“… Badly worded or poorly conceived questions on standardized tests are not uncommon (remember the question about a “talking pineapple” on a New York test in 2012?). But here’s something new: The author of source material on two Texas standardized tests says she can’t actually answer the questions about her own work because they are so poorly conceived. She also says she can’t understand why at least one of her poems — which she calls her “most neurotic” — was included on a standardized test for students.” …
This explains why they are so confusing on tests. Seriously at first I’m like ok less reading than a story and then I have no clue what’s going on. Let me go back to the animal story or something.
As a relatively anti-standardized test person, I think this is just fantastic. In an embittered way.
“Maybe by leading kids to poetry instead of force feeding it to them…”
Lord, I wish some change would come into the world to make this happen.
The great sadness here is that we all understand how awful some of our earliest exposure to poetry was, and too often remain convinced that it must be approached the way we approach a spoonful of castor oil (under threat of dying from what ails you, or a whack from your grandmother).
This is not new, of course, critique and analysis of literary works (as well as works of visual art), has always itself been critiqued (and often lampooned).
This brings to mind the film “Back to School,” with Rodney Dangerfield and Kurt Vonnegut, wherein Dangerfield’s shamelessly rich but uneducated character has returned to college and enlists Vonnegut’s help in writing a paper on one of Vonnegut’s works. Dangerfield gets a failing grade on the paper, of course, because how would insight from the author ever be revealing?
My English teacher was talking about this yesterday. My entire class was laughing because we shared common memories of being forced to learn to the test and threats of year-long tutoring. I always thought STAAR tests were stupid and unnecessary, but this is hilariously sad.