Teachers or Testing?

One of the banner ads on my Facebook page caught my eye today. It asked me to vote "for" teachers and "against" standardized tests. Huh? My first thought was that this is like voting for peaches or winter. (Actually, my first thought was, "How stupid!") There is a ground swell of resistance to certain academic practices that showcases the failure of certain academic practices. Anyone who can place testing and teaching in opposition clearly needs some teaching. Assessment (testing) is an integral part of teaching; this applies to standardized tests as well as other assessments created by individuals or publishers.

I imagine this resistance to standardized tests is a corollary to the backlash against Common Core State Standards (CCSS). Those who oppose CCSS often mistake it for "curriculum" and assume it dictates what teachers must teach. As I have previously written, this is a misunderstanding. CCSS, like any set of standards, merely establishes benchmarks to measure the academic progress of students. Standardized tests are supposed to be the tools to measure said progress (or lack thereof). Admittedly, I have been displeased with much of what has been offered as "standardized" testing, since it is often the result more of political process than academic research. However, the concept of testing students to determine their mastery of certain concepts is sound educational practice and should be encouraged.

I wonder what the detractors of testing and standards are in favor of. The current sorry state of public education in this country should be enough to drive anyone toward efforts to improve. To measure improvement, standards are necessary. Imagine a football field with no yard markers on the field and no goal line. Officials would have no way to award first downs -- no way to call touchdowns. The game would be pointless. Standardized testing puts the yard markers in the classroom. Testing allows easy comparison of teachers, programs, and schools. Testing gives everyone a goal to strive for. 

The misapprehension among the detractors is that standards place onerous demands upon teachers and schools, taking away their autonomy. This is true only in the sense that standards force teachers and schools to show where their students are on a scale that can be used to measure them across district, state, or national boundaries. What I have seen of the CCSS looks like a robust but achievable set of standards for educators. What we need is an appropriate test to measure mastery of those standards. I don't know if such a test exists yet; Common Core is too new for definitive judgment.

In my education classes at the seminary (eons ago), I was taught that God desires the best from each of us -- that excellence is the standard we must establish. I also learned that no human product will ever be perfect, but that striving for perfection is our duty. The Common Core State Standards are not perfect, but they are an effort to prod educators toward excellence. I don't see anything wrong with that. I vote for teachers and testing, thank you.

Make Time for Timeless Truth

Sky News reports today that the Church of England has approved the ordination of women as bishops in the UK church. Since several other national Anglican branches have already made this move, it comes as a dull surprise. The female head of the American branch of the denomination last year, "mocked most of the crucial doctrines of the Christian faith, including the God of creation, the Incarnation, and the Trinity," according to an article on Beliefnet. With such a low view of the authority of the Scripture, it is no wonder that another tenet of the historic Christian faith has toppled like London Bridge.

My Sunday School class had an interesting discussion recently when we pondered why the children of the "Greatest Generation" are leaving the church in droves. (According to Barna, 59% of Millenials are "walking away from either their faith or the institutional church at some point in the first decade of their adult life.") We came up with the theory that even though many parents had a sincere faith, it was not worn on the shirt sleeves for all to see. What the children did see was their parents striving for material success and presenting "church" as an add-on. Lacking any reasonable motivation to continue the weekly charade, the fledglings left "church" in the nest once they flew.

My own children have attended Bible-preaching churches every Sunday (twice, and once on Wednesday) pretty much all their lives, yet I still hear the hint of post-modern relativism creeping into their conversations and lifestyles. I will never forget the night I was explaining why homosexual behaviors are not acceptable for Christians, and one of my own offspring said, "Oh, Dad, that's just your interpretation of the Bible." Ouch! I know God has no grandchildren, but I had hoped that His children who sprang from my loins would mirror my heartfelt beliefs. Maybe someday.

