1. The Fed Dept of Ed is exactly who is pushing for the testing when they are a part of the problem. In other words, it’s the educrats who are the problem.

2. Parochial schools tend to score better on the tests (and have higher levels of growth) when they, in fact, operate on a lower budget and do not teach to the test. Yet, many of the parochial schools allow for a higher level of teacher autonomy. Public schools that do well on the test often take a similar approach. My district micromanages teachers and our performance is piss-poor. The district where my children attend that scores higher (despite similar demographics) doesn’t micromanage. While this is purely anecdotal evidence, I have a hunch this is a trend we would see throughout the nation.

3. The tests are manufactured to create failure. If too many kids pass, the questions are re-normed, which makes the tests norm-referenced rather than criterion-referenced. Companies like McGraw Hill lobby to change the laws to be more test-friendly, create the textbooks, “help” with creating the standards, have consultants who help “failing” schools, sell more curriculum and programs for schools that are failing (ie Jamestown Intervention), etc. It’s a rigged system with plenty of conflict of interests.

4. Marzano proved in his research that it is not the “curriculum” that makes the greatest difference. It is the teacher. Simply adopting great materials or forcing teachers to use lesson plans will not produce results, especially given the need for a teacher to use enrichment and intervention.

I don’t disagree with your point entirely. Bad teachers exist and we need them out of there. Money isn’t the solution. However, if I look at what works (from my experience), it’s things like collaboration, an increase in teacher autonomy (with teachers working as researchers), authentic education, intrinsic motivation and other things that seem real counter-intuitive to the public.

I don’t pretend to be an expert on educational reform. However, I know what works for my students and it has been an authentic approach based upon high standards.

It’s not educrats who are upset with teaching to the test. It’s anyone who really cares about a quality education. It’s why so many amazing teachers don’t teach to the test.

Accountability should be about trust and transparency rather than rules and regulations.

In teaching social studies and emphasizing writing, my students (low-SES, Title One) have always scored highest in our district and on the top half of the state in social studies and writing.

Yet, I have never taught to the test. I ignore the practice test booklets. I ignore our “AIMS Blueprint.” Instead, I increase motivation, use authentic learning, follow research-based best practices and monitor student learning closely.

I have never needed a machine to help me in this process.

Truthfully, I agree with the machine on this one.

If I were evaluating the British package, I would recommend that they keep looking. I think that there is better stuff out there. You can’t beat the machine for immediate and unbiased feedback. And I am not certain that writing for that particular audience provides less fulfillment than writing for the audience of a single teacher. Both are pretty stilted.

I’m willing to bet this only holds true when their papers are graded by something close to their intended audience. If you grade by machine, then you’re teaching kids to write for the machines. This is not a good thing if the difference between machine and human grading is significant.