Who am I, and what’s this about?

Standardized Tests Don’t Show Students’ Successes

Fri, 11 Jun 2010 22:58:43 -0700

It’s a familiar routine: third, fourth and fifth graders sitting down glumly in front of computer screens for the seventh, eighth or ninth time, using their passwords to log in to the secure state testing system. The students’ only assignment is to read from the screen and carefully use a computer mouse to correctly choose a response: A, B, C, or D.
Welcome to the world of No Child Left Behind.
We now test children almost as soon as they're out of diapers. Does anyone ever stop to think about the damaging emotional effects that the pressures of constant testing and test preparation may have on the very young?
There will always be students who easily do well on these kinds of "assessments," but there will inevitably be others who, for reasons of culture, poverty, unfamiliarity with computers, or just plain test anxiety -- do not. A good number of these children possess very high academic potential, but don't fit into the test makers' narrow, precooked notions of precisely what it is that constitutes “achievement.”
Standardized tests are shallow and demonstrably unreliable instruments. When every test question is reduced to four possible responses, many students become expert at deducing correct answers through simple elimination -- also known as guessing. Nowhere on a standardized reading test is a child asked to summarize a passage or generate his or her own response to it. Consequently it is not uncommon that poor readers "pass," while some of the better readers (with test anxiety) do not. Far from improving our educational system, NCLB is dumbing it down.
What’s more, we are doing actual damage to our children’s imaginations. No longer is elementary school a place to imagine, to dream, to create, or to question. As a predictable ramification of NCLB, instruction in non-tested subjects such as geography, art, poetry and music has often gone by the wayside, replaced by heavy drilling in test-taking.
We must reform this ill-conceived law in a manner that envisions our young people as unique and creative human beings. The artistic child, the child who thinks outside of the box, the child who writes, the child who thinks critically and asks challenging questions -- is too often the one who goes unrecognized (or "left behind") in today's testing treadmill.
Holding students and teachers accountable is one thing; transforming our schools into uninspiring and stultifying factories is quite another. If “setting standards” means envisioning our youth as nothing more than products on an assembly line, it’s about time we re-thought what it is we really want from our educational system.
When we jump unquestioningly aboard the “accountability” bandwagon as it is currently conceived, we place our expectations exceedingly low, prioritizing conformity over creativity, passivity over active questioning. Looking back at history, whenever great leaps of progress have been made in math, science, literature or the arts, it was precisely because of individuals whose best answers to the questions generated by the conventional wisdom of their day was: "None of the above." It’s a familiar routine: third, fourth and fifth graders sitting down glumly in front of computer screens for the seventh, eighth or ninth time, using their passwords to log in to the secure state testing system. The students’ only assignment is to read from the screen and carefully use a computer mouse to correctly choose a response: A, B, C, or D.
Welcome to the world of No Child Left Behind.
We now test children almost as soon as they're out of diapers. Does anyone ever stop to think about the damaging emotional effects that the pressures of constant testing and test preparation may have on the very young?
There will always be students who easily do well on these kinds of "assessments," but there will inevitably be others who, for reasons of culture, poverty, unfamiliarity with computers, or just plain test anxiety -- do not. A good number of these children possess very high academic potential, but don't fit into the test makers' narrow, precooked notions of precisely what it is that constitutes “achievement.”
Standardized tests are shallow and demonstrably unreliable instruments. When every test question is reduced to four possible responses, many students become expert at deducing correct answers through simple elimination -- also known as guessing. Nowhere on a standardized reading test is a child asked to summarize a passage or generate his or her own response to it. Consequently it is not uncommon that poor readers "pass," while some of the better readers (with test anxiety) do not. Far from improving our educational system, NCLB is dumbing it down.
What’s more, we are doing actual damage to our children’s imaginations. No longer is elementary school a place to imagine, to dream, to create, or to question. As a predictable ramification of NCLB, instruction in non-tested subjects such as geography, art, poetry and music has often gone by the wayside, replaced by heavy drilling in test-taking.
We must reform this ill-conceived law in a manner that envisions our young people as unique and creative human beings. The artistic child, the child who thinks outside of the box, the child who writes, the child who thinks critically and asks challenging questions -- is too often the one who goes unrecognized (or "left behind") in today's testing treadmill.
Holding students and teachers accountable is one thing; transforming our schools into uninspiring and stultifying factories is quite another. If “setting standards” means envisioning our youth as nothing more than products on an assembly line, it’s about time we re-thought what it is we really want from our educational system.
When we jump unquestioningly aboard the “accountability” bandwagon as it is currently conceived, we place our expectations exceedingly low, prioritizing conformity over creativity, passivity over active questioning. Looking back at history, whenever great leaps of progress have been made in math, science, literature or the arts, it was precisely because of individuals whose best answers to the questions generated by the conventional wisdom of their day was: "None of the above."

