Standardized testing

Considering a commitment to viewing young children holistically, in my opinion, should not include standardized testing.   There are children that can recite everything they learned over the course of the year with their eyes closed and hands tied behind their back that get nervous when they are expected to sit in a timed exam knowing their advancement into the next grade depends on their scoring.  It has a negative impact on their anxiety, it can be overwhelming, and stressful to make children take multiple exams on various subjects.  

When I was in high school I went to what was called a "portfolio school".   Where everyone else had to take many regents, outside of math and English, we had to put together a presentation under a rubric created by the school that gave each of us a chance to utilize everything we learned over the course of the year and present it to a board of teachers that were not necessarily the ones we learned from.  That to me was a true assessment of what was learned over the year. I believe that is the type of assessment kids should have to undergo. There were options on how you could present what you learned, it was always fair because you were presenting to teachers that did not know you but knew the material that u needed to know, and it wasn't as stressful because you were showcasing exactly what you knew. As opposed to a three hour long test full of 100 random questions that you might not be comfortable with. 

As I was finding information that would support my opinion I stumbled across ascd.org. The website explained why standardized testing did not measure children holistically. "Recognizing the substantial pressure to sell standardized achievement tests, those who market such tests encounter a difficult dilemma that arises from the considerable curricular diversity in the United States. Because different states often choose somewhat different educational objectives (or, to e fashionable, different content standards), the need exists to build standardized achievement tests that are properly aligned with educators' meaningfully different curricular preferences.  The problem becomes even more exacerbated in states where different counties or school districts can exercise more localized curricular decision making" (www.ascd.org).  How can you measure kids on a whole and everything they've learned over the year with one test when the curriculum varies by school? It simply does not make sense. 

In 1975 the Netherlands created a national curriculum for everyone to follow (http://Eric.ed.gov). Along with Sweden and Germany the educators believe that standardized testing does not always tie into what they teach during the school year. I Originally tried to find more information on St. Kitts and Barbados (my parents islands of origin), but wasn't able to, but I also have family in Europe so that was my next step. Apparently the consensus (of the internet at least) is that only America doesn't seem to understand that the standardized testing of children is ineffective and unfair. 

I loved that my high school gave us the portfolio option. I believe children as young as eight and nine would be able to decide on a project and showcase what they learned over the year and explain it to their educators. Giving them a choice and allowing them to show their strengths allows the educators to witness their weak points and explain them to them and decide if they learned enough over the year. A standardized test doesn't let you know what you messed up on, you just get placed in a percentile.  

References 

1. http://Eric.ed.gov/?id=ED304455

2. www.ascd.org