Your question more or less assumes that standardization is the right answer. Let's start a step or two back: Do we need to measure students and teachers at all? Presuming we do, why do we need to do it via standardized tests? Do they even measure what we want to know?
My daughter goes to a school that does well by these measures. It _is_ a good school, but the teachers basically teach to the test* -- given the rather punitive structure of the laws, they don't have much choice. Performance is directly tied to funding. Is that really the best way to teach kids? I'm doubtful.
I think we do need good teachers, but I'm not at all convinced that test scores are a good way to measure that, anymore than lines of code are a good way to measure programmers. I do want kids to learn, but I'm not very convinced this is the best route to that.
I don't think there is any easy solution. Kids with parents who value education tend to do better -- that's a huge factor. Resources certainly help; those of us who care tend to live in better school districts (often with higher tax rates) -- is that really a sensible way to run the schools? I mean, it works for me, but why should we under-resource kids whose parents don't care about education? But there is no doubt that you can pour money at this problem and get nowhere if you spend it poorly. (That's true of all problems, though.)
All this emphasis on education can go overboard. Where I live, even in grade school they get only one short recess a day (unlike the two, slightly longer, ones I grew up with). Does that make sense? In a nation with a national obesity epidemic? And, even in very early grades, they come home with a LOT of homework. When are they supposed to go outside and play?
*I don't mean they literally teach the tests, but they certainly spend a lot of time structuring their materials around the way test questions are phrased, and in teaching kids test-taking strategies. Do I think fourth-graders should need to learn how to take tests? No.
My daughter goes to a school that does well by these measures. It _is_ a good school, but the teachers basically teach to the test* -- given the rather punitive structure of the laws, they don't have much choice. Performance is directly tied to funding. Is that really the best way to teach kids? I'm doubtful.
I think we do need good teachers, but I'm not at all convinced that test scores are a good way to measure that, anymore than lines of code are a good way to measure programmers. I do want kids to learn, but I'm not very convinced this is the best route to that.
I don't think there is any easy solution. Kids with parents who value education tend to do better -- that's a huge factor. Resources certainly help; those of us who care tend to live in better school districts (often with higher tax rates) -- is that really a sensible way to run the schools? I mean, it works for me, but why should we under-resource kids whose parents don't care about education? But there is no doubt that you can pour money at this problem and get nowhere if you spend it poorly. (That's true of all problems, though.)
All this emphasis on education can go overboard. Where I live, even in grade school they get only one short recess a day (unlike the two, slightly longer, ones I grew up with). Does that make sense? In a nation with a national obesity epidemic? And, even in very early grades, they come home with a LOT of homework. When are they supposed to go outside and play?
*I don't mean they literally teach the tests, but they certainly spend a lot of time structuring their materials around the way test questions are phrased, and in teaching kids test-taking strategies. Do I think fourth-graders should need to learn how to take tests? No.