Pros and Cons

Standardised Testing
Name:
Institution:

Abstract
This paper explores two published books that touched on pros and cons of standardized testing in schools. Popham, (2001) and Sacks, (1999) suggest that through pros a student will have to pass certain tests to determine that he or she has acquired proficiency in various fields of study. According to the two authors, in cons the students who have mastery of the content, don’t show in the test; it mostly promotes teachers to teach tests and evaluate individual performance of a student instead of the overall growth of the student over the learning period. Schools should consider looking deeply into the standardized testing and come up with the one that would help the students both in school and their future endeavors.
The origin of standardized testing goes down in history to ancient china where if your desire was to work with the government, you were to sit for a test. Controversies over standard testing of students have raged for years but to what end? The pros and cons are the two main types of standardized testing. (Popham, 2001). I will look into them independently beginning with the pros and then cons.
According to Sacks, (1999), the pros of standardized testing is a studying scenario, where a student has to pass certain tests to determine that he has acquired proficiency in various fields of study. It draws the limits lines for schools to at least have a minimum level when it comes to educating their students. I think this a brilliant idea since it will be easy to tell, which school is does well and vice versa. This will help identify the problem and improve education in the students and the school.
Popham, (2001) examined that in pros, students are qualified for the jobs. From employers’ and secondary schools’ standpoints, pros, guarantee candidates under siege, well qualified for the job or course of the study. It also helps in accurate comparisons between sub-groups. He further argues that this helps the schools with data to innovate programs and services directed at improving scores in these sub-groups. I think this enables the country to produce many competent students whom can achieve in the modern market.
Cons, on the other hand, evaluate student’s performance in a definite day without taking into account external factors. In addition to cons, Sacks, (1999) found out that students, who have mastery of the content, don’t show in the test. It mostly promotes teachers to teach tests and evaluate individual performance of a student instead of the overall growth of the student over the learning period. According to my own evaluation, I find cons a raw deal because it prioritizes passing exams than learning.
In conclusion, the pros standardized have worked in countries like Britain, where each student from grammar school to the university must pass some test to show that they are eligible for a particular job. Popham, (2001) further argues that cons are found to be unrealistic and naive in education. It comes up with irrelevant programs that might affect the political stability of some countries. It gives the students the notion that they are in school to pass exams. I think that pros is a better approach in educating this current generation, if at all we want are professionals who are good at what they do.

Reference Popham, W. J. (2001). The truth about testing: An Educator's Call to Action. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Sacks, P. (1999). the high price of america testing culture and what we can do to change it. newyork: da capo press(perseus books).