The AIMS test is the primary manifestation of the national No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) in Arizona. It is a “high stakes” test that a student must pass if he or she is to graduate. AIMS is an acronym for Arizona Instrument to Measure Standards. For its proponents AIMS means holding schools and students accountable for tangible aptitude and progress. I am less sure that AIMS, as so named, can hold any descriptive meaning. What is an ‘instrument?’ An instrument takes a ‘measurement.’ But ‘instrument’ (in this context) and ‘measurement’ both already assume the other in their signification. Which is the subordinate term? There seems to be no added denotation (if there is an added connotation it is just that of jargon which aspires to an air of authoritative weight) by their dual presence. Secondly, how does a ‘measurement’ differ from a ‘standard?’ Is not the standard always pre-established? A ‘measurement’ already implies a ‘standard of measure’ (i.e. there is no ‘measurement’ without there already being a ‘standard’.) Also, a ’standard’ cannot be ‘measured’ because a ’standard’ is already wholly defined as a given mark of ‘measure.’
But language, in a sense, always works this way. Words always defer to other words for their value and meaning. Definition is never finite but circular. What is odd here is that ‘instrument’ ‘measurement’ and ‘standard’ are seemingly adjacent links in a chain of differance. Thus they fail to actually signify the difference that is required of words to collaborate in meaning. It is remarkable the extent to which they exentuate the absence latent in what is too easily seen as the presense-affirming act of definition. Somehow this is fitting.
