[KC_for_Freedom]

Former teacher, I never minded standardized tests, because I taught the things that standardized tests look at. If your idea of teaching is to teach political correctness or revised history, or your own version of how America is messed up, then standardized tests will "out you".

The teacher who dislikes taking a day/week for standard testing have several things to complain about:

1. I lose the class time for this audit when I could be doing something so much better.

2. I lose my reputation as a good teacher because some of my peers "teach to the test", which I think means they prepare students by giving them example questions from old tests. (Using the questions on a standard test before it is given to the students to ensure success should be a firing offense.)

The first arguement is bogus because we all need a standard auditing device to "test for understanding". When this is done across a state, it identifies weak teachers and schools, and when it repeats year after year it indicates a problem. This is the idea behind the standard testing of NCLB.

The second arguement is also weak because the standard test represents what a student should learn. (We are all familiar with educational objectives.) So once we agree the test is the right information, why not have all classes make sure the material is covered? Does it have to include questions like past standard tests? Yes that would be a good idea so kids are not confused by a type of question. Does this mean this is all a teacher has to do? No, class time has to become interesting for education to happen. Teachers are challenged to make the material covered by standard tests as interesting and relevant as possible. (This is where a teacher can bring in some outside material, for relevance, not for brain washing.)

[CatoRenasci]

The real objection to standardized testing, of course, is that it gives results that the consumers of the tests -- parents, teachers and administrators don't want to hear: some students are brighter than others, all other things being equal, and some students have prepared better than others. Some learn the material covered or have a better aptitude for the sort of reasoning the tests measure.

The problems with standardized testing are many, but hardly insurmountable. The objection to standardized testing became serious when it was noticed during the civil rights movement that minorities did not do well, even with massive amounts of aid. Since the improvement in the inputs (money, teacher time) could not be at fault given liberal educational theory assumptions, the fault must therefore lie in the tests. Quod Erat Demonstrandam.