Standardized tests have been a part of American education since the mid-1800s. Their use skyrocketed after 2002's No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) mandated annual testing in all 50 states. US students slipped from 18th in the world in math in 2000 to 31st place in 2009, with a similar decline in science and no change in reading. Failures in the education system have been blamed on rising poverty levels, teacher quality, tenure policies, and increasingly on the pervasive use of standardized tests. 

Proponents say standardized tests are a fair and objective measure of student achievement, that they ensure teachers and schools are accountable to taxpayers, and that the most relevant constituents – parents and students – approve of testing.

Opponents say the tests are neither fair nor objective, that their use promotes a narrow curriculum and drill-like "teaching to the test," and that excessive testing undermines America's ability to produce innovators and critical thinkers.

There have been more standardized tests and requirements lately. I honestly don't think it is improving education in America especially because it only focuses on certain skills that one must have rather than expanding on other techniques and abilities of one person.

It seems that numbers on tests and completing assignments is far more important than revealing that capability and abilities of a student which I really don't like in the education system. This isn't fair to other students who think differently and/or learn differently. The objectives of these mandatory state tests and requirements are very narrow if you ask me. It will probably increase more and be demanded more often in the future which is sadly what will most likely happen.

I am going to have to say no on this one. All the " End of Course " Tests I took while I was in school I did fairly good in. However, I don't feel that I learned much. I would prefer a teaching system where the teacher teaches what they want to, with some requirements of course, and they make the final. 
The whole Standardized Tests thing is a good idea, but it is not doing what it was intended to do. At least, that is how I see it. 

It might not be as effective in middle and lower school, but I see them positively when used in high school. I'll use the example of AP Tests, a form of standardized tests generally seen in high school. My teachers weren't too restricted in how they taught the subject, and we did learn quite a few things outside of the curriculum. And within the AP structure for each course, they do seem to give a good bit of freedom in how the subject is taught, as long as the basic principles are learned. If that's something unique to AP testing, it's a component that might help standardized tests as a whole gain credibility and/or effectiveness.

I felt like they improved my education. In several of the courses I took in high school, I didn't learn a thing. Having to prepare for a standardized test made me seek sources outside of school to review and learn the material myself. So even when I had terrible classes, I still got a lot from the subject at hand. So in that way they did succeed through their standardization.

What I see in common with the most effective standardized tests is that they don't make you memorize a bunch of facts, but rather make you learn general trends and principles that can be applied broadly.

To sum up, standardized testing itself isn't a bad idea. It's how the tests themselves are designed that make the difference between being effective, and causing "a narrow curriculum and drill-like teaching to the test".

Well, they certainly improve your ability to retain bits of information
But that doesn't necessarily mean they understand it
I knew people in my psych classes that would ace the test
yet they would be lost when I tried to start an actual discussion or debate
Not because they cheated on the text,
but because all they really did was memorize some sentences.

Now, I'm not saying standardized test should be done away with
though I think there should also be a focus on other methods.
I like essays
You learn a lot more about a subject when you have to write a paper on it.

baileyface544 : i do agree with you on that based on my own school experience. when i took tests it was all from memory the only time i actually retained any information enough to discuss it was when iwas extremely interested in the topic wich there was quite a few but for the most part after i took the test the information just rolled right out of my head basically forgotten. i also agree with your point on essays i feel as though i learned a lot from actually having to think out what i was going to say as well as doing research on the subject.

a few questions as far as essays go

1. essays take time to write do you think it will slow the education process while learning more about one specific subject it will lessen the amount of subjects learned?

2. due to the way are standardized were set up they wanted the essays written on a very specific format. in class essays were graded more on this format such as the focus and organisation and less about the subject in general. do you think this would defate the general purpose of an essay? as well as limit tbe overall variety of writing styles in future essays after graduation once i moved on to college i feel like what they were expecting was hard for me to meet due to the fact i was stuck on that format. did that ruin the whole point of the essay for me?

As a teacher and education-impassioned person, I have to say that I loathe standardized tests.  First.. let's clear something up: I'm fine with national standardized tests that are used to gain entrance to college or earn scholarships (like the ACT, SAT, etc).  However, I think standardizing tests in the classroom is absolutely awful.

First and foremost, kids in different areas of the country learn in different ways and at different rates.  While I agree that standards need to be held, those standards need to be -appropriate- for the kids being tested.  I don't have much problem with unification, but it's just too difficult to do. I think my MAIN problem with standardized tests though....(on the most shallow level), is that they are often way... way... WAY too easy.  They do not challenge our students.

Now... why are they easy?  They're easy for political reasons.  Schools get funding based on how well their students achieve.  With that knowledge, what school / system / person would give tests set at the level of their highest achievers?  In order to maximize funding, standardized testing has to be lowered enough that the majority of students can be successful.

But what happens when standards are lowered for these tests?  Teachers know the minimum that has to be accomplished... and let's face it... teaching is a -difficult- job. I'm not putting all teachers in one nutshell, but across the board... teachers reach for that bare minimum.

Then suddenly..... the tests are once again leveled to highest achievers.  What's the logical thing to do if schools want their funding?  Well... standards have to be lowered again to have more students pass, right?

Granted, this is a very slow process and my description is very simple, and very generalized.  But it does an alright job of explaining how I feel about it.

Standards simply need to be higher (without budging), if standardized tests were to have any lasting success over the decades.  (My two cents worth. I don't know everything.)