Sun-Times woman Mary Mitchell apparently sees no connection between test scores and performance:
If my house catches on fire, I'm not going to worry about how high the firefighter scored when he or she applied for the job.
In which case she should call for abolition of testing entirely.
What she cares about is that the firefighter
had the capability to apply for the job, the character to get through the training needed to be on the job, and the courage required to do the job. After all, when it comes to training to be a firefighter, aren't those the things that matter the most?
“Capability to apply”? What’s that? It’s being able to find your way to the fire dept. HQ and sign your name. As for character and courage, who can cavil? But can these virtues coexist with incompetence? If so, why not?
Moreover, she sees “good news” in the 83% passing rate on the latest exam because it means “a larger pool of applicants to draw from.” But if there were no exam, there would be an even larger pool. Is she on to something here?
Down would go literacy requirements and ability to figure things out, up would go “agility testing,” etc.
1 comment:
Another pathetic attempt to justify "outcomes" based on race, not on ability.
Post a Comment