3 ms·

Well, by your own admission, 30-50% of knowledge should be held in common. In early grades, the number is probably more like 90%. By high school, sure, there'

by shasta 16y ago

Well, by your own admission, 30-50% of knowledge should be held in common. In early grades, the number is probably more like 90%. By high school, sure, there's plenty of room for diversified knowledge of literature and history, but there's also a core of math, logic, and reading that everyone should know. Why not test this stuff? Standardized tests are objective. Now, the current system focuses on meeting minimums, and most standardized tests quickly hit a ceiling. I'd much prefer to see tests that attempt to gage the entire breadth and depth of student learning. Practically, that's going to require different questions asked of different students, or you'll end up with a 10,000 question exam. But I still consider it standardized testing. The SAT and AP exams are great - we should do more of that earlier.

sprout 16y ago
>Why not test this stuff? Standardized tests are objective. Sure they are, but to what degree do they really reflect on the teacher? A teacher can be doing a fantastic, patient job with a student, and make zero progress all year with a student. That work is meaningful, but its effect could take years to show up. Can we measure this? Sure. But it will be very error-prone, and ultimately less effective than just asking the other people in the building who is worthless (everyone knows except the worthless themselves.) We're not looking to find the best and brightest - we as a society have made the decision that we're not going to pay that much. We just want to get rid of the unequivocally awful.