My wife and I were going to opt out our son from the eighth grade ELA state exam this month. We decided, however, to have him take it because the alternative would've meant that he'd sit in a room for a few hours and spend the whole time on his phone. Given that choice, we'd rather he at least flex his brain muscles and take a test. But it's a ridiculous choice. A few years ago I approached my principal with a radical, and obviously rebuffed, idea. I said, "Hey, since we are going to have a large number of kids skipping the state test, why don't you send them to the auditorium and I'll do a lesson with them on astronomy (one of my personal, passionate interests). After all," I added, "this is a school, and it beats them sitting around doing nothing the whole time, right?" The look on her face was priceless. How DARE I thwart the government! I was needed instead to proctor the exam for my special Ed students. I told her my students would be fine with or without me, it's not like I could help them with anything. Unconvinced, and probably suspecting I was a crappy teacher who didn't care about my poor students taking such a hard test, I was dismissed, and the topic was never brought up again. I've learned from this and other similar experiences that public education is, well, sort of a misnomer. Whether anyone gets educated is not the goal; jumping the hoops, passing the tests, and winning the game is. EVERY educator would decry that statement; NO educator will stand on their principles and fight it. Even in a unionized state like New York, it doesn't happen.