One phrase in the March 5 pro-standardized testing editorial was “for all their flaws — and there are many.” Let me list a few: inability to measure true progress, highly expensive, inflexible, biased, preference skills over concepts, one-day high-stakes evaluation, destruction of students’ personal and academic self esteem, and major cause of teacher burnout.
The arguments for standardized testing were quite old and tired. The editorial states that standardized testing ensures schools are “meeting a minimum standard of instruction.” There is limited correlation between testing and effective instruction. Schools “cover” similar material, so there is a significant impact on topics taught. But the impact on instruction is often a steam-rolling approach that limits learning, with no chance for students to return to unlearned concepts. They are left to metaphorically drown.
You also argue removing testing would “lower expectations for students.” Good teachers teach students, not curriculum. Washington parents should want their children learning at their level of capability and taught in a manner best for them. It has been shown standardized testing can deter this.
If humans were born with identical traits and abilities, and raised in identical environments, then I’m all-in for standardized testing. Last I looked, that ain’t happening.
