Peter Greene writes here about Sara Holbrook, a poet whose poems have been used on standardized tests.
Back in 2017, Holbrook wrote an essay for Huffington Post entitled, “I Can’t Answer These Texas Standardized Test Questions About My Own Poems.” The writer had discovered that two of her poems were part of the Texas STAAR state assessment tests, and she was a bit startled to discover that she was unable to answer some of the questions….
To approach any poem with the notion that each word has one and only one correct reading when language at its most rich involves shades and layers or meaning–what my old college writing professor called “the ambiguity that enriches”–is one way to stifle thinking in students. In many states, we are doing it in grades K through 12.
There are so many layers to Holbrook’s situation. The test manufacturers could have contacted her and talked to her about her poem (though Common Core architect David Coleman would argue that doing so was both unnecessary and undesirable), but they didn’t. So here we sit, in a bizarre universe where the test writer knows the “correct” answer for a question about a poem, but the person who wrote the poem does not. And at least Holbrook has the option of publicly saying, “Hey, wait a minute,” which is more than the deceased authors used for testing can do. But she was only able to do so because somebody risked punishment by sharing test materials with her. Particularly ironic is Mentoring Minds’ promise to build critical thinking skills in students, even as Holbrook, by taking reading, writing and speaking out to students in living, breathing, dynamic workshops, is doing far more to promote critical thinking than can be accomplished by challenging students to guess which one of four available answers an unseen test writer has deemed “correct.”

This would be hilarious if it weren’t so serious.
LikeLiked by 1 person
and so unaddressed
LikeLike
The high-stakes standardized testing in ELA has had one, and only one, value: it has been extremely profitable for testing companies.
The results of these tests are of ZERO pedagogical value. The tests do not identify particular deficiencies to be addressed with instruction, and the scores come too late and are too vague to be at all useful pedagogically.
The tests attempt to do what cannot be done–to measure “higher-order thinking” with multiple-choice questions, and in order to do that, the test manufacturers created test formats in which there are several plausible answers but only one “best” answer. But if one looks at the sample released questions, it is not only commonly but typically the case that, as written, the question has no correct given answer or several correct given answers. Why? Well, there are issues of ambiguity in the texts and in the question wording, and there are variations in defensible readings, and the creation of test questions is farmed at for very low pay to hack freelance writers.
The test questions are invalid. They don’t test what they purport to measure, and they can’t. They purport to measure both a) general reading ability and b) specific standards from the puerile Gates/Coleman standards list. However, a given test will have only one or two questions on a given standard, even though that standard is incredibly vague and broad. Can any one or two questions validly measure IN GENERAL whether a person is able to make proper inferences based on textual evidence? Of course not. And, the “standards” being measured are almost content free, though content knowledge is essential to reading comprehension and interpretation, so even if the tests were valid measures of the “standards,” which they are not, they would not be valid measures of reading ability in general.
The tests steal vast resources and time away from instruction–time spent doing test prep and pretests and benchmark tests and exercises in textbooks modeled on the test questions in addition to the time spent on the tests themselves. They are like a cancerous tumor, stealing nutrients from the surrounding healthy tissue. In my school, the testing schedule takes two and a half months at the end of the school year, and during that time, the media labs are unavailable because those are being used for testing.
The tests create enormous anxiety. We have epidemics, in the U.S., of students cutting themselves and killing themselves. If you are a high-school teacher, you see this clearly every year as test season approaches.
The tests have failed, utterly, by the test mongers’ own preferred measures: a) they haven’t increased outcomes (as measured by the tests) over time, and b) they haven’t closed achievement gaps.
The grifters who prepare these tests have a great scam going. No one is even allowed to look at their crappy products. We spend billions on these, and it’s just like northerners, in the past, buying swampland, sight unseen, in Florida.
High-stakes standardized testing is a vampire that has been sucking resources out of K-12 education for decades now. Put a stake in it.
We are into our election season. Ask your would-be representatives: WILL YOU COMMIT TO ENDING THE FEDERAL STANDARDIZED TESTING MANDATE?
LikeLike
I left out one other very important argument against this high-stakes standardized testing: It vastly distorts curricula and pedagogy. The current generation of test-preppy ELA textbooks and online materials are a joke. They are no longer coherently teach a part of the subject (e.g., the elements of the short story; the characteristics of literary movements and styles). All they do is give kids snippets of text and exercises modeled on standardized test questions. David Coleman-style New Criticism lite. Enough.
