Quote:
Originally Posted by AOII Angel
But it's comparing apples to oranges. Extremely specialized tests that are paid for out of pocket by the person being tested. You have an incentive to pass. For physicians, however, passing isn't mandatory after the USMLE. You don't have to be board certified to practice in your field.
|
I don't mean to invite an apples-to-apples comparison at all - that was what the "other contexts" was about ... I'm literally only saying that standardized testing is not inherently awful (and using examples where it is accepted to show this), which seems to indicate that the
use of the tests is the problem, and not the tests themselves.
I guess I'll be somewhat more specific in my earlier point, and hopefully illustrate what I'm saying a little better:
Standardized tests provide TONS of data - smart school systems could use the data to improve at every stage. Instead, the data are reduced to a binary "pass/fail", at least in effect, and applied toward short-sighted goals (like judging teachers on a minute sample). Are the data flawed? In some ways, perhaps - but it's systemic, not endemic, and the apples-to-oranges examples of post-secondary testing show us that it is certainly possible to work around the flaws to get to something positive. In other contexts, the tests work just fine - it's about expectations and how the test is used.
I'll let them speak for themselves, but I imagine teachers would be MUCH more open to standardized tests if the tests resulted in a global overview of what is and isn't 'working' for kids at every level, and curricula were designed each year to help address those issues across every level. If the outcome became collaborative rather than 'definitive' (re: a teacher's performance, rather than a student's), it seems like most of the problems raised here would be obviated.
Threaded Mode
