As an engineer, I love statistical data or numbers I can crunch and use to make a supposedly more objective comparison between things. I believe the problem wit

As an engineer, I love statistical data or numbers I can crunch and use to make a supposedly more objective comparison between things. I believe the problem with standardized testing is we are trying to take that idea and then apply it to something inherently non numerical--the acquisition of knowledge. Contrast this with economics and I think there's a startling difference. In Econ, we participate with numbers, something easily quantifiable. In education we participate with our minds and we have no easy, objective, way to quantify this into convenient numbers. For instance, standardized testing is inherently biased against people who don't take tests well meaning the test will not accurately represent their level of knowledge which could then have further repercussions when they apply to college. The problem is we are looking at this through an engineering lens. When looking for a quality teacher, other factors than results on a silly test should play a role. How do the students respond to the teacher? Is the teacher usually well prepared? Do they have a good reputation with the students for being fair? Are their lectures interesting? At some point, on the local level (individual school), I think parents and the administration have a good idea of who the good teachers are and who are lemons and I don't know if you could quantify this into a statistical system that is "impartial".