Skip to main content

View Diary: National Education Association's Lily Eskelsen Garcia on teaching, testing, and fighting back (79 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  You sure wouldn't use a destructive test (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Schneewolfe, Odysseus, qofdisks, Mostel26

    The big advantage of observational tests is that they don't affect the item that is tested.

    When a test alters or changes the test subject, we refer to that as a "destructive test" and generally discard the test subject. That is why industry uses random sampling.

    It is hard to argue that pervasive, high-stakes standardized testing doesn't change the test subject. Hence it is hard to argue that it isn't, in a real and technical sense, "destructive".

    So, you are absolutely right. We would never subject every chicken to a test that altered it. There would be no chickens left to eat.

    Maturity: Doing what you know is right - even though you were told to do it

    by grapes on Sun Jul 27, 2014 at 04:11:28 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site