In light of a blog post by Scott K. arguing the value of teaching mathematics in high school, I decided to browse the NY Times Education section, and found this interesting opinion piece .
The writer basically describes that evaluation of teachers and students rely too much on standardized testing. She writes that there should not be such high-stake accountability on tests that are often "erratic" and "inherently unreliable". Instead, she argues that students, teachers, and schools in general should be judged on a variety of different measures, including using student profiles, peer reviews, and evaluating the conditions for an effective learning environment.
I think the writer has a point in this piece, and I think we have seen that standardized testing is not an effective way to evaluate students, especially in the 21st century structure of education. In also leads into the trap of teachers "teaching to the test", which is naturally not inquiry based. However, how can one objectively evaluate student portfolios? And what are the kind of resources would her suggestion require (is it too much)?
What are your thoughts on standardized testing, and their use in our education system? Anyone have other suggestions for effective evaluation measures?