Uh, wait a minute. Isn't that the exact argument being used against the CATS tests in the first place?
Bad choice of words, no doubt. But it does point up the incredible double standard going on here. Why are flaws in a bill an argument against the bill, but flaws in CATS--which have been pointed out, documented, argued over, fussed about, bemoaned, and, of course, swept under the rug--are not considered an argument against CATS?
Let's just cover briefly several qualities a test should have that CATS doesn't have:
- Accuracy on an individual student level
- Ability to receive scores back in a reasonable amount of time
- Promotes basic skills
Now if you were told that a test you were considering didn't have these qualities, what in the world would possess you to use it? And how could you justify spending millions of dollars and countless man hours on the part of teachers and administrators to administer it?
Despite having no good answer to this question, we are still spending way too much money on the test, and there are still people willing to risk their credibility to defend it.