RM> RM> But no exit exams and no national test....
RM> 
RM> MS>Ford, Chrysler, and GM each have their own _separate_ 
RM> MS>quality-control procedures, including "exit exams".
RM> MS>Just as there is no national, industry-standard quality-control
RM> MS>system on car makers, quality control in education does not 
RM> MS>require national standards.
RM> 
RM> First of all, there ARE national standards, as well as state
RM> standards, for auto manufacturers, so this is a poor example
    Not on "reliability" items, only on safety standards does the federal 
government impose standards.
    The Big 3 all have their own in-house quality standards on things like 
how many times a door must open without breaking down, and it shows in the 
fact that some models are much more reliable than others.
RM> MS>...a local school board or superintendent moves faster than 
RM> congress.
RM> 
RM> I think I can find some who would disagree!   ;-)
    Maybe one way in some local districts, but the opposite for others.
RM> RM> To a certain extent, NY has exit exams in courses called the
RM> RM> Regents exams... They have been "working" for a good many
RM> RM> years now.
RM> 
RM> MS>This is your own acknowledgement of quality control in 
RM> MS>K-12 education being possible without national standards.
RM> 
RM> SOME quality control... If SOME quality control is a good
RM> thing, why is MORE necessarily a bad thing?
    You can soon end up illustrating the "law of diminishing returns".
    Winchester almost ran itself out of business that way, making fine rifles 
and shotguns that cost far more to produce than their competition.
    Spending increasingly more money or time on quality control pays big 
dividends for the first few dollars (or hours), but then rapidly produces 
less return.
--- Simplex BBS (v1.07.00Beta [DOS])
---------------