By all means, test what ISN'T taught

It's very odd to me that some people are critical of the idea of teaching to the test. Yes, I understand that a well-rounded education must incorporate a vast array of subjects and you certainly can't test the students on every detail. If you did, you'd do nothing but teach one day and test the material the day after, or some such nonsense.

But I have to say that there are some teachers - some - who use what a former colleague of mine once called the "cardiac assessment" on her students. What's that? Simple: "I know in my heart what each of my students is capable of doing."

Bull puckey.

You must test students, and there must be some standardization otherwise it wouldn't be fair, measurable or accurate.

Would you go to a doctor whom you knew did not pass any test to become a doctor? How about an accountant, lawyer or mechanic? We all want the professionals who have critical skills to be accountable for knowing the fundamentals (and more) about those skills. Why would we expect anything less from students?

The "cardiac assessment" teachers have a problem because they want to affirm the intrinsic value of each student, which is nice, but it fails as a measure of what the kids know. And that's what school's all about, folks.

So they complain about "teaching to the test." Since I hope I've laid out a case for testing in the first place, let's agree on that and ask what's so bad about teaching to the test?

Suppose I ask 1st graders to do basic addition. I spend time on task drilling the concepts into the kids, send home homework and have the entire class do learning games to fully grasp the concept of addition. Then, at the end of the week, I tell the kids there will be a test. Only I decide to test them on subtraction instead.

Preposterous, you say? Of course. No teacher would do that. She or he would test what has been taught.

Now, wasn't that simple?