The objections are to how scores are used, which can be changed without abolition

The argument

Defenders argue that almost every criticism of standardised testing is a criticism of a particular use rather than of measurement. Narrowed teaching, student anxiety, schools judged on their intake and students assigned to tracks they cannot leave are all consequences of attaching heavy consequences to a single score. Each can be addressed directly: by using tests for diagnosis rather than allocation, by sampling rather than examining every student, by combining scores with other evidence, by reporting progress rather than raw attainment, by removing funding penalties, and by allowing retakes so that one occasion is not decisive. Defenders argue that abolition would discard the information along with the misuse, and that the information is needed precisely by those who have least. A parent with no professional contacts, choosing between schools, relies on something other than reputation. A student taught badly has no way of knowing it if the only assessment is by the people teaching them. A system that wants to know whether a reform worked needs a measure that was not produced by the people whose work is being evaluated. In each case the alternative to a common measure is not a fairer judgement but a less accountable one. Defenders add that testing is also the cheapest form of assessment there is, and that this matters for equity rather than being a mere administrative convenience. Continuous assessment, portfolios and interviews are expensive in teacher time and in the resources a family can supply, and systems that adopt them tend to find that the burden falls unevenly. Defenders conclude that the sensible response to the genuine problems critics identify is to reduce the stakes and improve the instrument, not to remove the only independent evidence anyone has about what students have been taught.

Premises

Counter-arguments

Critics argue that the reform programme described has been proposed repeatedly and rarely survives contact with the institutions that use the scores. Once a comparable number exists, it is used to rank, to allocate and to hold people accountable, because that is what a comparable number is for, and the pressure to attach consequences comes from outside the education system. On the information point, critics argue that the evidence a parent or a reformer needs can be obtained by sampling, inspection and research, none of which requires testing every student. They add that defending the system on grounds of cheapness concedes that it is chosen for administrative convenience rather than for what it measures.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] A comparable number attracts consequential use by its nature, and the pressure to attach stakes comes from outside the education system. [Rejecting P2] This reform programme has been proposed repeatedly and has rarely survived contact with the institutions that use the scores. [Rejecting P3] Parents, students and reformers can be served by sampling, inspection and independent research without testing every student. [Rejecting C] Defending the instrument partly on grounds of cheapness concedes that it is retained for administrative convenience rather than for what it measures.