Is that not clear from my comment? Whether standardized tests are good or bad is a whole other debate.
The point here is- they lobby to get standardized tests mandated where they were not, then they lobby snd push their tests for statewide use very hard. All school districts have to buy test questions and other infrastructure from them only. And only Pearson certified teachers can evaluate those copies. And every step of the process involves Pearson getting paid.
You apparently don't know what you are talking about. No. Testing companies do not lobby to get standardized tests mandated where they were not. The federal government mandates this as a requirement for federal money.
Districts do not pay for the state test or buy test questions from Pearson...
> Testing companies do not lobby to get standardized tests mandated where they were not.
Yes, they do.
> The federal government mandates this as a requirement for federal money.
Sure, some mandates come from the federal government; others are from state governments, and still others from local governments.
Guess who lobbies legislators making those decisions, especially at the federal level, but also at the state level, and sometimes, especially for larger jurisdictions, at the local level?
> Assume what you said is true, guess what will happen if they don't lobby? Same.
Obviously, they disagree, or they wouldn’t spend money lobbying, which isn’t something companies do just to burn money. They do it because they expect RoI on the money spent lobbying.
> Can you give an example what will happen if states do not use standardized tests?
Compared to any of the individual incremental mandates? They’ll have a lower ratio of cost to instructional time and a more efficient educational system, probably. While the requirements are often tied to consequences, they are rarely tied to the kond of systemwide analysis of results against other factors and process improvement that would make them systematically useful rather than theater. They are generally “accountability” measures that assume without any empirical basis that the results are within the control of the entity held accountable and that the consequences attached will force decisionmakers to make changes that result in optimization of the results.
Oh, and standardized testing companies will make less money. Hence the lobbying.
If testing companies don't lobby, then states can develop their own tests that meet the federal guidelines. I have a family member who is an educator and has contributed candidate questions to their state's standardized testing board.
