Mike McClellan's dismissal of AZMerit as a "monumental waste of time and money" is totally correct. Most forms of testing AIMS, ACT, SAT,PSAT are one-off ways of trying to pinpoint educational achievement and the effectiveness of teaching programs. Though the tests may be useful, students are not held accountable. As Mike points out, like a failing coach, the teachers are collectively held responsible.
One of the reasons why students do so poorly at university (only 46% of them graduate after four years)and fail miserably by comparison to students in other countries is not because they are not as bright but because in American High Schools there is no overall external system of accountability which assesses both the achievement of the students and the effectiveness of their teachers. Graduation rates which are used by schools, educationalists and politicians can be anything you want them to be because students are expert at manipulating the system. In the final instance the standards rest with the teachers. Simply put, the teacher/student relationship is that if you behave yourself, work your way through a clunking great book and do a host of multiple choice tests, the teacher will give you a good grade. Ironically the more a teacher demands in terms of standards and the lower his/her grades, the less likely students will do the course.
Most students usually only take six subjects so in order to preserve their grade point average take those courses with those teachers so that they stand a good chance of passing with a reasonable result. So, where is the incentive to achieve? As long as the quality of American High Schools is assessed by graduation rates then the system will continue to produce students who are not ready for university, who have not received an all round education and who barely have the skills ready for a rapidly changing workplace.
The success of the Basis Charter Schools in Arizona is a good example of students being held accountable because the schools are being judged by parents on academic standards from "outside" the school, namely student performance in GCSE and AP examinations and in some cases the International Baccalaureate. It is unfortunate that many parents and many members of the public fail to understand the differences between "tests" which educationally are largely a waste of time and "examinations" which test the effectiveness of the learning and the teaching over a period of at least two years. In the final examination the grade a student receives is assessed outside the school not by the teacher.
This system works more effectively because the teacher/student relationship is reversed. The teacher is no longer the magical giver of the grade but the coach who will help the student succeed. Consistent standards are maintained in each subject from year to year by the examination boards. Parents have a reliable indicator of their child's academic potential across a range of subjects and at different levels. The Principal will know who the best teachers are and hopefully reward them appropriately. Everyone comes out with a sense of achievement. Having a broad range of extra curricular activities and sports is an easy addition. This is a win-win situation for schools, teachers, parents and students.
From my experience students are extremely good at managing an educational system to suit their own needs and will respond to challenges. Pushing them harder while at the same time ensuring a sense of achievement would make a big difference to their general level of education and prepare them adequately for college. I am sure your readers do not need reminding that all our futures depend on how well our education system prepares its young people for the world and our democracy.