Pros and Cons of Cutting Federal Testing

Should the U.S. Keep Federal Testing for Students

There has been a lot of discussion revolving around the new ESEA and the dramatic change to the old No Child Left Behind Act.  One of the most prominent arguments revolving around this debate is the discussion whether federal standardized tests should be cut from schools nationwide.  There are parents, teachers, school board members on each side of the argument.  Recent opinion polls have about 60% of parents voting to cut federal testing. 

There are good arguments for each side with pros and cons for each.  Here are some pros and cons for the argument of cutting federal testing to help you decide which side you fall on. 

Pros:

1. More Teaching Time; Less Test Prep time

One major argument for why federal testing should be cut is that it takes up valuable class time to focus on test prep.  The federal Department of education says that it requires a total of 17 standardized test; with added district testing, students on average take 113 standardized tests between pre-K and 12th grade (source).  Proponents argue that if less time was focused on preparing for tests, children would have more time to focus on learning more useful skills. 

2. Testing Puts Unneeded Pressure on Young Children

Many parents are worried about the stress that testing puts on their children.  Test taking is a stressful environment, especially when a student doesn't feel prepared.  Parents are worried that this added stress is harmful for their children's well-being. 

Cons:
1. Testing Gives Insight in How to Improve
Some teachers believe that schools benefit from the competition of student testing.  They are able to see where the school is lacking in education in order to improve for the following year.  They are also able to compare with other schools which gives them insight in how to continue to improve.  Testing also gives educators a way to show that students are in fact learning.  

2. Transparency to State Government 
Testing also gives information to the state education departments.  Some argue that this insight allows the government to intervene in the poor performing schools, which has been a cause for improvement (source).  As Nancy Zirkin, executive vice president of The Leadership Conference explains, cutting federal involvement in schools "would send us back to a dark time in our nation when schools across the country, operating with no federal oversight, could freely ignore the needs of disadvantaged students." (source)

There are good arguments for each side.  Tell us what you think in the comments.