Yes, but the prevalence of poor test scores (leading to state takeover) would indicate the system does this poorly as well :) I agree that the current metastasis of standardized tests is unfortunate. 5 year old kids have no comprehension of "multiple choice tests", and so the teacher has to spend time explaining how to fill in ovals, only select one oval, etc. and it only gets worse as kids get older: multiple annual standardized tests with practice pre-tests and re-tests for each, meaning a significant fraction of class time is not spent learning but spent 'testing'. The introduction of high stakes testing has led to unethical behavior by teachers and administrators. I could write a long screed about the misguided rationale to develop quantitative metrics for education... I would like to point out something your post alludes to "Imagine a doctor forced to get the biometrics of each of his patients into the "normal" range as defined by a standardized test.", because there are significant differences between student and patient. In fact, I have an annual "wellness exam", and if my objective biometrics (blood pressure, BMI, cholesterol, triglycerides, blood glucose, etc) are in the normal range, then my health insurance premium is discounted- I have a significant financial incentive to maintain health. However, if my numbers are outside of the normal range, my doctor is not criticized, I am. My doctor is not penalized, I am. The doctor has no 'fiduciary duty' for my health. That is the opposite case for education! When students have low test scores, the teachers and schools are criticized and penalized.