Very few states were testing students to see how they were performing academically. This Act required states to test their students and the required them to give consequences to schools that students were failing these test (Rotherham). This lit a fire under most schools and they wanted to their students to score highly on these test, most schools have things put in place to help students in their academics and to make them better test takers. Not every student can simply perform well on a test, that is understandable, but there are ways that a school can help these students become better test takers. Every since this Act was put into place, most schools have scored fairly well on these standardized test ("Background & Analysis"). Now, some people are worried that some teachers are “teaching to the test”, but the test covers material that needs to be covered. So, is it so wrong to be focusing on material that will be on the tests? Not necessarily in majority
Very few states were testing students to see how they were performing academically. This Act required states to test their students and the required them to give consequences to schools that students were failing these test (Rotherham). This lit a fire under most schools and they wanted to their students to score highly on these test, most schools have things put in place to help students in their academics and to make them better test takers. Not every student can simply perform well on a test, that is understandable, but there are ways that a school can help these students become better test takers. Every since this Act was put into place, most schools have scored fairly well on these standardized test ("Background & Analysis"). Now, some people are worried that some teachers are “teaching to the test”, but the test covers material that needs to be covered. So, is it so wrong to be focusing on material that will be on the tests? Not necessarily in majority