Why Standardized testing is far from pleasant- DC

Why the Useless PARCC Test is Odious and Vile (with Scientific Backing and Logical Reasoning)

By Derek Campbell

In this day and age, whether you are a parent, teacher, or student, the unholy phrase "Standardized test" sends shivers down your spine. It causes unnecessary stress and hinders class-time for learning an actual lesson, which is ironic considering the fact that main point of school is to teach. However, the real-backstabber is the fact that unlike the SAT and ACT (which plays a major role in the transition between high and college), the PARCC test means next to nothing for the student's academic future, and here's why...

Logical Fallacies:

While researching, I decided to go straight to the source, the home-base parcc.gov. Within it I found this broad and boisterous claim: "Recent independent studies have found PARCC aligns to the standards and assessment criteria that matter most"(parcc.gov). However, I was not able to find a definition for the phrase "criteria that matter most" anywhere on the website. So I ask you, what academic criteria matters the most? If I were to respond to that question, I would say that the information that will propel you furthest in life would be most important (which means information regarding basic human interactions, finances, and general information regarding the occupation you choose). Yet, almost every question I received was reading analysis of fictitious or vague historical stories (which does not help me very much in my aspirations of the science field of work). But I digress...
Curious to know what independent studies were taken, I continued searching around the official website. "A string of studies in late 2015 and early 2016 have shown that PARCC is an effective test"(parcc.gov). The PARCC test was introduced in NJ two years ago, to which I took it in 8th grade as sort of "trial period". What I'm pondering is this: What accurate studies can be taken in a year? To put it in perspective, when the idea smoking was introduced, no one had truly questioned it until the mid-20th century. Although dramatic, the point I'm trying to make is this, you can't make accurate studies in less than a year, especially for when it deals with college success (considering in NJ, no one in college has even taken the PARCC except this year's freshmen, which is too early in college to make a discernible decision regarding the test).
My final rant is another independent study found on the website, which reads: "In November 2015, Mathematica Policy Research reported that PARCC is a strong predictor of success in college, and a Massachusetts Department of Education report found that PARCC assesses the skills that matter most"(parcc.gov). This single quote contains all arguments previously mentioned: the idea that accurate studies about the long-term future can't be made in a year, (at least in NJ) no one currently in has even taken in aside from the freshmen, and the question of "what is academically important" is ambiguous.
The above does not even cover the fact that only 18% of the country takes this exam (only 9 U.S. states, NJ included), or that the PARCC corporation is independent from any state or federal board of education (which pulls into question their knowledge of proper educational practices, the accuracy of their statistics, and their contractual obligation to creating and maintaining a a standardized test for the future benefit of our children).

Scientific Reasoning

One thing that I would like to point out the most; If you're not the greatest at English or Math, you are by no means automatically imbecilic in anyway. However, based upon the Common Core System based PARCC test, we are forced to test in areas we may not excel in, showing inaccurate results of intelligence. I'm no Bill Shakespeare, so half of this PARCC test doesn't even show what I'm good at.
There are also neurological studies that link emotions to mental capacity and cognizance. To quote from pbs.org:

"When we’re in a positive mood, for example, we tend to think more expansively and creatively. When we feel anxious—for instance, when we’re about to take a dreaded math test—that anxiety uses up some of the working memory capacity we need to solve problems, leaving us, literally, with less intelligence to apply to the exam." (pbs.org)

In order to show the complete mental capacity we have, we would have to be having the best day in the world without any stress (and "Standardized Test" is practically synonymous with stress). This leads into my next point, Stress. There are several neurological studies showing that increased amounts of stress is not healthy for the brain, and that "Chronic Stress Can Damage Brain Structure and Connectivity"(psychologytoday.com). The purpose of a test is record our knowledge on a topic, not to deteriorate our mental state, so why create more tests to worry about (i.e. PARCC)

Practical Issues

Aside from the mental affects, there are also several problems on how the test is conducted and maintained (coming from someone who has just experienced these issues). Firstly, there is loss of class time. The purpose of every class is to teach the students important lessons and skills/abilities that they will use in college and for the rest of our life. What doesn't make sense is taking a test that will "predict" how good we do in college instead of learning to better prepare us for college. There is also the aspect of stress and the amount of tests a high-schooler takes. We already have course finals, as well as the PSAT, ACT, SAT. The difference between these tests and the PARCC is the fact that previous tests actually matter for something (and will have severe consequences for not doing well). I've already mentioned the affect of stress on the mind, and how tests for highs-schooler is the epitome of stress. There is also the risk of computer malfunction/issues (whether it be console itself or the program). I'll be the first to admit, while I was taking PARCC, I had accidentally kicked the surge protector, turning off at least 3 adjacent computers (to which we all had to turn on the computer and reboot the program, wasting about 10 mins of testing time). The point is that accidents like these can happen very easily and is a nuisance to deal with while taking the test. There is also the idea that no program is truly safe from hacks, malware, or simple glitches (and considering this is a newly imposed test, bugs are definitely waiting to be found).

I have discussed the PARCC test with several students (who unanimously agree that it sucks), parents (who are definitely not a fan), and even teachers (who shall remain nameless for privacy reasons). So I ask, why do we even have the PARCC test, anyway? Nobody likes it, it has several flaws and has negative effects on the test-takers. And yet, the corporation received a $186 million grant from the government (and more than 80% of states don't even take the test). PARCC, why?

Useful urls (+sources):
http://www.pta.org/programs/content.cfm?ItemNumber=1724
http://www.nj.gov/education/sca/parcc/
http://www.parcconline.org/about/the-parcc-tests
http://www.parcconline.org/assessments/test-design/independent-studies
http://www.parcconline.org/about/states
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PARCC#Historical_background
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/blogs/secretlife/blogposts/the-science-of-smart-eight-ways-of-looking-at-intelligence/
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-athletes-way/201402/chronic-stress-can-damage-brain-structure-and-connectivity