|
I cannot argue against the proposition that we as a nation have some staggering issues which must be addressed and delt with. AGDee's post was a real eye opener and points out the truth of that old saying that it is difficult to remember that your object is to drain the swamp when you are up to your butt in aligators! There are no easy fixes. However, one consideration regarding standardized tests might be to look at how tests are done in England. Over there the school you attend doesn't test you or assign a grade to you. There is a National Curriculum which establishes a syllabus and learning objectives and then tests all students to the same standard. There is effectively no difference between an "A" earned by a kid from Eton and an "A" earned from the so-called worst inner city state school. Same standards across the board. The difference is how well the school prepares you to take the national tests. Since we all know that over here standards can vary widely and an "A" from XYX High might only equate to a "D" at ABC High we might want to take a hard look at the way the Brits do it. In the time I spent over there I got the definite impression that the average Brit was better and much more broadly educated than the average American, a situation which annoyed the hell out of me. I met people from the so-called Top Schools and people from the very bottom of the heap, and even the ones who were just plane bad students seemed to have been exposed to and to have retained much more than their "Yank" counterparts. I understand that most European countries use a similar system and get demonstrably solid results. Anybody with exposure to the British or European system, please comment on how you saw this approach in practice.
|