The article is called "Turning Children into Data: A Skeptic's Guide to Assessment Programs."
I have saved a copy of it because this article mentions much of the damage that the standardized testing insanity has inflicted on our schools.
"Standardized testing insanity" is a new phrase I have started using lately because "insanity" is a word that I believe works better than "obsession" because being obsessed with something is not always a bad thing. But the word "insanity" definitely indicates something negative.
I agree that much of what we would like students to learn (whether they are children or adults--it does not matter) cannot be measured with numbers. And numbers do not give any specific feedback. For example, saying to a student that "your understanding of fractions, according to this test, is 3/5." What is that supposed to mean? What does the student understand and not understand about fractions? How can the student improve his or her understanding of fractions? If the point of any assessment is supposed to give guidance to the teacher and student about what is going right and is not going right and how to improve, then how can we expect vague feedback like numbers to accomplish such goals? The last time I checked, the real point of assessment is to help students and teachers improve--not simply to slap a number in a gradebook or on a student's or teacher's record somewhere.
One of the ultimate crimes of the standardized testing insanity is that it focuses only on measuring things that are easy to measure and breaks everything down to mere skills and mere memorization--that is, it turns education into training. And many of these skills that students do end up learning are difficult for them to transfer to other settings because most of them aren't taught to think anymore.
Even worse, their desire to learn and to be creative is killed because no one wants to be drilled with all these tests and because we are pressured to learn these checklists of skills so that we can pass the damned tests and not suffer the penalty for failing!
Here is a piece of a post I had written to Bill Marsh recently on Math-Teach (in the thread "Why Common Standards Won't Work"). The post can be found at
And many of these things we would like students to learn cannot be tested effectively via standardized tests. For instance, how can you test effectively with such tests the students' ability to work together, to solve a difficult problem that requires them to research, to think through a lot of ideas, to persist because a solution will almost certainly not be found within a few minutes or even an hour or even a day?
For example, the blog post of August 12 titled "They lost interest because they stopped asking questions" on http://mathforlove.tumblr.com/page/2 gives an example of such a difficult problem. This blog is written by the mathematician Daniel Finkel at the University of Washington. His name is not found on there, at least not easily. But I have found his tutoring website http://sites.google.com/site/finkelitis/home that does give his name, and there is a link to this same blog near the bottom of his webpage for tutoring.
Peter Hilton wrote a foreword to the book "Mathematics: From the Birth of Numbers" written by Jan Gullberg. The foreword can be found at http://tinyurl.com/23zpfw7.
Some of the things Peter Hilton says reminds me that another problem with common standards is the danger that they reduce education to training by having students learn to acquire a checklist of skills. Here is a quote from Peter Hilton's foreword that addresses this problem:
"The first serious error we often meet in considering the role of mathematics is the confusion of education with training. This error, of course, goes far beyond mathematics--our bureaucrats and politicians now use the two terms quite synonymously--but it is particularly meretricious when applied to mathematics. For students, and their parents, believe that mathematics education should consist exclusively exclusively of the acquisition of a set of skills that will prove useful in their later careers; so the skills must be learned, that is committed to memory, and no real understanding need occur. Of course, we cannot, in fact, predict what skills the student will need. What we can predict is that those skills will change and that the student will need to understand and not merely to remember. Adaptability to change is itself a hallmark of successful education, and it is change, not any specific technology, that most aptly characterizes life today and in the foreseeable future. A genuine education enables one to acquire, for oneself, the skills one happens, at a given stage of one's life, to need. A training, on its own, contributes almost nothing to education and produces distressingly ephemeral advantages."