On Childlike Faith in Tests
Some blog post titles just demand your attention. Yesterday, my attention was grabbed by this one: "Tests are inhuman-- and that is what so good about them." Yes, there's an 's missing from that title, but there's a lot more than that missing from the post itself.
The writer is arguing for the value of the impartial, unbiased test. And part of her argument is solid. Teaching is most often done by human beings, and human beings are biased. Therefor it will come as no surprise that A) teachers have biases and B) if they're not careful, teachers will let those biases bleed over into their evaluation of students. This is inarguably true.
It may seem, the writer says, that teacher evaluation is nicer, more humane, but in fact the intrusion of bias can make teacher evaluation the most unkind at all, denying some students credit for their achievements and being inherently unfair. Also true.
If you want fairness, progress, equality and reliability, then human judgment may not be the best method.
Um, wait.
What other judgment is there?
Okay. You might say Judgment of God, but I believe there's a special day set for that judgment, and it's coming later. I don't think it's a significant factor in, say, ninth grade algebra.
This is what I don't get about some test devotees-- this belief that tests somehow descend from heaven on a fluffy cloud, free from human contact and cleansed of all human frailty. Impartial, perfect, and as divinely sourceless as an angel or Santa Claus.
But no. I'm pretty sure that tests are written by human beings. Imperfect, biased, judgment-making CURMUDGUCATION: On Childlike Faith in Tests: