.
Fundamentally, the purpose is to measure the quality of schools and their students, creating new standards to be reached and consequences that will be felt when they are not. Many states are accordingly adopting so called, "High Stakes," testing, termed so because of the serious nature of the tests outcome. For example, a high school senior will have to take a test that is strictly pass or fail that will determine whether or not the student may graduate. On a personal standpoint, I feel that these tests do have generally positive purposes, but when it comes down to weighing out the facts, they may actually be damaging to our youth. At a minimum, I feel that these tests are biased towards a large variety of students and are in need major reform. Students should not be drastically penalized by these tests until they prove themselves accurate and efficient, even if the road of change is an all-uphill battle. .
While there are many viewpoints that strictly appose standardized testing, there are also some intriguing views in the pro-testing side of the court. I found another website called, "Smarterkids.com," that had some good credentials. Jeff Pucci, the founder, has published over twenty-five award winning educational software titles, and is currently the Chairman of the Massachusetts Software Council and its Education Task Force. Tanya R. Eggers, a leading staff member, is also an expert in education. She holds a California Multiple Subject credential with a cross-cultural language and academic development certification. After reading the website's article, "High Stakes Testing: Is it Worth the Risk," It would appear that those in favor of the tests claim that they will "demand that classroom instruction focus on the necessary basic skills" Reading, writing and arithmetic, or the, " Three R's," are thought to be the essentials of education. It is thought that the tests would stress their importance, thus tightening the curriculum and weeding out the non-significant information that might be taught.