>>Rol writes,
>>>The standardized tests may not be measuring relevant parameters. However,
>>>there are no recognized tests (widely accepted) that do measure a)
>>>knowledge, b) thinking, c) synthesizing, d) communicating.
>
>And kcby continues,
>>In my experience, what is measured is what is easiest to measure... not
>>necessarily what needs to be measured.
>
>All true. Decades in the educational establishment have left me certain
>that there's a sort of Gresham's Law operating in testing, with bad
>testing driving out good--well, "better" testing.
>
>The _primary_ objective of general education ought to be to help students
>make explicit their implicitly held models of reality. It's the most
>direct route to every legitimate educational objective--superior work
>performance, cultural literacy, citizenship education, social problem
>solving, putting specialized disciplinary knowledge in context, self
>understanding--whatever.
Is your perspective influenced by personal construct theory? I find your
objective for education very appealing and would appreciate learning more
about your reasoning. Thanks.
--
Con Kenney
ckenney@worldweb.com