If we think of standardized testing as a way to hand out tickets to redeem for an equitable share of government largesse, then all we care about is whether the test is equally easy for everyone to pass. If we actually want to know whether students have learned something, it doesn't bother us that the test may reveal that some have and some haven't. It won't even be a fatal flaw in the test if we discover that some of the students are inherently able to learn the topic while others aren't.
Should an elephant and a fish be able to climb a tree as well as a monkey? Probably not, but then why would we put them all in a school designed to teach students to climb a tree? If anything, that cartoon is about silly choices in curricula. Once you put tree-climbing on the curriculum for whatever reason, then the last thing you should be thinking about is whether it's unfair to give a fish an "F" on a tree-climbing test. There's nothing wrong with the test.
3 comments:
Yeah. What if the job you're offering involves the necessary duty of climbing a tree?
A bigger issue with the analogy is the assumption that 'being able to do math' or 'compose in correct English' is similarly disabling to minority groups as asking an elephant to climb a tree. The test is fine; the analogy is terrible.
I'm reminded of the 'equality vs equity' cartoon that shows three kids of different heights being given boxes that may or may not allow them to look over the fence at a baseball game. I had been tempted to ask the person posting it, instead of boxes, why didn't you just buy them tickets?
Post a Comment