-=> Quoting Bob Moylan to Dal Jencso <=-
 DJ> If a kid understand the concept of addition, the timed tests
 DJ> serve to make the basic "facts" almost automatic.
 BM> I must have been dozing since I still fail to see what educational
 BM> value there is to a timed test.  If the kid understands the concept
 BM> of addition, place value and all that and is able to complete say
 BM> 50 out of 100 correctly should she be penalized for not
 BM> completing the other 50?
I assume you're talking about someone who only completes 50, but gets
all of them correct; not about someone who completes 100 and gets only
half of them correct.
I think the core question should be "What is the educational goal?"  If
the goal is "understanding," then you are certainly correct.  If the
goal is "understanding and facility," then there is some threshold that
demonstrates sufficient facility, and we can have a discussion, perhaps
even conduct experiments to determine a reasonable level.  I think it's
obvious that 2 problems in six minutes is inadequate, and 1000 problems
in 30 seconds is unreasonable.  If 100 problems in the alloted time is
something that almost all students can master, then it's a realistic
demonstration of facility.  If only 20% of the kids can ever achieve
that score, it's not realistic. 
Has anyone posted anything about whether kids can reach this level?
My kid's school uses a similar routine once a week or so - it's a "Mad
Minute" and they try to finish as many as they can in one minute, but
only answers up to first wrong one count.  Early in the year my kid got
some two's and ten's because he made mistakes on early problems.  He seems
to regularly get 30-50 now, depending on the difficulty of the week's work.
It seems to be a useful diagnostic.
 
___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12
--- Maximus/2 3.01
---------------