Unfortunately, most teachers have come to see the standardized testing movement as a good part of their job description; and therefore, have resigned themselves to being mere conduits for the tests. In other words, many teachers have become agents of the state who are externally imposed to facilitate testing.
And yet by definition the best educators are those who act as a buffer to protect their students from the harmful effects of standardized testing.
So what's the difference between being a conduit and a buffer?
I have a couple thoughts:
Conduits tend to come in two flavours: either they are ignorant to the harmful effects of testing or they are apathetic towards doing anything to influence change. Sadly, there are some teachers who are products of our testing culture - their education was saturated with testing and so they know no other way.
Yet, there are many teachers who remember a time when testing was but a shadow of its present form; however, these veteran teachers have been worn down by a kind of bureaucratic friction that has eroded their opposition to standardized testing. For many of these veterans, self-preservation in this top-down, test and punish accountability scheme has brought on an acute case of apathy.
If even half the teachers in these testing bureaucracies refused their cooperation to save their students from the tests, we could make change over night.
So why hasn't this happened yet?
We don't lack the research and logic to oppose standardized testing - rather, we lack the courage to do so.