Reply #17: I believe her point is that these tests produce statistics, not learning.

[Jim__]

As she says:

I repeat all of this information to say two things, and here’s one of them: the constant testing of students to produce "data" reduces them to the worst of things – a "Return on Investment" or ROI, a term quite common in the business world. The "business" definition of ROI is "the most common profitability ratio." Interestingly enough, I spent enough time in that world when I was paying my way through college (paying being a loose term as I now have a significant amount of student debt) to know what it really means. A businessperson or manager – or, in this case, Superintendent – expects to put a certain amount of effort into the business, in order to get a certain return, or to keep a job. In the case of my students, they are subjected to a rigorously-structured curriculum, as well as testing four times a year, all in order to produce numbers – numbers that someone who does not know my students will analyze in order to decide how proficient they are at taking a test – not necessarily at thinking.

And, from my own memories of school, nothing was as boring as drilling for and taking tests. If her students are constantly forced to drill for and take tests, they are much more likely to be bored and disinterested than if they are stimulated through being challenged to think. Once a person becomes interested in learning, they'll teach themselves. I think the best thing a teacher can do is stimulate enough interest that the students teach themselves.

Yes, they need basics. But, they also need stimulation.