LikeLiked by 1 person
And one more: The standards-and-testing regime stops innovation in ELA education COLD. If it’s not on the stupid Gates/Coleman bullet list and so not on the test, then it won’t be taught. So, where before we had a gradual evolution of ELA curricula and pedagogy in respnse to discoveries and innovations by researchers, subject-matter experts, and classroom practitioners, we now have the Gates/Coleman bullet list dictating that this and only this (whatever is on that list) will be taught (until when? when Gates again reconvenes his Politburo to do the thinking for the rest of us?)
Insane.
LikeLike
Exactly, Bob. Kids are coming to me (teaching history and geography) without decent reading or writing ability. They can’t write a coherent sentence or paragraph, and they can’t relate a personal experience in either writing or even verbally. And most of these kids are “on grade level.” I fear that there is a generation of kids growing up functionally illiterate.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The testing is destroying English language arts education.
LikeLike
can’t have children educated to the point of thinking for themselves in modern days bent to Corporate Control
LikeLiked by 1 person
“The results of these tests are of ZERO pedagogical value.”
Can’t agree with you, Robert, on that “ZERO pedagogical value”.
WHAT?
Nope, can’t agree at all.
They don’t have zero pedagogical value. They have NEGATIVE pedagogical value.
LikeLike
“Can any one or two questions validly measure IN GENERAL whether a person is able to make proper inferences based on textual evidence? Of course not. And, the “standards” being measured are almost content free, though content knowledge is essential to reading comprehension and interpretation, so even if the tests were valid measures of the “standards,” which they are not, they would not be valid measures of reading ability in general.”
Thanks for the opening Bob!!
The most misleading concept/term in education is “measuring student achievement” or “measuring student learning”. The concept has been misleading educators into deluding themselves that the teaching and learning process can be analyzed/assessed using “scientific” methods which are actually pseudo-scientific at best and at worst a complete bastardization of rationo-logical thinking and language usage.
There never has been and never will be any “measuring” of the teaching and learning process and what each individual student learns in their schooling. There is and always has been assessing, evaluating, judging of what students learn but never a true “measuring” of it.
But, but, but, you’re trying to tell me that the supposedly august and venerable APA, AERA and/or the NCME have been wrong for more than the last 50 years, disseminating falsehoods and chimeras??
Who are you to question the authorities in testing???
Yes, they have been wrong and I (and many others, Wilson, Hoffman etc. . . ) question those authorities and challenge them (or any of you other advocates of the malpractices that are standards and testing) to answer to the following onto-epistemological analysis:
The TESTS MEASURE NOTHING, quite literally when you realize what is actually happening with them. Richard Phelps, a staunch standardized test proponent (he has written at least two books defending the standardized testing malpractices) in the introduction to “Correcting Fallacies About Educational and Psychological Testing” unwittingly lets the cat out of the bag with this statement:
“Physical tests, such as those conducted by engineers, can be standardized, of course [why of course of course], but in this volume , we focus on the measurement of latent (i.e., nonobservable) mental, and not physical, traits.” [my addition]
Notice how he is trying to assert by proximity that educational standardized testing and the testing done by engineers are basically the same, in other words a “truly scientific endeavor”. The same by proximity is not a good rhetorical/debating technique.
Since there is no agreement on a standard unit of learning, there is no exemplar of that standard unit and there is no measuring device calibrated against said non-existent standard unit, how is it possible to “measure the nonobservable”?
THE TESTS MEASURE NOTHING for how is it possible to “measure” the nonobservable with a non-existing measuring device that is not calibrated against a non-existing standard unit of learning?????
PURE LOGICAL INSANITY!
The basic fallacy of this is the confusing and conflating metrological (metrology is the scientific study of measurement) measuring and measuring that connotes assessing, evaluating and judging. The two meanings are not the same and confusing and conflating them is a very easy way to make it appear that standards and standardized testing are “scientific endeavors”-objective and not subjective like assessing, evaluating and judging.
That supposedly objective results are used to justify discrimination against many students for their life circumstances and inherent intellectual traits.
