This is a reading test, not an art test. Here, whatever "art" is in the poem, there is also text with plain, objective meaning and discernible structure. The test is directed to the latter, not the former. And that is, by far, the more important thing to teach children. An informed citizenry in a democracy doesn't need art. They do need to be able to convey their thoughts in a structured, clear manner in writing.

If that's the objective, then give them a piece of technical writing, and then ask them whether the nuts should be screwed tight before or after the wooden pieces are put in their slots.

I think we all know why they're using poetry, though. They want to PRETEND to be testing ability at deep literary criticism.

These tests also usually include scientific articles that are used to test whether students can figure out basic facts presented in an article. But that's only one part of reading comprehension. Students also must be able to understand the structure of the text, themes, use of devices like metaphors and similes, etc. These are higher-level concepts, but still objective ones. And they are present in all types of writing, not only technical articles. This particular set of questions is directed at evaluating those skills.

The tests don't purported to be "testing ability at deep literary criticism." The kids aren't learning poetry, they're reading poetry to help develop general reading comprehension skills. If you look at the STAARS curriculum for Grade 8, the tested skills include:

> Students understand, make inferences and draw conclusions about the structure and elements of poetry and provide evidence from text to support their understanding.

That's exactly what the questions are asking about: the structure and elements of the poem.

>then give them a piece of technical writing, and then ask them whether the nuts should be screwed tight before or after the wooden pieces are put in their slots.

And I'm sure they do get technical writing samples to analyze. Also poetry. Why? Why not! Why not, vary it up a bit. They could have done the same exercise with Rap lyrics.

Again, I'm not sure what the problem is?

>They want to PRETEND to be testing ability at deep literary criticism.

I think you need to manage your expectations. Kids aren't going to give you 'deep literary criticism'.

Then write the questions about a newspaper clipping or a grocery list or something. No need to pillage poetry in search of objective facts.

> An informed citizenry in a democracy doesn't need art.

There's no point in _having_ a democracy without art.

See my reply to him above. I think the demos is taken as a given by him without any thought whence it came.

This is incredibly dangerous and I’m going to push back hard on this narrative. If informed citizens of a democracy don’t need art, how are they supposed to differentiate between propaganda, nationalist myth making, hate speech attempting to clothe themselves as legitimate attempts at artistic expression? When my mom’s nationalized school in Pakistan had dance classes cancelled by the dictatorship, that wasn’t an anti-democratic attack? When they covered up that statue of Justice in Bangladesh, is that OK because citizens don’t need art? When they said that the national fruit of Bangladesh was the jackfruit so why not have a national religion, you don’t think any time to stop and smell the rose of aesthetics reveals that argument to be the equivalent of GW Bush saying his favorite political philosopher was Jesus Christ?

When Milorad Pavic wrote that book “Dictionary of the Khazars” that was not too far from a call from genocide in print, no aesthetic training would have been useful then? Art correlates with history and I daresay you wouldn’t maintain informed citizens of a democracy don’t need to know history. Art tells you something about the motivations of an elite (which some of those citizens might be a part of someday), and what is chosen for a high culture tells you about where the place might be going.

The problem is you're trying to educate millions of kids and you want some common standard to judge them against (to figure things out like college admissions). You can't just say "put down whatever and we'll judge it by how you feel or how I feel".

Besides, you're not testing their artistic abilities, you're testing learning comprehension and and things they learned in English class. Do you know that we're graduating kids who are functionally illiterate? I think that's a bigger problem to tackle than worrying about how poetry is taught to kids.

>The point is that applying this model to art, something which has been essential to the human experience for tens of thousands of years, is a stultification of our culture for no better reason than that we want to measure something.

You say that but what are you basing this on? Just personal feelings?

>I would hesitate to dismiss the damage done by a system that produces questions like these at the societal scale.

I disagree. These are perfectly fine questions. In fact, if you converted to the education system to the montessori-style system that would be disastrous.

My point is that conditioning children to think of art in this formulaic way can only be attributed to ignorance or malice. There is no need to test for reading comprehension using a banal interpretation of poetry.

For evidence of the significance of art in the human experience, check the historical record. The oldest musical instruments are something like 50,000 years old. As far as I know, similar artifacts were not produced by any other hominids. On both the societal and the individual level, creative inspiration has done more to help people exceed their boundaries than any systemized rubric ever has.

>My point is that conditioning children to think of art in this formulaic way can only be attributed to ignorance or malice.

I can believe that that this is your contention.

>There is no need to test for reading comprehension using a banal interpretation of poetry.

You say things as if they were obviously true.

>For evidence of the significance of art in the human experience, check the historical record.

OK.

I'm not sure what this red herring is supposed to do for your argument.