There could be many reasons for the discrepancies (Miss Smith may "teach to the test," Mr. Kelly may be new and lack experience in the classroom, or his students may not be English proficient or not have eaten breakfast the morning of the test), yet these days, it seems everyone is jumping on the standardized testing bandwagon as a way of measuring not only what kids are learning, but the merits of who's teaching them.

Since then, the backlash from parents and politicians demanding dramatic change has been building like dirty cafeteria trays right after the lunch bell. They aim to raise academic standards and make teachers and students accountable through standardized testing. Although few would argue that the nation's education system is without flaws—especially in urban districts—many educators and reformers question the use of so-called "high-stakes" testing as the magic pill that will improve the way American kids learn.

Yet proponents counter that like a well-run business, education can thrive with a healthy dose of competition and the promise of a financial reward. And it seems in some states their plan is working. In California, for instance, the state department of education announced impressive gains this year for reading and math on the Stanford 9, the state exam given to grades two through eleven.

To develop a test, publishers construct questions based on the most common textbooks and curriculum for a particular grade, and that, according to many critics, is part of the problem. The tests look for what is common among schools, not which is unique. Subjects such as physical education, art, music, and foreign language, for instance, may help create a well-rounded student, but will be of little use on the Iowa Tests of Basic Skills. Schools looking to keep their slice of the financial pie, therefore, will have no incentive to keep offering these courses in the future.

Still, proponents of high-stakes testing insist there is ample reason to be concerned with today's quality of education. According to the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), a federally funded test, roughly only a third of fourth, eighth, and twelfth graders—the ages at which the test is given—read proficiently. Math scores were even lower. They also stress the importance of testing in determining which students are struggling and give them the help they need rather than merely socially promoting them year after year.

Parents are having a tough time interpreting their children's test scores as well. The Stanford 9 exam, for example, calculates scores in three different ways—raw score (how many questions are actually answered correctly), a percentile ranking, and finally, a category range. Eighth graders who answer 55 out of 78 math questions correctly get the same "average" category range as classmates who answer only 29 questions correctly, leaving parents to wonder if they should be pleased or concerned.

Still, some parents see the benefit of testing as a way of keeping track of what their children are learning in school. "I see the tests as a fairly accurate snapshot of what my daughters are learning," says Beth Matustik of North Hollywood, California. "What troubles me is how political testing has become. It seems it's the only criteria for judging a school these days. Everybody cares so deeply about the scores that we're forgetting it's only one aspect of a good school."