LikeLike
Standardized tests are biased. They tell us more about the socioeconomic level of a student than his or her potential In the case of the CCSS tests, none of these tests have gone through the validating process that are generally part of the standardized test process. Many errors have been noted on these tests, and many of the questions are ambiguous. Several scholars have found that these tests are also written above the grade level of students they claim to evaluate. All of these standardized tests require convergent thinking in a binary system of correct or wrong. In these types of tests students do not really get to show what they know. They get to show how many times they agree with the person or people that wrote the test. There are many better ways to demonstrate understanding. I do not believe so-called “accountability” is going away any time soon. We need to convince states to adopt more user friendly and less threatening ways to evaluate students.
LikeLike
We don’t need state evaluation of students AT ALL. Does anyone really think that we are doing a better job, now, of educating students than we did before we had state exams? Really? Of course not. And does anyone think that education for life in an extremely diverse economy should be absolutely standardized? that every student should get the same instruction and assessment and preparation? That’s just freaking crazy. If we eliminated these tests ENTIRELY, billions would be saved that could go into addressing real issues–that could provide better salaries for teachers, wrap-around services for poor kids–stuff that actually matters. And we would gain back the instructional time–vast amounts of it–now lost to testing and test prep.
LikeLike
I totally agree. I just think states or the federal government are near letting the “accountability” issue go away any time soon. Part of the problem is standardized tests are backed by the data mongers in Silicon Valley. They don’t have to show anything other than $$ to worm their way into the accountability business. They are looking to expand their market. That is why they are moving into the preschool and early childhood market. It is not because they are correct. It provides them with market expansion. We are going to have to continue to fight to keep the cyber supplanters out of public schools. People in Silicon Valley want to turn our schools into giant call centers. It is horrible for students and education, but it will sell products for oligarchs.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Unfortunately, we have lived with the standards-and-testing regime for so long that young teachers and administrators don’t even remember a time before this crap. The insanity has become normalized. But it IS insanity. Enough. We need massive parent, student, and teacher protests and walkouts and teachers union leadership that has a clue and can organize the same. As long as there is teacher union leadership that collaborates with the standards-and-testing regime, we aren’t likely to get anywhere. We also need politicians who are educated enough about this stuff to put forward legislation, at the state and federal levels, to end the testing.
LikeLike
You’re right, Bob. We need massive resistance to oppose all the dreadful profiteering being imposed on education. All the bogus testing and privatization are a ticket to nowhere. Unless the public defends its public system and demands humane policy, the oligarchs and politicians will continue to dismantle public education as long as there is money to be made by doing so.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“The insanity has become normalized.”
It’s not just insanity that has become normalized. Unethical, unjust and, quite frankly, immoral educational malpractices have become normalized.
LikeLike
Even when the testing is a disaster, as it was this year in Utah, the state is STILL looking for another testing vendor. This year’s testing can’t even be used, because a bunch of kids couldn’t take the test, and they want ANOTHER vendor?????
Why can’t they just DROP the testing????
LikeLike
Because of the federal testing requirement. THAT’S what has to be ended.
LikeLike
Utah doesn’t get a ton of federal funding for education. The state legislature actually looked at bucking federal funding once before (about 15 years ago), but the USDOE talked them out of it.
I wish a state, like Utah, would FINALLY get some courage and call the USDOE on its bluff. Because I think that the USDOE would probably ignore their threats and leave funding alone.
LikeLiked by 1 person
TOW, I expect that implying with federal mandates costs more than the money the feds send Utah
LikeLike
YES!!!!
LikeLike
Bob is so right. Thanks, Bob. All this testing is making a few very rich and is a huge BURDEN. These tests are like endless wars…depressing and to no good end. .
Too bad we can’t experience teaching in Finland.
LikeLike
I STRONGLY advise people to go to Ms. Holbrook’s essay on the test questions about her own poem. Here is the link, again:
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/standardized-tests-are-so-bad-i-cant-answer-these_b_586d5517e4b0c3539e80c341
She illustrates, pretty well, just how ridiculous the current ELA tests are. I have not, in many years now, seen a set of ELA high-stakes standardized test questions that was defensible. They are an absurd mess.
Stop these people. Stop them now.
LikeLike
Everyone complained about Common Core math but the real disaster was english. They beat every bit of interest and joy out of that subject. It was clearly done “by committee”- I don’t think ed reformers are capable of saying “no”. Every single one of them gets 100% of their wish list and the whole mess gets dumped onto public schools and that’s the end of it- that’s the last time they check in.
