When is predictability a virtue? On standardized reading tests

For the past several decades, American education reformers have focused on reading and math test scores as the primary means of holding schools and teachers accountable for improving student performance. A recent book by a Harvard education professor argues convincingly that this regime has led to dire and unintended negative consequences while failing to achieve its aims: namely, raising student achievement and narrowing the gap between the highest- and lowest-achieving groups of students. But in his recommendations for correcting the situation, the author–Daniel Koretz–overlooks a crucial distinction between reading and math tests.

Source: When is predictability a virtue? On standardized reading tests

Advertisements

About teachingbattleground

I teach
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to When is predictability a virtue? On standardized reading tests

  1. Richard I says:

    “It’s possible, of course, to go too far in this direction, even on reading tests. I’m reminded of stories I’ve heard about the British system, in which schools are allowed to choose a limited number of literary works to have their secondary students tested on, with the result that students may spend two years doing nothing but intensively studying a couple of novels.”

    Although I agree with the general thrust of the argument, the conflating of a “reading test” with an A-Level in English Literature serves no purpose other than to highlight the author’s lack of experience.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s