[Lizavetta]

I wonder if anyone could (politely) explain something to me...I've often wondered why this argument gets play. If the tests represent what an average student is "supposed to know," what's wrong with teaching for that test? Isn't that the point? I know there are other arguments for and against testing, but I'm interesting in a specific refutation of the idea that "teaching to the test" is bad.

Whatever is on the test becomes what the students "are supposed to know", so whoever or whatever is funding the testing companies and writing the tests has enormous control over what the students are taught, for all schools want to do well on the test, right?

What if the People for the American Way, Emily's List, ACLU, Rainbow PUSH, etc. are funding the test companies.....would you still support teaching to the test? Would you want your kids to take that test?

Follow the money.

[goldstategop]

I'm disappointed as every one else on this thread with this bill. Its not a real reform bill and since it just throws more money at the schools without requiring them to demonstrate accountability its not going to bring about substantiative changes in our nation's public education system. The only blessing in disguise in this otherwise dreadful measure is that it will hopefully prompt free market alternatives to emerge once it becomes apparent the schools are no better off than before. That will make more of a real difference in the long run to our children's future than the measure the President signed.

[eaglebeak]

See my post #16.

[BostonGuy]

Whatever is on the test becomes what the students "are supposed to know", so whoever or whatever is funding the testing companies and writing the tests has enormous control over what the students are taught, for all schools want to do well on the test, right?

Thanks, that's what I was looking for. I knew there had to be something there, but I forgot that great maxim - follow the money!