Common Core was so hugely important and game-changing they put it in and we never heard another word about it – if it’s important wouldn’t they follow it longer than 6 months?
LikeLike
Oh, Mr. Gates’s foundation certainly followed this crap longer than six months. They have poured gazillions of bucks into organizations to promote the coring of American schools, very successfully, with this result: English language arts education in U.S. K-12 schools has become drivel.
LikeLike
One of the results of decades and standards-and-testing-based Ed Deform is that we have a whole generation of young English teachers now who know very little of the literary canon (of the great authors and works of the past),of the history of ideas, of the history and defining characteristics of literary movements and genres and styles and structures, of prosody, of rhetoric and rhetorical techniques, of common sentence and paragraph structures, of critical approaches and techniques, of common literary archetypes, of elementary logic, of debate structure and techniques, of syntax, of semantics, of morphology, of language change and variation, of the formal characteristics of various types of nonfiction writing, of techniques for substantive and copy editing, of the rules of style, of proper documentation and manuscript form for academic papers, of the elements of speech communication–any CONTENT in their subject–but, rather, consider themselves the keepers and teachers of abstract “skills” like “inferencing” to be “practiced” using random snippets of text. So they aren’t equipped to teach either the descriptive content of their subject–the what–or specific procedures for particular types of writing and speech–the how. There are exceptions, of course. And as long as this Core-based standardized testing continues–as long as the Gates/Coleman bullet list is the de facto, default curriculum, ELA will not improve.
LikeLike
The English department head has told me that, “We don’t teach content in English class. We only teach skills.” And there we are.
LikeLike
Ugh!
LikeLike
David Coleman and Bill Gates, et al. see the world in black and white and no shades of grey.
Donald Trump sees the world as all black and he thinks he is the only one that can see the real black.
But not all Charter School Vampires see the world as black and white, or just black. Many of them only see the color gold$$$ or green$$$ and they are willing to trample and crush any children that get in their way to get that $$$$$$.
LikeLike
Gates needed a single national list of “standards”–a bullet list–to key the exercises in educational software to, and it didn’t much matter what was on that list, as long as there was a single list so that the software products could be standardized and sold “at scale.” That’s why he hired a complete incompetent like Coleman to hack together the Common [sic] Core [sic] based on the lowest common denominator educratic groupthink of the existing state “standards.” And that’s why he paid group after group after group–including the teacher’s unions–to refer to these puerile “standards,” over and over again, as “higher” and “more rigorous.” States signed onto them sight unseen, they were never subjected to professional vetting by subject-matter experts, and no mechanism was created for continuous improvement of them. What a travesty! And a hundred thousand curses upon the heads of those who collaborated in this! Shame on them.
LikeLike
I wonder if Gates had Coleman over for dinner to plan this heist?
LikeLike
Bob said
“As long as there is teacher union leadership that collaborates with the standards-and-testing regime, we aren’t likely to get anywhere. We also need politicians who are educated enough about this stuff to put forward legislation, at the state and federal levels, to end the testing.”
He is right, but indifference and “issue fatigue” plus an aging population with no children in school makes getting rid of “this stuff” both harder and more urgent.
(I am reminded of George Carlin’s classic standup routine about the importance of ‘Stuff’ in our lives. A YouTube of that routine is available, Comic Relief in 1986).
LikeLike
Older people need to take a stand for the sake of their grandchildren. We have a responsibility to ensure that public education will be alive and well for them. The same can be said about climate change. We have to look out for future generations. I have always considered teaching a “pay forward line of work.” When I came home from work exhausted, I always felt that I had done something positive and worthwhile. We need to give teachers today that same feeling of satisfaction so they won’t be leaving in droves. All the testing, micromanaging and privatization as well as low pay are hurting our schools and teachers. We need good people to stay in teaching.
LikeLike
The poet didn’t know the correct answers to questions about her poems because there were no correct answers. Data analytics is junk science for intellectual lightweights — infantile, unsophisticated, racist, misogynistic, tech bro intellectual lightweights — in the first place, but add in the fact that standardized testing data, especially Common Core testing data, are based on questions with confounded wording and no correct answers (Literature is art, art reflects life, and life has no correct answers.) and we all wind up painfully wasting huge amounts of time and money doing analytics on meaningless, corrupt data. The data are worthless. Except when they’re for sale.
