Argument: Testing doesn't assess everything a child needs to learn!
This argument is a form of the Nirvana fallacy, where an idea is rejected because it doesn't provide a perfect solution to a problem or fails to meet every single criterion for effectiveness. No matter how well a test is designed, it will never capture all of the factors needed for students to succeed.
|Scooped by Sharrock|
Walkup raises important points that points back to the need for others to evaluate our thinking and actions. We are human, so we can't be perfect. The most obvious of our imperfections is captured by the endless list of fallacies and biases. In the end, only (mostly) the most mentally ill will see herself as the bad guy in her life story. No matter what we do, we have rationales or rationalizations. Even when we're wrong, we can only mostly see our errors in retrospect. (To experience this, try editing your own writing then hand it over to someone else to edit.Then compare the editing suggestions.)
On the other hand, we also need to trust and respect our evaluators. This is something that standardized testing--based on how they are constructed--can provide based on objectivity and sample sizes. And we all believe in testing. "When a calculus teacher assesses her students on Taylor series expansions, she knows fully well that her assessment will fail to capture many of the personal traits needed to be a successful mathematician. Yet, she still assigns the test.""Standardized testing is no different. Results of standardized testing are limited to uncovering gaps in basic concepts/skills acquisition. We should acknowledge as such."
This is better than depending on the opinionated colleague down the hall who finds success certain ways that fits his personality, but doesn't fit well for anyone else.