In what way are multi-state standardized tests worse than state-specific standardized tests?
A few of the reasons why many find the nationalized standardized tests more objectionable than the earlier hodge-podge of individual State tests have been recently mentioned in this thread:
1) Many have said that the frequency and duration of standardized testing has increased, teaching to the test has increased. This becomes a kind of censorship as it fosters a belief that if it's not on the test students don't need to know it.
2)... reduce student learning to neat little numbers, and standardized tests make that easy.
3) use for teacher evaluations
4) involvement of "the feds" (Education is a State issue, not a Federal issue.)
A different form of the question you posed might be:
In what way are nationalized standardized tests more valuable than state-specific standardized tests? A clarifying question might be - "
More valuable to whom?"
Another form of the question you posed might be:
What makes nationalized standardized tests worth all the money being spent on them? Yet another form of the question might be:
From the perspective of student learning, does a change in assessments yield the greatest return on investment when subject to cost/benefit analysis? Worded another way:
Are there other educational programs or other educational reforms which would yield greater benefits, for this amount of investment? For example, on many forums, parents discuss the lack of appropriate gifted programming, and in doing so do not seem to propose a change in standardized tests as any part of a solution.
Which is another way of asking:
What specific educational problem is nationalized standardized testing addressing/fixing?
