I guess what I was trying to get across was that as the school curriculum more closely mirrors standardized test content, it becomes increasingly difficult to use school test scores as independent, objective measures with which to evaluate the effect of the mere existence of standardized tests. In many cases, the two naturally converge. I didn’t think I said that I thought this was inherently “evil” — just that it’s misleading to ignore the natural dependencies created. A subtle distinction perhaps, but one that exists in my mind. . . if only my mind.

So can we condemn every case of teaching to the test? No. Can we condemn the *argument* that having standardized tests raises performance in schools, therefore standardized tests are good? Yes, I think as a reasoned argument, it leaves a little to be desired. If school tests gradually develop into the same tests as the standardized ones, then of course kids who study for one are going to do better on the other. That’s not a compelling *argument.*

A compelling argument would have to, as you did, address the quality of these assessments and what they represent. Many so-called arguments in favour of standardized testing don’t go that extra step, which is to say, to demonstrate that the assessments themselves are valid, meaningful and all that good stuff. I personally don’t think it’s good enough to say, “See — school-issued assessments are higher; therefore, standardized testing is a good thing.” *That* is what I have a problem with.

I see we both enjoy thinking about standardized testing!

Here’s an idea: Teaching to the Test is not inherently evil, as long as the test is a good tool to assess something important.

Here in the US, more and more parents of talented kids are demanding that their kids take Advanced Placement and International Baccalaureate courses. The thought is that the rigor of the courses is tied to the rigor of the examinations, and that excellent performance on those tests really does indicate a student’s knowledge and skills related to the academic discipline involved.

I have no problem with the thought that my kids’ teachers might be “teaching to the test” in these courses, because I believe in the value of the test results. And they can’t pass these exams solely by memorization, for each demands essays and interpretation of the information that goes beyond the bubble sheets.

My point is that we cannot necessarily condemn every case of “teaching to the test.” We can question the value of the test itself. We can try to redesign better tests. But assessments of any kind must mean something. If thee assessment is good, why not recalibrate instruction to ensure success on the assessment?

Thanks for the conversation.

Mark