Like I mentioned, it’s domain specific to an extent. Tests may be more effective in fields like engineering where there are specific correct answers and methods. But we’re talking about k-12, and nothing you did at caltech is relevant to hs standardized testing.
I remember taking all those standardized tests all through grade school and high school. There was quite an obvious and consistent correlation between those who learned the material and did well on the test, and those who didn't and did poorly.
This remained true whether the test was multiple choice, fill in the blank, or open ended.
Frankly you don’t remember, the sheer amount of testing and degree of standardization has increased tremendously since NCLB. ESSA walked back the testing somewhat, but it’s still very different than when you were in school.
The question is what “learned the material” actually means, and if designing the class around a definition that can be accurately captured on a test is a worthwhile goal. Again though, I want to make it clear that I’m not arguing against assessing what and how students are learning, but specifically against standardized testing.
We can’t spend decades hurfing and blurfing over “failing schools” and then refuse to consider change when what we’ve been doing clearly isn’t working.
