Tests are not about technology or blue books.

The question is: what does an exam measure better: the aptitude or hard work of the student, or the creative effectiveness of the teacher?

I experienced this question firsthand one year. I taught a branch of math in the way I (remembered being) taught to a class of students who were not receptive to that approach. When I tested them, I was very disappointed.

After a few weeks of mulling, I went back to that branch with some new ideas about how to approach the topic. This time with a graphic rather than an abstract approach. More grounded in their likely life experiences. Almost immediately I started hearing "oh, now I get it!" and "well that's easy". Same test, but -much- better results. It wasn't their fault. What they taught me was invaluable.

Yes, exams measure the effectiveness of teacher presentations as much as they measure what students have learned. Good teaching is not a part-time job ... many students are ill-served by this approach. A person who resents teaching as a part-time burden is unlikely to shine at it. And students sense it.

Nor is good teaching a gift from the divine - any more than great lab technique, or crisp programming. Many teachers don't recite the same notes year-after-year, because they're 'good enough'. Their exam results help them to learn from their mistakes.

If the exams don't measure teacher effectiveness as well, then what does? What their paying students walk away with. Is it a treasure, or a wheelbarrow of dirt?