[Phys-l] porcupine vs state-mandated high-stakes trivia tests

[John Denker <jsd@av8n.com>]

Once upon a time I found a porcupine quill.  I observed that one quill, 
all by itself, is not very scary.  In contrast, an entire porcupine full 
of quills, if it is provoked, is very scary indeed.  A porcupine is normally 
a placid, peaceable, vegetarian creature ... but you don’t want to pick 
a fight with one.

I mention this because:

On 05/22/2011 02:01 PM, Stefan Jeglinski wrote:
> The system seems designed to not tolerate anything other than 
> inch-deep and mile-wide. But I'm not sure it was that different 35 
> years ago when I started?
>
> I personally tolerate because I have no standing. I'm not sure 
> "standing" is the difference in the end though. I've been getting to 
> know other profs; even the ones with standing must tolerate.

That’s entirely true as far as it goes, but it’s not the whole story. 
Each of us has a quill.  If we get together and hold up our quills, 
nobody will be able to kick us around.

Before we can do that, we need to have a consensus amongst ourselves 
as to where we stand, and what we want to happen next.

Here is an attempt to put together a consensus:
  http://www.av8n.com/physics/eclbe-testing.htm

That document makes some detailed arguments.  It goes on for more
than 3000 words.  Here is the executive summary:

*) We must distinguish the federal level from the state level.  The 
federal mandate for high-stakes testing has outlived whatever usefulness 
it may have had originally.  By now, states well know the advantages and 
disadvantages of testing, so we should repeal the federal mandate and 
let states decide for themselves what happens next.

*) At the state-by-state and test-by-test level, we must recognize 
that a bad test is worse than none.  The existing tests may have some 
advantages in some cases, but overall they are worse than nothing.  
They should be discontinued altogether, unless and until something 
much, much better comes along.

I leave it as a series of questions:

  1) Do we have a consensus on the two points itemized above?
   Can we build a consensus?

  2) Is there any way of modifying the testing program so as to make 
   it make sense?

  3) More generally, assuming the goal is to improve the educational 
   system, what are the appropriate ways of doing that?