Quote:
Originally posted by bilmore
Problem is, absent objective standardized testing, there is no way to measure how the bottom kids in School A are doing compared to the bottom kids in School B. The testing we have right now is obviously far from perfect, but I'd bet that it gives us more accurate info than the system we had before (which consisted, I think, of teachers saying "we're doing well", and employers saying "um, they can't read, or make change.")
In MN, the teacher's union fought (and is still fighting) testing. When asked for some suggestions concerning how we could measure school-by-school success, they did come up with a formula. The teachers' philosophy regarding this is so entirely self-serving as to be laughable.
It involved not one measure of student performance. It graded schools entirely based on how much the school spent per pupil. If the expenditure was lower then others, then, clearly, the school was doing worse than the others.
NCLB, and its testing component, aren't perfect. Maybe they're not even great. But our teachers' input showed that we need something that objectively measures some part of what the kids are learning.
|
There's been testing for years. I certainly took standardized tests way, way, way back in ancient times. I'll bet almost everyone on this board did.
The questions are, (i) should standardized tests be elevated above broader assessments and grades in determining promotion within a system; and (ii) should standardized tests be the primary basis for a funding and accreditition system for schools.
If we have gotten to the point where standardized tests are better at assessing students that professionals who work with them, then our professionals must be pretty damn bad. Maybe, if that's the case, where we really need the money is teacher training.