LikeLike
A very useful notion is that of the “defensible reading.” Consider, for example, Yeats’s well-known poem “The Second Coming.” It’s typically read entirely symbolically (i.e., as a poem about a coming political upheaval due to the decline of traditional systems of order–adherence to the authority of the church or of the state). However, someone familiar with Yeats’s biography will know that he was a mystic, that he had a theory of history being a matter of cycles initiated by a literal birth that was a divine intervention in the world, and that the poem was written in response to a vision in a trance by his wife, Georgie Hyde-Lees, who engaged in spiritualism in order to provide her husband with “symbols for poetry.” So, a strong argument can be made that the monstrous birth described in the poem is not intended to be symbolic, but literal, or is meant to be both symbolic and literal. Or consider the novel and fairy tale about Beauty and the Beast. Conventionally, it is read as a story with the moral that in love, we should look beyond outward appearances. But it can also be given a historical reading (it served the purpose of teaching young girls to accept arranged marriages), or it can be given a feminist psychological reading (it is a medieval rape fantasy meant to train young women to submit to brutish men). ALL OF THESE READINGS are defensible. Which person should I marry? Which job should I take? Which candidate should I vote for? How do I ask for that raise? Why are there ants on the sidewalk? Many, many questions don’t have a single correct answer, and only extremely simple-minded people think that they all do. Add to this the test-construction rule being followed, these days, for the ELA standardized tests that the distractor answers should be “plausible” but not the “best” answer, and you have a recipe for disaster. Then add, on top of that, the fact that teachers and administrators aren’t even allowed to look at the test questions, much less critique them, and one has the makings of a large-scale scam. We need politicians willing to hold hearings on these–to force the test manufacturers to reveal their questions and to subject them to scrutiny by subject-matter experts. The questions (and thus the tests as a whole) will not survive such scrutiny.
LikeLike
Beautifully said, Left Coast Teacher! Junk science for intellectual lightweights. Exactly. There’s a terrible irony at the heart of Education Deform–that the folks insisting upon data-based decision making–on a scientific approach to education–are relying on pseudoscience, on numerology–junk data and indefensible analyses of that “data.”
LikeLike
Holbrook’s essay should be standard reading for all teachers, parents, and political leaders. We should make them do a close reading of her essay, then ask some objective questions about what she said.
I will guarantee a response from an administrator would be: “what about accountability?” I wish every administrator that goes around with the word accountability on his lips should be boiled in his own coffee and buried with a number two pencil through his heart.
If we ever defeat the testocracy and gain ascendancy in the educational world, the most difficult job will be raising a generation of students that care about learning more than they care about recognition of such in the form of grades.
LikeLike
“every administrator that goes around with the word accountability on his lips should be boiled in his own coffee and buried with a number two pencil through his heart”
Hmmm, I like that image. :o)
LikeLike
When that administrator comes into an English class and asks, “What standard are you teaching now?” he or she is saying, quite clearly, “I’m a freaking idiot.”
LikeLike
In the material AROUND the Common [sic] Core [sic] State [sic] Standards [sic], Coleman argues that students should a) read challenging, substantive texts (his examples are foundational texts from American history, Shakespeare, and the allegory of the cave from Plato’s Republic) and b) do “close reading,” and by “close reading” he seems to mean something like what the mid-century American “New Critics” meant–confining ourselves to the “four corners of the text.” The New Critics were reacting against a tradition in English studies of scholarship that replaced careful consideration of texts themselves with historical and biographical scholarship. Now, one of the many problems with the New Criticism is that texts exist in context. If someone says, “We better tie up these loose ends,” it makes a difference whether the speaker is a macrame instructor or Tony Soprano. The Allegory of the Cave provides a good example of this. Plato was deeply impressed by Greek mathematics. In particular, he noticed that a) in mathematics, one can have perfect forms–the perfect point, the perfect triangle–that do not exist in nature, and b) that mathematical truths were independent of the world–could be discovered via “pure reason,” were what we would now call “tautological,” analytic, apriori truths. (That this is so is itself contentious, but for the sake of argument, let’s cede the point.) In ancient Greek, a single word, “psyche,” referred to both what we would now call “the mind” and “the soul.” So, to Plato, mathematics showed that one could seek inside one’s self, in the mind/soul, via rational procedures, and find perfection–not only mathematical truths like the Pythagorean theorem but also truths about matters like what is the beautiful, the just, and the good–truths that existed in a higher realm of the mind/spirit of which objects in the world were degenerate copies. If one understands this background material, then the Allegory of the Cave makes sense. If one doesn’t, it’s unintelligible. One cannot expect to confine one’s reading to the “four corners of the text” and make heads or tails of it. The text is a product of Plato’s intellectual milieu, and an understanding of that context is key to making heads or tails of it. So, Coleman’s theory–his “New Criticism lite” or “New Criticism for Dummies,” as I call it–is simply wrong, and a little thought about the very texts that he mentions as exemplars shows that.
