This year we put two of my kids into a few classes at the high school, drafting, ag science and a few computer classes that ended up being a complete waste of time (so we pulled them out half way through).

This week my daughter took a practice ACT test and totally bombed it.  I went through it for a few hours with her last night and realized that she simply doesn't know how to test.  We went through the material and she did ok, but the process of testing and all the little things like glancing at the answers and eliminating the obviously wrong ones, then learning to simply select the right answer without doing all the work required, that was new to her.

So we're working on test taking for a while.  Going over it slightly really changed her fear and mindset of the test, I'm pretty sure she'll be fine.

Interestingly, another HS kid I know bombed his written test for his EMT certification because he also has no experience with testing.  He was so terrified of the test that he failed it before he walked in, but his practical test was a breeze.  His mom is a nurse and he's done really well on all the classwork, but stil refuses to re-take the written test.

Funny how that part of education is easy to miss when homeschooling.  My younger kids now have a test-day every friday for the weeks lessons.  Still not an official-looking multiple choice, but it's timed and at least a little pressure.

So your home school does not school kids in how to excel in the real world?

I started easing my kids into tests this year with Story of the World history tests that use FITB, multiple choice, TF, and brief 1-2 sentence answers.  I also have Saxon Math graded math practice every day and a test every two weeks.  The Math practice is two sections: 10-12 questions just on today's lesson, then 30 questions on today's lesson and previous stuff we've covered.  With all of these, once I've graded the test, I go over the test/practice/quiz individually to discuss what they got wrong, to see if they can figure out how they got it wrong, and go over how to do it right.  This way, they get used to testing.

This may sound cheesy, but as an immediate visual indicator of their results I use green ink to mark "correct" and reserve red ink for what they get wrong.  Really boosts their confidence to see all that green.  They have zero test anxiety by this point.

ETA: my daughter hates math because she "feels" she is not good at it. She's good at it, she just doesn't like the tedious nature of long division, or multiplying long problems.  So I got some worksheets with various 1 digit x 1 digit or 2 digit divided by 1 digit problems, and I time her with the goal to get above 95% correct in a certain time limit.  It has helped her work up her speed and enjoy the testing.

We use IXL as part of our math program, which is very intensive with testing.  Additionally, our local Catholic high school is very friendly toward homeschoolers.  We've used their test prep courses and placement tests with good success (90+ percentile).

FWIW, problems taking tests are not just a homeschool related thing.  I had plenty of friends growing up that didn't do well on tests, but knew the material and how to apply it.  Inversely, I had friends who aced tests but couldn't distinguish between AM and PM (i'm not kidding - that actually happened.)  After being out of college for many years, I now have test anxiety when I have to take open or closed book tests for work related classes.

IMHO, society places too much reliance on tests as a measure of knowledge, when they should be placing more emphasis on the application of the knoweledge.

Try Seton Testing Services.  Our 5th grader just took the CAT.  We took the practice exam prior to the test, just to go over test taking skills.

Written test-taking, though I am really good at it, doesn't really have many beneficial correlations to the real world.

Test-taking is a way of evaluating masses by an institution that is focused on assigning numbers to students, based on their ability to monkey-see, monkey-do.

Logic tests like you have in IQ are for assessing intellectual flexibility and adaptiveness to logical sequences, rules, and intuition, but traditional written tests are really a limitation of a bygone era where they didn't have many ways to evaluate student performance holistically, like you have with a hands-on assessment in the EMT testing process.

Training children to be able to take tests is really a bow to the out-dated systems of the past, but a well-rounded child should not fear them and should be able to do well on them.

They don't focus on test-taking in Finland much at all in the early ages, and for a long time, their matriculation exams were one of the only tests they took, and they still score in the top internationally, so I can make arguments however I want to with this subject and show results that will contradict the conventional wisdom.

The biggest pitfall with testing at early ages is if you assign personal value to the numbers, rather than focusing on the assessment aspect of testing.  As long as they are only assessments and not stamps of approval or disapproval and self-worth of a child, they're ok.

