Schools stopped doing that because students largely refuse to prepare. Testing throughout the year is like a CI pipeline and is shown to work better for the median student.

▲

kayo_20211030 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Students are neither generally stupid nor constitutionally lazy. I sense that when expectations are clear they'll often surprise you with diligence. We should trust them to do the right thing. If they do, it's an A; and if not, it's less than that.

	▲	csa an hour ago \| parent \| next [-]
		> I sense that when expectations are clear they'll often surprise you with diligence. Data does not support your sense. Most students do not have good time management skills, usually because they have no models and/or have not been taught these skills. Furthermore, continuous feedback, whether graded or not, has been found to be more effective than one-shot feedback. Evaluation and assessment is a complex topic towards which many people (not necessarily you) want to take an overly simplified approach. There are trade offs for any system that is chosen. The organizations providing the grades have to decide what their priorities are (e.g., time, accuracy, etc.).
	▲	eudamoniac 3 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		I'm not sure what public school system has instilled that confidence in you, but it musn't have been mine. I'm also not sure why you think clear expectations about an end of year test will lead to better results than clear expectations about multiple spaced out tests. The data shows that it doesn't.

▲

mikkupikku 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I think if they offered a proctored do-over a week later, the bad results on the first test might prompt them to make an attempt at studying for the next week, and the prospect of having to sit through two tests and getting shamed for having to do-over might prompt people to actually study for the first test.