Agreed. But you have to accept that real results in terms of skill-building aren't going to bear themselves in tests over arbitrary time periods. I say you evaluate the process in terms of resources, curriculum, preparation, pay, qualifications, training, etc. etc. before looking to Billy's results from a timed test. It's simply far more effective for learning institutions to teach to the test rather than teaching life and work skills which may take time to accumulate into meaningful results. Standardized tests are about reducing educational goals into easy to manage data, not about meaningfully contributing the process. It feels politically driven as in a "See, I told you the State would hold schools accountable" kind of way. (To be fair, tests are necessary evil of the classroom, and when limited in scope perfectly pragmatic, and even fair when combined with other forms of evaluation.)