-Published in the Statesman Journal of Salem, OR April 16, 2010

In defense of Our New “Community Organizer” President

Wed, 19 Nov 2008 21:49:43 -0800

Obama 'organizing' the entire nation
At this year's Republican convention, Sarah Palin belittled Barack Obama's experience as a community organizer: "I guess a small-town mayor is sort of like a community organizer, except that you have actual responsibilities."
How misguided she was! What better preparation for a presidential campaign — or for being president — than getting to know the residents of poor and working-class communities, recognizing their needs and advocating for their rights?
After graduating from Harvard, Obama had every opportunity to take a highly paid corporate law job. Instead, admirably, he decided to work with ordinary people. Thank goodness that we will soon have a president (unlike Mr. Bush) who has a firsthand understanding of what it means to struggle for a living.
What we have just witnessed in the Obama campaign is nothing less than community organizing on a grand scale. This time, though, instead of walking Chicago streets, he's "organizing" the whole nation.
As president, Obama is going to have to navigate a horrific minefield of conflicting interests and constituencies. It won't be easy by any means, but I can't think of anyone better suited to the task than community organizer Barack Obama.
— Letter Published in the Statesman Journal, Salem, OR, November 16, 2008

Thoughts on the Palin-Biden Debate

Sun, 5 Oct 2008 08:18:36 -0700

The whole "who won" debate I think is pretty silly; it's a wholly subjective judgement that depends very much on what voters are looking for.

Palin in this case is the beneficiary of having exceeded all expectations -- she didn't start speaking in tongues or casting spells against witches. Even so, by the standards that any other presidential or vice presidential candidates are usually held to, I think she performed miserably. She not only danced around the questions, she announced that that was what she was going to do.

I can only imagine how Obama would have been skewered if he had done something similar.

When Palin spoke she sounded like some fourth grader who had memorized the flash cards for an oral presentation -- a kid whose words were derived from cramming, not from wisdom. With both Palin and the hypothetical fourth grader you know that if you try to ask for more specificity, you really won't get an answer. I thought Gwen Ifill, the moderater, was somewhat negligent in not following up and not calling her out on those numerous non-answers. Perhaps she had been intimidated so much that she wanted to avoid anyone accusing her of being "unfair." The reason Palin performed so miserably under in the Couric interviews is because Couric had the balls to ask Palin for "specific examples."

While I can't speak for the "general public," I think that since the financial crisis hit, the public has altered its priorities somewhat in which qualities they think are most important in a candidate. Instead of looking solely at "personality,' people are looking for wisdom and competence, qualities I think Biden displayed much more effectively than Palin did.

This is why I think polls of uncommitted voters show very clearly that Biden "won." Yes, Palin was "cute" and "folksy," but I just don't think that's enough anymore.

Obviously, those of us who were hoping to see Sarah break down in schizophrenic convulsions were at least mildly disappointed. Nevertheless, I think those hoping for a Democratic victory in November have every reason to be pleased. Nothing happened on Friday to hurt the Democrats. I think in fact they were very much helped.

Body Language and the First Presidential Debate

Sat, 27 Sep 2008 11:07:28 -0700

Rightly or not, these debates often seem to get decided on the body language. Nixon and his five-o'clock shadow, Poppy Bush looking at his watch, Gore with his rolling eyes, etc. This time, it's clearly the Democrat who won the physical (not political) posture wars. We news junkies like to think that the candidate wins these things has lots to do with what he or she SAYS. I really think the far more important factor is how they LOOK.

If you turned the sound off and just focused on the facial expressions, especially on the side-by-side screens, McCain seemed, especially when he wasn't speaking, to be making a herculean effort to try to contain his rage. His lips moved between forced smiles and barely-disguised grimaces. His cheeks seemed to twitch up and down as if being stimulated by some therapeutic massage machine.

McCain, amazingly, was not even able to look his opponent in the eye -- indicating even a perfunctory level of respect-- to his Democratic opponent.

Obama, on the other hand, seemed calm, relaxed, and utterly at ease with himself. He was not afraid to look at and speak to "John" in what I thought was a very presidential -- and respectful -- fashion.

I think even the fabled "white working class voters" who have been suspicious of Obama all along -- know what it means to show respect to one's opponent.

Disrespect and contempt were written all over McCain last night. I think that, in and of itself, lost him the debate and perhaps the election, too.

On Biblical “Injunctions” Against Gay Marriage

Sun, 6 Jul 2008 21:27:28 -0700

There are some out there who continue to use religious justifications for not permitting gay marriage. They claim with Biblical certainty that God never intended men to marry men or women to marry women.

If you look at history, though, you’ll find time and again that such “certainties” have gone by the wayside. Based on God’s “intentions,” Galileo was persecuted for correctly stating that the Earth revolves around the Sun. The Bible was once used to justify slavery and for denying women the right to vote.

More recently, interracial marriage was seen in many states as some kind of sacrilege. I'd like to quote Virginia trial judge Leon Bazile, from the 1959 sentencing of Richard and Mildred Loving to a year in prison for the "crime" of "miscegenation," or marriage between the races:

"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, Malay and red, and He placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with His arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that He separated the races shows that He did not intend for the races to mix."

Sound familiar?

It seems kind of odd how God's intentions seem to change with the political winds

The conviction (along with all anti-miscegenation laws) was overturned in 1967, thank goodness, by the Supreme Court in that famous case, Loving vs. Virginia.

Once again, those who claim to know Gods intentions are more often than not -- on the wrong side of history.