My wife and I both love and excel at taking written tests, but I personally don't see a huge value in them from an educational standpoint for the reasons listed above.  If a young adult is entering a profession that requires them, then it makes a lot of sense to prepare them for that with enough time to get them familiar with the material and test-taking nuances beforehand.

Except they will have to take tests in college, in trade school, in job placements, in job testing, etc.

True, but the best way to train them to take tests is.... to take tests.

My questions for the "practice taking tests" argument are:

1. If taking tests are so important to scoring well on standardized testing, why does Finland do so well on them when regular test-taking has not traditionally been part of schooling in Finland?  There is very little, if any testing done in what we would call elementary school in Finland.

2. Why do homeschoolers score higher Nationally than private and public schooled kids?

If I wanted to counter the "non standardized testing" angle, I would point out that while they don't take many tests in school in Finland, they do take them in the High School years.

As to why homeschoolers do so well Nationally, I would guess that maybe the parents being more involved in the student performance leads to better results on tests, as there is clearly some level of corollary performance.

For the first year or two, my wife introduced the concept of tests.

After that they can have 5-7 tests at regular intervals (test for each subject).

We use Seton testing. First go round, we ran the timers like you are supposed to. My son never even got close to timed out, but would freak out about the pressure of the clock and make stupid mistakes.

Every year after, we ignore the timer requirements. While I still make sure he doesn't go over the allotted time (still doesn't even get close), he does much better not worrying about it.

As an engineer I've seen the effect of people not being good at the skill of testing.  I have been coaching the next kid in my family for his ACT this spring, and I told him that the ability to take a test is only somewhat related to to ability to answer the questions on the test.  We talked about strategy, time management, crutches used during the test, etc.  I told him that although it might seem like testing and learning to test is a baloney skill, it's actually a huge factor in my industry.  Some of the best engineers I know focus on the subject matter and never develop the ability to test.  One friend failed the PE exam 6 or 7 times before he passed, and I'd hire him in an instant if I could.  Great engineer.

We are doing a much more rigorous program with my younger kids than we did with the older ones.  This program goes through the material for 4 days and on friday there's a short test on each subject.

Learning to take a test well is definitely a "thing".

Our oldest transitioned to public in the 2nd grade, and his entry standardized tests (reading and math) were mediocre (60 percentile).  By EOY, his reading tested out at 98th percentile and math in the low 80s.  The huge swing was simply due to him learning how to take a test well.  For that matter, we are still working on improving his math testing ability, as his tendency to rush and not check his work impacts his score more than material mastery issues.

Regarding home schooling - we (now) leverage our great local public school (in which we are very active), but teach the kids that school is the baseline, not the end-goal, of academic success.  We expect them to ace the public curriculum and challenge them with home learning to build upon (or shore-up) the public foundation.

That one is rather deep in the brown stuff.

How do you evaluate if a person has actual knowledge they are supposed to have learned?
Many professional paths involve taking test of both written and practical.

Tradesmen often have to pass a written test and ALSO demonstrate practical ability to do the job.
The practical part may be working under the supervision of an already licensed person.

The written gets more and more important as the knowledge increases.

The Engineering Fundamentals Exam is a massive written exercise.
When I took it a long time ago it was 4 hours in the morning, and then 4 hours in the afternoon.

IIRC the afternoon was all 'show your work' and even open book.
Of course if you really need more than a quick glance in a book of
constants you probably would not do all that well.

The time constraints are INTENDED to catch people who have to look everything
up because they do not have the fundamentals down cold.

After that you can work for a Professional Engineer for 4 to 5 years
and then take the PE (Professional Engineer)  exam.
Or get an advanced enough degree (PhD in many places) to sit for the exam immediately.
Not that a PhD usually requires a project that demonstrates you know how to make things that work.
As in design and build something that advances engineering knowledge in your filed.

That one was in incredible written exercise.
When I took it two days in Electrical.

And not passing means you had to wait a whole year to try again.

And yet, there are engineers with a PE stamp that I wouldn't trust to design a doghouse.  Test simply do a poor job of proving skill.