Blogger Edward Berger has a test for those who claim to be reformers.
What do you know about teaching? How long did you teach? What gives you the authority to tell teachers how to teach? And that’s just the beginning.
He concludes that most reformers are quacks.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Unfortunately, the reformers would say you just need to be a good manager (and management strategies) to instruct education – just give your professionals the right incentives and they’ll do the work properly or lose their jobs.
Unfortunately, their expectations are so far out of whack with reality, that they’ll end up with their secret wish of low paid rotating teachers they can control – one of the dangers in their eyes of experienced and organized teachers is that they actually can stand up to people who aim to harm children and aren’t as easily controlled as they can think for themselves (which explains why they hire similarly inexperienced managers at the Principal level).
OK. I would prefer to give them an essay exam. Here’s a start on that.
As a member of the Billionaire Boys’ Club, or as one of the paid toadies of the BBC, you . . .
1. believe that that extraordinarily complex skills like reading and writing ability can be validly and reliably measured by simple, objective tests.
Explain how that could possibly be so. Please draw upon your extensive knowledge of the relevant scientific literature.
2. believe that innovation comes about when free persons conceive of varied goods and services that compete with one another in a free market in which users choose the goods and services that they wish to purchase and use.
Explain how this belief can be reconciled with a) a single set of mandatory national standards for all students, b) a single set of mandatory high-stakes national tests, c) a single national database of all student test scores and responses, and d) scripted literacy lessons that all teachers must follow to the letter.
3. believe that all students should follow the same standards and take the same tests.
Explain how this belief can be reconciled with the fact that students differ enormously in their backgrounds, in their developmental levels, in their gifts and interests and propensities, and in the goals that they and their parents have for their futures.
4. believe that national standards do not narrow and distort curricula and pedagogy. Please answer the following questions:
If standards do not drive (and so narrow and distort) curricula and pedagogy, why create them? If they do drive curricula and pedagogy, how can a single set of predetermined standards be better than ANY alternative set that might be developed by ANY OTHER expert or group of experts in education and particular subject matter?
5. believe that our schools are failing.
Explain how can this belief can be reconciled with the fact that, when results on internationally norm-referenced exams in reading, mathematics, and science are corrected for the socio-economic levels of students taking the exams, U.S. students consistently score at the top or very near the top?
6. believe that a small group of persons appointed by a committee of politicians should be empowered to create standards that overrule and render irrelevant the judgments about desirable outcomes in particular courses of study made by professional teachers, curriculum developers, and curriculum coordinators.
WTF?
I love the idea of anyone under the “ed reform” umbrella being required to take a test where the 4 answers could be correct and they have to chose one and explain their support of it (as to what they know about education of course)! I also feel they should have to take a 2nd test – the same style of “testing” that has been forced on students under NCLB and RTTT. I would love for real teachers with actual teaching credentials to make up this test! An “ed reformer” will spend an awful lot of time prepping, doing pre tests etc for the latter of the tests and will probably fail. And the first style of test.. we know they cannot pass because they have NEVER had any classroom teaching nor have they ever studied education. Could they give a concrete example of “affective filter hypothesis” and discuss what group of students this was originally targeted for and in what setting they might be more apt to apply this theory? Could they provide a few concrete learning strategies that are developmentally appropriate for a first grade student and a few learning strategies appropriate for a 3rd grade student and then explain why the 3rd grade strategies would not work well for a 1st grader and vice versa and then explain why? Or could they argue about an education method they read about (any method) and then explain why this approach does not work well and give concrete classroom examples? The latter is crucial because teachers in school read all kinds of ed theories and strategies and the PROFESSIONALISM comes in with both time and experience… TEACHER CHOICE of what works and what doesn’t… and this often depends on the particular school district, the particular school, the particular class and the particular student or students. Love the notion of “ed reformers” having to get “certification” on one hand, but then again upon reflection do we really need more certification and do we really need corporate “ed reformers”? Let’s just let REAL TEACHERS and REAL ADMINISTRATORS who actually have years in the classroom behind them set the education course of this nation by the help of academics like Diane Ravitch who has led an academic life devoted to knowing about public education in America!