves, their families, and our society” (Ravitch, 224). Though she previously believed that testing would help keep teachers and schools accountable, Ravitch now recognizes the importance of focusing on more subjects than just math and reading. In her book, The Death and Life of the Great American School System, Ravitch explains the value of having students being renaissance men and women rather than only focusing on core subjects that will be on standardized