Most proponents of standardized testing in schools first say that the benefit of testing is the ability to pinpoint student strengths and weaknesses to provide the student with a better education fit to her needs. If a standardized test can determine exactly what a student knows and does not know, then the teacher can adjust his teaching directly for that child and provide a better learning experience. This, in turn, creates a system where "no child is left behind" because she is not able to work at the same pace as her peers.
The most recent argument by the NCLB act is that schools must be accountable for their actions. NCLB has mandated that states provide a way to diagnose schools that are underperforming and turn them into successful schools. By providing a standardized test for an entire state's public education system, state boards of education can be given a result of which school districts meet specific standards for instruction and which fail to meet expectations. Generally, these test scores result in rating a school based on its effectiveness.
Traditionally, public schools were not in competition with each other because students attended the neighborhood school they lived closest to. In most areas, this is no longer true, and students can choose schools they wish to attend, or parents can relocate to a new neighborhood based on the performance of its schools. Competition in schools is mainly based on the success of standardized tests offered by the state, and those schools that are deemed proficient gain more student enrollment.
Many who argue against statewide proficiency testing point out that statewide tests are generally the same year after year and include the same types of questions, with only small aspects changed. This allows schools to determine exactly what will be on the test at the end of the year and organize their lessons for students so that they can be successful on the test. This kind of teaching is not considered a wise method, as students are missing out on other essential elements of learning.
When the NCLB act required a system for measuring school proficiency and student ability, the methods for assessment were left to the individual states. This meant that each state could create its own assessment method and its own criteria for proficiency. The problem is that some states have set the mark for proficiency low in comparison with the rest of the country. This means that the child who appears proficient according to a state test may not be proficient on a national level.
Another argument against standardized proficiency testing is its lack of regularity. Even the best student has a bad day or feels ill and unable to perform. With the state test being given only once a year in most states, some argue that a true measurement of a student's growth and ability cannot be measured by one test. Many claim that the "snapshot" approach is not effective because students also have strengths in different areas, and these arguments often turn to Gardner's theory of multiple intelligences. Students who do not perform well on reading and math tests may perform wonderfully in other areas of education, and a proficiency test does not measure those other areas.
Both sides of the issue of proficiency testing argue about the issue of cost. Those against statewide testing believe that states are spending too much taxpayer money on tests that offer little to no benefit for the school, the students or the community. Those in favor of statewide testing believe that the cost is a small price to pay to have tangible results on the effectiveness of education and accountability for schools. These arguments have continued since the advent of statewide testing, and both sides offer figures to support their argument.