I agree that it's ridiculous to ask a student to interpret a poem on a test and expect them to interpret it in any way that resembles the test creator's interpretation.
But there are some things about poetry that are not subjective and that are related to the art of writing it and thus worth teaching.
In particular, metre/scansion and rhyme/rhyme schemes are crucial aspects of the art that can be identified objectively. (Analogous to expecting a music student to recognize syncopation or read musical notation.)
You can also test recognition of metaphor and simile without requiring interpretation thereof. With allegory you get into issues of cultural exposure to the source of the allegory, but if that source is something else in the curriculum you could ask a student to identify the allegory without interpreting it subjectively.
And of course, many of these techniques are used by effective writers of prose (which we generally hope for students to become) - just typically more sparingly.
You can also (as with visual arts and music) teach students to identify poetry of different styles or from different eras.
Basically, you can teach and you can objectively test recognition of a lot of techniques used by poets. These standardized tests may have been ridiculous, but that doesn't mean that including poetry on a standardized test at all has to be ridiculous.
You can teach and test recognition of all of those components, I agree, but none of it has anything to do with whether or not the poem is achieving anything.
I am not saying that there is no context within which analysis has meaning, but that sort of component analysis I think is a misapplication of a certain kind of thinking to a medium that does not benefit at all from it.
If we knew the components of good poems we could actually produce them with some consistency. We can't. So to teach it that way is only to turn poetry into a cypher for a different activity altogether.
I guess thats fine, those skills may be needed for other areas of life and are worth developing, but it doesn't seem like learning about the function or creation of art, so in turn seems like a takeover of the field for the sake of something else entirely. I dunno, maybe its all good, but it seems like something potentially valuable and encouraging is being sacrificed for the sake of analysis.
I perceive those concepts more as tools for writing poetry than for interpreting it. (Though in Shakespeare, for instance, scansion can affect interpretation.)
Obviously the tools aren't necessary or sufficient to create good poetry (just as understanding big-O notation and recursion is neither necessary nor sufficient to write good software).
But they're tools that can be used to improve understanding of others' work, and to craft and improve one's own.
That study has a description: squeezing all the life out of poetry, leaving a dry meaningless husk. Its possible to recognize poetry for what it is, without deconstructing it to death. I'd like to take that class.
But there are some things about poetry that are not subjective and that are related to the art of writing it and thus worth teaching.
In particular, metre/scansion and rhyme/rhyme schemes are crucial aspects of the art that can be identified objectively. (Analogous to expecting a music student to recognize syncopation or read musical notation.)
You can also test recognition of metaphor and simile without requiring interpretation thereof. With allegory you get into issues of cultural exposure to the source of the allegory, but if that source is something else in the curriculum you could ask a student to identify the allegory without interpreting it subjectively.
And of course, many of these techniques are used by effective writers of prose (which we generally hope for students to become) - just typically more sparingly.
You can also (as with visual arts and music) teach students to identify poetry of different styles or from different eras.
Basically, you can teach and you can objectively test recognition of a lot of techniques used by poets. These standardized tests may have been ridiculous, but that doesn't mean that including poetry on a standardized test at all has to be ridiculous.