If you have not read the WSJ, you do not understand the basic facts of my position.
Finally, I have not said things are hopeless nor have I implied so. This is your conclusion not mine. I favor the brief statement made by Murray which was:
"Murray, like most academic psychologists, does not believe that there is much evidence that government educational interventions beyond some reasonably adequate level can permanently boost IQ test scores. Murray’s preferred policy is to forget group averages and encourage private and public institutions to treat people as individuals."
At least since the time of Dewey the belief has been that the environment trumps any individual differences. That his not proven, but believed; it is the nexus of our differences. There is indeed a nature-nurture interaction, but when it comes to IQ or "g," innate factors are overwhelming in their effect.
Every child needs a plan that permits him or her to succeed to their maximum ability. If testing enhances that it is good, if testing does not enhance that it is a bad policy and should be terminated.
I read the WSJ article before you even posted it, and would have posted it myself except that you already had done so.
I agree that taking the accountability provisions out of NCLB would be unconscionable and defeat the entire purpose of the law. Personally, I think the accountability provisions should be stronger.