Re: Assessment/Grading p.o.v.

Bob King (
Sat, 31 Aug 1996 09:21:40 -0400

On Fri, 30 Aug 1996, Steve Finley wrote:

> >From Bob King:
> I think others
> have mentioned along the way of this particular thread that tests are
> meant to "point towards" something else, which is the "real thing" (i.e.,
> learning), and that things really only get goofy when the pointer takes
> the place of the point."
> Ah, you are so close to breaking out of samsara, grasshopper--the
> Buddha is only the finger, not the Way. And Eric has met the Buddha
> on the road and is trying to kill him, as he must. . .

Well. . . I may have a "li'l Buddha" to go along with "li'l Hampshire" and
"li'l Citadel", but I'm not pursuing enlightenment in this context. . .
My guess is that Eric is acting the part of provocateur sometimes, other
times acting other parts, in the larger interest of conversational
learning, in the larger context of meta-libertarian/humanistic values.

I'm for *co-relating* pointers and points, meanings and measures, towards
much the same interest and context. I think a topic such as assessment
necessarily involves talking about the interfaces of personal values,
institutional values, political action as well as institutional action,
theory of pedagogy, and theory of self. There are no conundrums, as far
as I can tell, in this. Just complex co-relating and interface, boundary
thinking, which imo we're not quite up to speed yet in knowing how to do.

Bob King