While math benefits from standardized tests, what is being tested is not math. It's memorization. It's recital.
If I want to hire someone that's good at reciting memorized fact to me, I'll hire a postgres instance.
If I want to hire someone that's good at reciting memorized fact to me, I'll hire a postgres instance.
Here is grade 7: http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/tg/sr/documents/cstrtqmath7.pdf
Here is algebra: http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/tg/sr/documents/cstrtqalgebra.pdf
Chances are it's not of the same quality. California actually has a relatively good educational system, compared to the rest of the country.
And I'm teaching someone grade 7 math in North Carolina, so this is something I care about a lot.
There's not a whole lot of secret sauce in a multiple-choice test. Yes, you can do them well or you can do them poorly. But even if you were to assume that California has super-awesome math tests, it would be pretty easy to duplicate them elsewhere.
If you accept the notion that computer programming is math, then these tests are about math: you could write a computer program that uses some basic pattern matching and symbolic manipulation to pass those tests.
Students who conceptually get it, and those who have just "memorized" will do well on atest. The test will help identifying the students who can do neither, and the teachers who are underperforming, which is the real problem.
but what is the goal here? I assume the goal is to teach that person how to notice a situation in real life, and use the knowledge learned at school to cope with that situation.
Does rote learning actually help for such a goal?
I argue that it _might_, but only if the situation "looks" similar to one of the pre-prepared situations that the student has studied.
Those who have grasped the concept, and is able to gain deep understanding of fundamental principles, will be much better prepared for that eventual situation mentioned above. And if i was an employer, I'd want to hire that person, instead of the one who learnt by rote.
Now, granted, there isn't really an easy way to distinguish between the two above. Which is why the standard test is used - its the best we've got. But if the teaching method is allowed to be influenced by these standarized tests such that the student, instead of gaining a deep understanding, is relegated to just rote learning, he/she will never really be able to apply what they've learnt to situations they've never encountered before, and thus, the goal is not fullfilled.