And here are a couple of friends’ comments:

Not sure whether the choice of headline was Murray's or the New York Times.  My money would be on the latter.

 

Murray's point is valid but largely irrelevant. What is his alternative to ascertaining that something of value was inculcated into the students? And why all this focus on "teaching to the test" when they could just as well focus on making the test more relevant.

 

Such articles play into the hands of choice opponents and test opponents who prefer to go back to unaccountable school systems that just suck up the public purse.  

 

And:

 

Another anti-tester who lives a prosperous life due to the education he received from a prestigious university which admitted him based substantially on.... high stakes tests. Oh, the hypocrisy.