high-stakes testing has real shock value, so when do we stop pressing the button

[Monty Neill <monty@fairtest.org>]

Morna McDermott writes fine columns for the Baltimore Education Reform 
Examiner. On Dec 31, she posted this:

http://www.examiner.com/education-reform-in-baltimore/high-stakes-testing-has-real-shock-value-so-when-do-we-stop-pressing-the-button

She asks why do teachers go along with high-stakes testing, and looks to 
Stanley Milgram's famous study in which "teachers" (regular folks) 
administered electric shocks (not really, but heard taped cries and 
screams) to 'students' (who were not students). Two-thirds kept on 
administering shocks as the 'dose' increased; when 'teachers' expressed 
concern, they were prodded to continue.

Milgram wrote:

/  The legal and philosophic aspects of obedience 
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obedience> //are of enormous importance, 
but they say very little about how most people behave in concrete 
situations ... Stark authority was pitted against the subjects' 
[participants'] strongest moral imperatives against hurting others, and, 
with the subjects' [participants'] ears ringing with the screams of the 
victims, authority won more often than not. The extreme willingness of 
adults to go to almost any lengths on the command of an authority 
constitutes the chief finding of the study and the fact most urgently 
demanding explanation/.

Morna draws lessons from this about the difficulty of resisting 
authority, and the necessity to do so in the face of the damage caused 
by the testing regime. As we well know, at times people do rise up and 
resist authority. This needs to be such a time.

Monty
--
Monty Neill, Ed.D.; Executive Director, FairTest; P.O. Box 300204, 
Jamaica Plain, MA 02130; 617-477-9792; http://www.fairtest.org; Donate 
to FairTest: https://secure.entango.com/donate/MnrXjT8MQqk