What surprised me about your post was the suggestion that in 11 states, the tests are 100% aligned with the standards. I wish that this meant that the tests cover 100% of the standards, but I suspect that it really just means that the tests only include questions that are within the standards.

What I've figured out is that within the standards, there are "testable" and "untestable" sections (given the limitations of standardized testing and scoring).

The effect of testing pressure is to discourage teaching of "untestable" standards. Little unimportant things like critical thinking skills, for example.

Another casualty of NCLB testing pressure: subjects other than math and reading.

With the main focus on "reading and math," all other subjects get lower status, and are sometimes ignored entirely in elementary classrooms.

I expected art and music to be cut back (and they certainly have), but subjects like "science" and "social studies (geography, history, civics) are covered on a "spare time" basis only in elementary schools.

Raise the river vs. lower the bridge?

The very nature of standardized tests is that they have to be——well——standardized. As a result, the various curricula of all the school districts within a testing region (usually a state) often wind up changing their curriculum to fit the test, rather than the more authentic sequence of testing what is actually taught.

In some cases, this can actually be good, because some teachers tend to teach what they want to teach behind closed doors, regardless of standards and prescribed curriculum. But the flip side is that good instructional methods and content, like the critical thinking Mark Welch mentions in his post, have to be sacrificed to make room for instruction geared toward these high-stakes tests.

As long as tests are fair to children of different backgrounds, economic levels, ethnic and religious heritages then the tests are fine to use as a gauge. However, too often in our history too many children score too low on tests that have been engineered for a certain subset of the population. If we can avoid tests that are unfair to particular children and we can get a standard that everyone could agree on, then we would be golden.
AB

I just don't think tests should be all or nothing, even if they are as fair as can be. High-stakes tests, in my opinion, are inherintly unfair. Some students are better test takers than others, and I don't think testing alone is a true measure of a student's abilities.

I'm not opposed to testing, but too often high-stake test scores are the only judge of a school, teacher, or student, and it sort of makes the rest of the academic year and any progress moot. And then it becomes what the others have stated. The school teaches the test in order to score well, and everything else gets lost in the shuffle.

This is one of the finest posts I have seen on this subject

Greetings, Ilike your blog very much. It has usefullinfo in it. I came here from search engine google while was searching for web digital info. Keep working on blog I d place bookmark, thanks.