ion of curriculum; the lowering of expectations; and both teaching and learning. “Due to perceived pressures from administrators and parents, teachers may ‘teach to the test’” (Wiseman 57). Some teachers let the tests guide their instruction and curriculum because they are only concerned with the student’s performance on tests. Standardized tests may or may not relate directly to what students have been taught or evoke student’s interest. Students who are cooperative learning are not allowed to talk during testing and students who are accustomed to working problems out slowly are plagued with the time constraint standardized tests have. Another downfall of standardized testing is when students are labeled slow learners because of test results; their educational opportunities often become limited and unchallenging. “A danger of these tests is the role they may play in developing students’ perceptions about their ability to learn. Teachers may expect less from students who do not perform well on a test” (Wiseman 57). Standardized tests should not be the only basis for a teacher’s curriculum and instruction. They also should not be the sole predictor of a student’s intellectuality and future. “Standardized tests generally have questionable ability to predict one’s academic success” (Sacks). Not all high school seniors are required to take the SAT or ACT. Instead some take entrance exams given by a college or whatever entrance exam or assignment a college will require for admission. “Numerous studies show that the SAT scores explain just about 16 percent of the variation in actual freshman grades. A student’s high school record is the best predictor of performance in the first year of college; further, the SAT, when combined with high school grades, adds only modestly to the predictive power of high school grades alone” (Sacks...