The retreat from traditional belief is thought by some to be a way to attract young people. I believe, rather, that people of all ages seek something timeless, solid, dependable. Far from winning faltering believers, backing away from the absolute into the relative only makes a belief system less attractive to real thinkers. Society is ripe with examples of harsh systems that engender fanatical allegiance: urban gangs, extreme religious cults (like Islamic jihadism), the Amish. Watering down the faith washes out the floundering.

Jesus' teaching emphasized sticking to the truth behind the rules of his day. Certainly, he blasted hypocritical observance that sought public recognition without inner motivation. But far from weakening the rules, he strengthened them by highlighting the inner reason for the outer behavior. Read his Sermon on the Mount for proof of this. Maybe what was missing from our parenting was the explanation for why we did what we did and an open expression of its connection to the Scripture. 

The Beliefnet article points out that the mainline denominations which have embraced relative truth are dying. The only churches that are growing are the ones telling the "old, old story" and living it in meaningful ways. Ships can ride out some pretty serious weather if they have a good anchor. People today are desperately looking for an anchor in ride out life's storms. They have only the shifting sand of relativism; we have an anchor for the soul. That anchor is our hope in the God of truth -- the absolute, timeless truth. If we show that to people, young or old, they will be knocking down our doors instead of leaving through them. As Edith Ann (Lily Tomlin) used to say from her rocking chair, "And that's the truth!"

Supporting the Chinese

An article in The Week turned my crank this morning. In the June 17 article, Jonathan Merritt blasts Hobby Lobby for claiming to be a Christian business while operating in an unchristian manner. His main objection is that the store chain stocks many items that are made in China. Merritt believes that since the Chinese have such a deplorable human rights and religious liberty record, Hobby Lobby is wrong to buy from them because it indirectly supports non-Christian practices like abortion.

In an editorial response in the Rutland Herald, Hobby Lobby Vice-president and chief legal officer, Peter Doblebower defends the store purchasing practices saying, "Virtually all Hobby Lobby’s vendors are small entrepreneurial businesses without control over their government’s abortion policies." What he does not say is that the "small entrepreneurial businesses" are the salvation of many third world people. If not for global outreach (aka outsourcing), there would be no "small entrepreneurial businesses," and the people would probably be added to the statistics of starvation.

It is also worth noting that Merritt and the people at the Huffington Post and elsewhere who charge Hobby Lobby with hypocrisy undoubtedly toast their self-righteous attitudes with Russian vodka after kicking off their Italian loafers while sitting on their Swedish sofa having driven home in their Japanese car they fillled up at a Dutch/British/Venezuelan oil company's gas station. We thrive in a global market where it is almost impossible to define American-made. With Toyotas made in America and Mustangs made in Canada, who is driving the "foreign car?"

Much of what I have said is echoed by John Stonestreet in an excellent article in the Christian Post. But neither Stonestreet nor anyone else I've read mentions a very important perspective. Critics of Hobby Lobby mention the shockingly low minimum wage in China. What they don't consider is the relatively low cost of living in China. According to one source, a white collar worker in Shanghai averages the equivalent of $1,000 US monthly salary. This is considered a comfortable wage in the highest cost city in China. Minimum wage in Shanghai is $290. This 3-1 difference is almost exactly the ratio of minimum wage to average white collar income in America.

It is always dangerous to mix Christianity and business (or politics), but it seems to me that as believers we should consider how to interact on a human level with other humans of all nationalities. Hobby Lobby is not the US government and the small entrepreneur making the cheap products is not the Chinese government. Neither one necessarily approves of the policies of the government under which they labor. Both must do what they can to live according to their beliefs within the framework of that government.

I am comfortable thinking that I support the small Chinese entrepreneur by shopping at Hobby Lobby. If you disagree, shop elsewhere. The situation with Hobby Lobby's outsourcing to China may not be perfect, but I challenge you to find a merchant more concerned with doing things Christianly than Hobby Lobby. In a complex world, half a loaf is better than none. In this case, the half loaf may just feed a family that would starve without it.