I can just see the teachers' unions' response when the first teacher is fired because parents and students subjectively decided the teacher was "just going through the motions."
Most parents (and students as well) could tell you in pretty short order which teachers were effective and which ones were going through the motions. The idea that tests will somehow give an accurate picture is a reflection of our faith in those tests. Let me say that again--we have a truly touching but not very realistic faith that tests will yield quality empirical data. Let me ask you some questions. Do you consider yourself to be well nourished? If so, how do you KNOW if such is the case? Shouldn't you be getting tested on a regular basis to see if you're missing vital nutrients? Or does it maybe make more sense to eat healthy foods, fresh fruits and vegetables, and figure that the packaged stuff is probably not going to meet needs for micro-nutrients and trace minerals? Learning vital skills is food for the mind. An awful lot depends on who is doing the preparation and how. Testing misses the point altogether. Teaching, IMHO, is a calling. Some people have a combination of traits and abilities which ideally suit them to share their knowledge with others.
There is no good answer.
Without some sort of testing, how do you propose to evaluate teacher effectiveness?
These types of stories are becoming more and more regular. As the free-flow of government money dries up, so do these companies.
Thank you for the correction I revised my post and credited you for the FYI.
I believe in accountability too but think that testing often devours time and/or money resources; or drives unexpected patterns of avoidance/compensation which have the net impact of negating test results.
While education helps to prepare one for this world.