In August, 1967, as part of the requirements for a Philosophy of Education course I was taking while in grad school at Colorado St. Univ., I submitted a paper with the title "The Pros and Cons of the National Assessment Test." At this time, during the Johnson administration (I think), it was a totally new concept. It was so new that my bibliography has seven sources.
National testing began with the AFQT (Armed Forces Qualifying Test) which was limited to the military and mostly male. This was followed by the National Merit Test. I think I was still in high school when this one came around.
What came out of this was the NAEP (National Assessment of Educational Progress) which later led to testing as part of No Child Left Behind.
Ironically as the US was getting in the testing business, in Europe, where national testing (group and individual results) was a way of life, countries were doing away with much of it. They used the same arguments we hear today which are spending too much time teaching to the test and it curbs creativity.
Since I, as well as most educators, knew so little about what the effects would be, I tried to be fairly neutral about national testing and the emphasis and misuse of results. Having administered the NAEP for a number of years, I now would oppose any testing that would be used to evaluate states, districts, or teachers.
At that time the Federal Government was just beginning to fund public education. People feared the government would try to run the schools if they were paying part of the bills. We didn't realize how true that would become.
BTW-I got an A on the paper.