would you like fries with that

http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/12/20/what-should-be-done-about-standardized-tests-a-freakonomics-quorum/more-2126

I'd have to agree with Dubner here. I haven't seen schools compared to French fries before either, and I don't think I'll be forgetting the analogy anytime soon either.

I'm inclined to agree. Standard tests are measuring sticks. Nothing more, but we've been treating them in some ways like they're back-breakers. Much as grades or marks have been treated for several decades, the idea that a poor(er) score on a test of achievement will relegate a student to a condition of failure is pretty silly. Likewise the inverse is true. It's just hard to see what a teenager is about to do because they themselves usually do not possess the foresight and maturity to know themselves.

The fundamental question has been how to test what a student has learned. The question has been changed to try to determine what a teacher has taught. I am fairly certain this might be a useful question to weed out terrible teachers, but really the students can do that anyway. Most good students will know within a few minutes that their instructor is an idiot or a genius. And then whether they can pass anything along that might be regarded as wisdom. The most fundamental and important question of education is what is imparted to the students. Not how or who does it. But what do they learn. What sorts of things and thinking attracts their interest and inspires them to dig deeper. Sadly I am quite certain for many the premise has become that education is a useless tool to another end (getting a job), rather than a tool to illuminate the world around ourselves. This is an unfortunate reality if true.
Additionally, the secondary question is what are we testing now then, if not what a student learns or a teacher teaches. And I think the answer is usually how good a student is at taking tests. It's very possible that good students become natural test takers because of the volume of tests and quizzes battering them throughout education. It's also possible that good students become the worst possible students, understanding that the 'educational objective' is excellent grades and scores and neglecting a proper education of exploratory knowledge in favor of exactly the sort of information needed to supply these limited objectives. If we were to ask how does an institution teach problem solving, it would seem to me that this is precisely the type of problem solving we're teaching. How to supply only what is required.

My biggest problem with all of this is that it has totally turned education on it's head. The idea is not how to provide the slowest or poorest performers with the most basic tools, but how to push the strongest and most brilliant minds to new heights and to resolve creatively new ideas and new problems. We're failing miserably at this necessary task by forcing teachers to focus their efforts on the students whose interest and aptitude is perhaps lower. It's possible, and indeed even noble, to turn some of these students around. I have no desire to see a person of capable mind wasted, it's not a pleasant experience I assure you. But it's always a bigger disappointment to me to see talented wasted than 'talent' developed.