Nobody's saying that tests should be abolished. There've always been tests and there always will be. The problem is putting all effort into passing tests while letting all other aspects of education go by the wayside.
How do you measure creativity? Social skills? Should they not be taught because they're difficult to test?
The solution is fully at hand: Local K-12 education is run by the local school boards, and they are fully free to evaluate and respect all forms of education including creativity, social skills, 'engaged' students, etc.
If the tests are asking little enough, then why are the teachers complaining they have no time to do anything but "teach to the tests"? Aside from calling them outright liars, I mean. Maybe that's what you're doing.
And I don't think school is a place to evaluate creativity or social skills, but to give people an opportunity to develop them.
And I'm really convinced that you're not quite sure what "engaged" students is supposed to mean, especially if you think it's something to be evaluated. I've been using the word to mean something like "maintain interest". You seem to use it to mean something different every time you bring it out. Has "engaged" become one of those meaningless buzzwords since I left North America last century? Is that what you're sneering at?
If the tests are asking little enough, then why are the teachers complaining they have no time to do anything but "teach to the tests"?
I can only guess. It may be that the issue is some politically correct goal of some 'social justice': So, if no child is to be left behind, then in some schools the poor teacher will have to spend 90% of the effort on the bottom 10% of the students, Maybe she wants to get these students 'engaged' -- that's hopeless.
For 'engaged', I gave lots of examples, but for the examples I gave I doubt that a significant fraction of K-12 teachers accomplish much of such 'engagement'.
In the end, the yelling and screaming about US K-12 education is (A) use the failure of the bottom 10% as a way to say that the system needs to do better and (B) use that need 'to do better' to spend much more on K-12 education and maybe double real estate taxes. US K-12 can do better but not by worrying much more about the bottom 10%.
When I was in school (high school, at least---which starts in Grade 9 in Ontario, no Junior High), students were streamed into classes according to their abilities at the given subject: Basic, General, Advanced, occasionally Enriched.
The teacher can't spend 90% of their time on the bottom 10% if the bottom 10% are in another class (where they get 100% of their teacher's time).