But even if you ceded to Coleman his “substantive texts” and his “close reading,” what matters is not all this material around the “standards” but the standards themselves and how they will be used. And what are these? Well, for the most part, they are extremely vague, extremely broad descriptions of abstract skills. The CONTENT of the English language arts is almost completely absent from them. And how are these “standards” to be used? Well, they are to be tested on high-stakes standardized tests that are to supply “data” that will be used to make extremely important decisions with regard to whether students will advance, teachers will be retained, and schools will remain open. And they will provide a map to people creating ELA curricula–textbooks and online materials. And here we encounter a great disconnect between Coleman’s objectives (having kids learn to read substantive texts closely) and the practical consequences of his bullet list of “standards.” Because the tests have become so all-important, they are driving the curriculum. ELA curricula have degenerated into collections of isolated exercises, in each of which the student is expected to apply a particular “standard” to a particular snippet of random text that the student is supposed to “read closely,” applying the “skill” described by the “standard.” The very notion of coherent presentation of part of the content of “English” goes out the window. Where before a student might do a unit on Robert Frost or short story structure or major themes of the Romantic movement or Transcendentalism or whatever, one finds, in ELA textbooks and online materials, these days, these isolated exercises in imitation of the standardized test questions. I call this the Monty Python “and now for something completely different” approach to the teaching of English. The curriculum has become of confused jumble of these isolated exercises on items from Gates/Coleman bullet list which has become the default, de facto curriculum guide in ELA. English teachers are instructed to give pretests to identify which of the standards students are having problems with. Ah, your students are having trouble with making inferences based on textual evidence. Then, the teachers are supposed to have students practice that. But lean on this notion a bit, and it breaks down. There are several different types of inference (abduction, induction, and deduction) and whole sciences devoted to these, and making inferences from texts is not a single, isolated, discrete, teachable skill like, say, the algorithm for multiplication. So, the approach that ends up being taken based on the “standards” doesn’t even work to achieve Coleman’s goals. It just narrows and distorts the curriculum and makes it incoherent and unintelligible.
And then there’s the problem of the invalidity of the test items that are supposed to measure the skills on the Gates/Coleman bullet list. Those problems have been discussed and amply illustrated above.
And then there are the many, many problems with specific “standards” on the Gates/Coleman list. These were CLEARLY hacked together by someone who knew very little about literature. One could easily write a book about that. Here, a sample: https://bobshepherdonline.wordpress.com/2014/04/10/on-developing-curricula-in-the-age-of-the-thought-police/
And here, another: https://bobshepherdonline.wordpress.com/2014/03/15/what-happens-when-amateurs-write-standards/
LikeLike
Gates, the monopolist, wanted a single, national, standardized bullet list to key educational software to so that it could be sold “at scale.” And so he hired this incompetent, Coleman, to hack together the new “standards,” which are, in ELA, an untestable mess. These “standards” should have been laughed off the national stage when they first appeared, but Gates poured enormous sums into promoting the new bullet list, and a lot of Vichy collaborators with his scheme for selling educational software (and databases and computer operating systems) realized that there was BIG MONEY to be had from collaboration with Gates’s scheme. And a lot of state department people and school administrators and politicians simply weren’t competent enough to recognize the profound flaws in the “standards” and in the tests based on them.
What a mess!
So, the question, now, is how do we extricate ourselves from several decades of failed standards-and-testing-based Education Deform? Well, the key, there, is getting rid of the federal requirement for high-stakes standardized testing. We need union leaders who will push for the abolition of that requirement. We need mass protests. We need congressional hearings into the testing scams. And we need learned critiques of both the tests and of the “higher” (hee hee hee, ho ho, haaaa, oh, please, stop, it hurts, hee hee ho) “standards.”
LikeLike
Gates is a shyster.
LikeLike