There are many ways to evaluate how much the students are learning. Say, for example, that the goal is that students be able to write a paragraph that calls more attention to its content than to the errors it contains. Maybe we want to teach children the difference between fact and opinion, and how to support opinion with fact. Now, we could give them a bunch of questions of the which of these is a fact, which sentence is punctuated correctly variety, and have then sit for hours filling in bubbles. We could also have them write a paragraph expressing an opinion, and supporting it with facts. Currently, we do our evaluation the first way. The second way would be much quicker, and would give a better idea of students' capabilities.
Evaluating a school based on student learning is more complex than simply comparing test scores, as not all schools have the same demographics. If a school populated by the children of college professors has student outcomes only a little better than one populated by farmworkers' kids, which school is doing a better job? Further, if test scores are low, is it because kids aren't learning, or because they just don't care about the test itself? Multiple measures are needed to find than answer.
There may be ways to evaluate a school's performance other than by standardized tests, but I don't know if there is a BETTER way.
The Std Tests do not require exhaustive knowledge of arcane facts. They are primarily a way to find out if a student has learned ANYTHING AT ALL for the time and money spent on providing them their education.
Those who bemoan the fact that teachers are 'teaching the test' don't know what they are talking about.
Teachers teach to a curriculum. The test is designed to pick off the most elementary parts of that curriculum to see how effectively the learning process was conducted.
To me, those who say 'let teachers teach what they want to' are the ones responsible for schools turning out graduates who know nothing particularly valuable.
There is nothing wrong with EXPANDING what is taught BEYOND the basic curriculum, but it should not be done at the expense of the basic fundamentals that underly the curriculum.
If a student cannot solve a simple linear equation, he should not graduate high school with a valid diploma. end of story.
If a student cannot write a cogent paragraph free of gross grammatical errors, he should not graduate with a valid diploma. end of story.
If a student does not know the basic structure of our government, he should not . . . . . . . eos.
If a student does not have any concept of the anatomy of the human body, he should not ...... eos.
If a student does not know when the Declaration of Independence was signed, he . . . . . eos.
In short, in four years of high school, it is important that SOMETHING be learned and that SOME skills are obtained, or else a diploma certifying a basic education should not be awarded.
This is what these standardized tests try to gauge.
And it is not about a student who 'is just not good at taking a test' either. If a student is too stupid to select a correct answer from a list of four answers and color in the corresponding letter on a scan-tron card, when said question was "Who was the first president of the United States?" then just what IS such a student capable of doing that would merit an educational achievement certification.
To argue against standardized testing is to argue for lazy teachers who either don't know the material they are teaching, or don't care whether their students learn anything or not - just promoting them for putting in time.
And I don't buy all the stories about teaching the basic curriculum deprives the teacher of teaching their students 'more important stuff' - if there is more important stuff than the basic curriculum, then please propose it to REPLACE the standard curriculum.
I'm afraid that these 'more important' topics consist of the teachers telling stories of what they did over the weekend, engaging in bull sessions with the students, or just letting the students 'explore' their world during class time.
As I said - I like to go BEYOND the curriculum, but before I do that, I make sure that the BASIC stuff is well understood, because if the basics are not understood, I don't understand how more advance stuff could possibly be understood.
DISCLAIMER - I do NOT like the idea of "No Child Left Behind" taken to the extreme that the Depts of Education have taken it. The original intent of NCLB makes sense, but what does NOT make sense is to allow one or two students in a class to put the halt on a progress toward advancement of the rest of the class to a full education.
I tell my classes, that we will slow the train down for a few days to allow you to run and catch up to it, but if you make no effort, then you will be given the opportunity to take the next train that comes by - next year. TaTa for now.
t
