Re:Study says standardized testing is overwhelming nation’s ...
by rahimnathwani on Sunday October 25, 2015 @08:43PM
(#10449078)
Do you (A) oppose standardised testing in general, or (B) just object to (i) the way the test results are used as incentives/whatever, and (ii) think they test too narrow a set of subjects, or (C) something else?
You raise an objection to raises and funding being tied to test outcomes. Why would this be bad? Sure, if the tests are testing the wrong things, then we should fix the tests. But, it's not impossible to measure educational outcomes. Why should teachers continued employment, and pay, not reflect how well they are measured to be doing, at the thing they are paid to do?
Re:Study says standardized testing is overwhelming nation’s ...
by plonh on Tuesday October 27, 2015 @12:00AM
(#10456243)
The most profitable companies on earth got their by having a time horizon of longer than 8 months . there are critically important things that you can't measure on a multiple choice test
It's not the tests per se, but it's what is put on the line. Raises, funding, evaluations, keeping your job - these are all disincentives to well-rounded education. Please don't make me quote the plethora of studies that show how important arts, literature, and the sciences are to primary education. Completely stopping studying these things for half the school year is bad.
So it doesn't matter if the tests are filled with good-to-know knowledge - they're positioned to dis-incentivize and devalue anything that isn't math, language arts, and a narrow reading of how to structure an essay.
[0] http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2013/04/11/why-excess...