Should Schools Scrap CCTs?

Parameters (just so you know)
CCTs (Common Class Tests) are, generally put, standardized exams or tests that are commonly used to gauge a student's academic abilities. It is therefore an accepted form of measuring how much a student knows regarding a certain topic/s. These tests come in the form of one-time assessments, usually after the student can be assumed to have understood a large part of the topic/s. This definition of CCTs would therefore be used in this exposition, to extrapolate it to a larger scale.

To 'scrap' is, simply put in context, to dispose of a form of implementation, in this case, implementation of CCTs.

Thesis:

Schools should not scrap the CCTs, instead leverage the effects of their flaws with other components.

Exposition:

Have you turned your paper, expecting the usual large red 'A' stamped with pride, yours and your teacher's, yet there you have it, an infinitesimal pitiable 'F'? It seems to taunt and mock you, and then you're vexed, because it seems as if that 'F' has cast your fate in stone.

You look at your friends' papers. They laugh off the achievements, basking in the glory of 'A's and 'A+'s, yet you have a sneaking suspicion that that eleventh-hour toilet trip or those low whispers have something to do with it.

So you want the schools to scrap such crushing curtailments on your confidence, but is that really the solution?

First of all, it is not conducive that the nature of tests are one-time assessments and teaching is aligned to suit the acing of this test, because it is realized it would place too much of importance on that single assessment. And with this increased importance on a single one-time assessment, if a student were to slip up and not do as well as he expected, his confidence has a large possibility of being undermined. This, thus, is a large flaw of the CCTs.

Students and teachers alike usually regard CCTs as definitions of academic ability. This is dangerous, because they are not accurate ones. They are susceptible to extraneous influences, for example, cheating. This is a widespread phenomena, especially even in cases such as China's university entrance exams, where students' parents are driven to desperation, resorting to methods such as high-tech equipment. Secondly, if CCTs were an accurate measure of academic ability and if schools assign classes based on such measures, then what would happen is that the student is designated to an environment that he may not be suited to. We look at famous examples like Thomas Edison, Beethoven and Mozart, all who had teachers describing them as 'slow', 'addled' and 'never to make it in life', all who incidentally did not do well in school early on in life . These are just some arguments to why CCTs are not good measures of academic ability and why they shouldn't be considered as such.

But don't get too excited yet, because many people don't see the essence of such tests in the spur of their indignity. CCTs are tests and tests are the most intuitive and basic markers of academic progress for ages, as well as an acceptable measure of effort and absorption of education which, given ineffective educational situations, would be a yardstick for change. Still, tests cannot be given too much weight or, worse, used alone, as they do not wholly reflect the knowledge of the students, only choosing to focus on the absorption of syllabus. We see a decent attempt to leverage their effects. In RI's educational system, CCTs are in cohesion with other assessment plans and components. These can be said to lift the effects of the aspects that CCTs ignore.

So, don’t you think that true, effective education shouldn't imprison students like you for a school term or a year for a single mistake, but rather, provide you with as many chances as possible to do better, yet still complying with basic markers and ensuring effective educational policies?