> I think a lot of the desire for standardized testing would dissolve if principals could just make personnel decisions like normal managers.
That could maybe affect the desire coming from the bottom, but not the one from the top - up there, the school's output is an input to further processes. Funding decisions are made easier thanks to standardized tests. University recruitment is made easier thanks to standardized tests. Etc.
> I think people have been trusting public schools a lot. That generally worked out great for people in affluent suburban districts. And it worked out horribly for people in poor, remote, and urban districts.
That's the think I'm talking about. I believe it's like this (with Q standing for Quality):
Q(affluent_free) + Q(poor_free) > Q(affluent_standardized) + Q(poor_standardized)
Q(affluent_standardized) < Q(affluent_free)
Q(poor_standardized) > Q(poor_free)
http://www.balancedscorecard.org/Resources/About-the-Balance...
It's more about it being way to hard to fire bad teachers and standardized tests, in theory at least, are an attempt at providing objective proof of bad teaching that won't be subject to union pushback and/or lawsuits.
I think a lot of the desire for standardized testing would dissolve if principals could just make personnel decisions like normal managers. And, of course, it's up to their superiors to hold them accountable for being good at that job.
> ...we're losing a lot of efficiency that comes from just trusting the other guy.
I think people have been trusting public schools a lot. That generally worked out great for people in affluent suburban districts. And it worked out horribly for people in poor, remote, and urban districts.