Standardized tests, or an exercise in false analogy

It's silly, really, to expect everyone to take the same test, and then to expect everyone to pass that test and show minimum competency. We are all different, and we all learn differently. What works for one person, might not work for another. One person may be able to demonstrate knowledge on one test, and another might struggle with that same test, even though both know the same material. One person might feel at ease in a testing situation, and another might freeze up. So why do we ask all people to take and pass the same test, especially if there are no added bonuses for excelling on that test? The person who earns a barely passing score gets exactly the same benefits as someone who aces the test. There is no incentive to learn the material well, just to learn enough to pass. This creates a culture of mediocrity.

Another issue: the lasting impact of the test. I'm pretty sure that the results of this test will not influence my ability as an adult in society. I'm not going to get a job doing what the test evaluates, so why do I have to show my competency now? It's a bit ridiculous to expect everyone to learn material that will only translate into jobs for an incredibly small percentage of people. In fact, I'm not sure any of the people who take the test will ever go into that particular field as professionals. If someone has expertise in an area, they probably will not even need to demonstrate minimum competency, because their advanced mastery will open all the doors they need to pursue their career. A stupid test isn't going to change anything. 

Finally, there is the relevance issue. I'm reasonably certain that the material in the test is not how things are done in the real world. What the test evaluates differs significantly from the day-to-day application of the skill set. Sure, there are the basics that everyone should know. But beyond basic functionality, why should we learn the details? All those details!

For these reasons, I humbly submit to you all that the State of Oregon needs a new way to evaluate its...

Drivers.

There's the false analogy. The standardized tests that we are administering this week at school (OAKS) are not like the test for your driver's license. Let's identify all the differences.

1) Most people WANT a driver's license. (And we all know that most people DON'T want to demonstrate minimum competency in the core subject areas.)

2) Driving can be dangerous if people don't know how to do it, so we NEED to make sure everyone has at least the basics covered. (But it's totally safe to have an under-educated citizenry.)

3) People can choose not to drive if they want to, so it's not like we're MAKING everyone take the test. (That's true. I don't really have a good come back for this one because if someone chooses not to take the state tests, then all that happens is the school looks bad and the student might not graduate. We ARE making everyone take the state tests.)

There are, I'm sure, more differences. And I'm sure there are people out there (the three who read this blog) who could find additional logical fallacies in this argument. I just thought someone should stick up for these poor standardized tests because they get beat up all the time. Are they a perfect method for evaluating students' skill levels? Of course not. They are flawed, just as everything in life is flawed if we look closely enough. There are real issues with standardized tests, but, believe it or not, people try to address these issues and improve the tests. The fact remains, though, that sometimes a test needs to be taken, and a test needs to be passed. This primarily applies to the world of academics and education, but there are other tests to take in the "real world." Our relationship with tests doesn't need to be as fractious or combative as it sometimes is. The glass isn't half full, nor is it half empty. It's just half a glass. The tests aren't fabulous, nor are they stupid. They're just tests.