Testing the Tests

Someone has said that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting to get different results. If that's true, then the folks in Washington's education meddling department must be insane. The No Child Left Behind act (NCLB, pronounced Nickelby) was a dismal failure by the estimate of every teacher I know. Yet now, according to the Washington Post, Arne Duncan, Obama's hand-picked education guru, is retreading NCLB and pushing it on schools as the Race to the Top.

Elements of the new program certainly have merit, but then so did NCLB on paper. An effort to help students across the USA master basic academic skills is laudable. Making schools and teachers accountable for the scholastic performance of their young charges sounds like a good idea. The problem with both NCLB and Race to the Top is the instrument used to measure skills and rate performance. Just as it is true that he who makes the rules controls the game, so also he who designs the evaluation describes success.

Neither Kennedy's NCLB nor Duncan's Race to the Top recognize the wide cultural diversity present in today's public schools. Each of these programs uses testing procedures and materials which discriminate against large portions of the population. One need not be an expert in Howard Gardner's multiple intelligence theory to understand that people have different learning styles and strengths. Add to this the differences between a child from the inner city, a farm, a native American reservation, a metropolitan street and a suburban neighborhood and you may begin to understand why no one test can measure all children accurately.

Two examples of this cultural disconnect will illustrate my point. Inner city children from a background of poverty were asked to write whether they would rather stay at an ice hotel or a regular hotel. Even I had to have the concept of an ice hotel explained (it refers to a hotel constructed entirely of ice.) Few of these children have been to any hotel, let alone something as esoteric as an ice hotel. The same test asked for the ten year olds' opinion of Michigan's beverage container law. Many were unsure what a beverage is; few had an opinion of the law since they didn't understand it was about the return for deposit concept. Under the testing rules, questions from students cannot be answered, so if they don't understand the question, they are not likely to provide a worthy answer.

Another aspect of the testing regime which teachers dislike is the pressure to "teach for the test." Because the test scores effect the amount of funding available to the school, administrators are draconian in their demands of teachers. In the weeks preceding the test, no deviation from preparation is allowed. Teachers feel corralled into dry, unimaginative lessons; the students likewise become quickly bored. One imagines the level of true, worthwhile learning is quite low.

Jay Matthews suggests a solution in his April 25 blog. Matthews notes that the ground shaking book by Doug Lemov is having seismic effects on young teachers. It may sound simplistic, but getting back to the basics may be the best solution to our education woes. As Matthews points out, many young teachers are frustrated by the tried and failed theories of the entrenched leadership. If you haven't seen the movie, Freedom Writers, watch it for an entertaining and enlightening example of this phenomenon. Erin Gruwell, the teacher on whom the movie is based, has continued to inspire students at Wilson High. Her shocking method: treating the students as responsible individuals and providing them with basic skills to cope with a world gone berserk.

What can we do? How about bringing the control of our schools back to the most directly affected people, the parents and local educators who have the greatest stake in the success of the enterprise? How about we send people to Washington who will dismantle the misguided department of meddleducation? We have that choice in the 2nd District in Michigan: Bill Cooper. As concerned parents, we can also become more involved in our childrens' education: attend parent-teacher meetings, PTO, board of education sessions and, most important, teach our own what it means to be responsible, literate citizens in a free republic. After teaching them about God, there is no higher calling.

Yancey on the Two Kingdoms

I will not often cede this space almost entirely to another voice, but the observations by Philip Yancey I share today so closely mirror my own thoughts and experience, that I could not say it better (despite the whispers of Narcissus in my ear.) The following excerpt is from the last chapter of The Jesus I Never Knew.

"Clearly, the kingdom of God operates by a set of rules different from any earthly kingdom's. God's kingdom has no geographical borders, no capital city, no parliament building, no royal trappings that you can see. Its followers live right among their enemies, not separated from them by a border fence or wall. It lives, and grows, on the inside of human beings.

"Those of us who follow Jesus thus possess a kind of dual citizenship. We live in an external kingdom of family and cities and nationhood, while at the same time belonging to the kingdom of God.... We have seen vivid demonstrations of the clash of kingdoms in our own time-- Albania, the U.S.S.R., China.... Yet despite this government oppression, a spiritual revival broke out [in China] that could well be the largest in the history of the church.

"In fact, problems seem to arise when the church becomes too external, and gets too cozy with government... I grew up in a church that proudly displayed the "Christian flag" next to the Stars and Stripes, and we would pledge allegiance to both. People would apply to the United States passages from the Old Testament that were obviously intended for a time when God worked through a visible kingdom on earth, the nation of Israel. For example, I often heard this verse quoted as a formula for national revival: 'If my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and will heal their land.' The principle may apply in a general way, of course, but the specific promise was given as part of God's covenant relationship with the ancient Hebrews... Have we any reason to assume God has a similar covenant with the U.S.?

"Indeed, have we any indication that God now judges the U.S. or any other country as a national entity? [Italics Yancey's] As I now reflect on Jesus' stories of the kingdom, I sense that much uneasiness among Christians today stems from a confusion of the two kingdoms, visible and invisible. Each time an election rolls around, Christians debate whether this or that candidate is 'God's man for the White House....' Nowadays, as the U.S. grows increasingly secularized, it appears that church and state are heading in different directions. The more I understand Jesus' message of the kingdom of God, the less alarm I feel over that trend.

"Ironically, if the United States is truly sliding down a slippery moral slope, that may better allow the church... to 'set up a new sign... which is full of promise' [quoting Karl Barth.] I would prefer, I must admit, to live in a country where the majority of people follow the Ten Commandments, act with civility toward each other, and bow their heads once a day for a bland, nonpartisan prayer. I feel a certain nostalgia for the social climate of the 1950's in which I grew up. But if that environment does not return, I will not lose any sleep. As America slides, I will work and pray for the kingdom of God to advance. If the gates of hell cannot prevail against the church, the contemporary political scene hardly offers much threat."

None As Blind As

I used to think, as many teach, that one of the strongest arguments for the truth of the resurrection of Jesus Christ is the dramatic change and conviction in the early disciples. It made sense to me that no one would stake his or her life on a known lie. Had those early disciples thought that Jesus was still in the grave, they would have faded into history like so many other followers of false messiahs. It only recently occurred to me that this opinion must ignore the fact that Mohammed's followers have down through the centuries made the same costly commitment. As have the disciples of Joseph Smith, Jim Jones or David Koresh and many others.

Today, Barak Obama seems to be ignoring the implications of this radical type of faith. It is not surprising since he shows no signs of having any such faith personally. Neither he nor his supporters apparently acknowledge the existence and the power of life-altering political views. Obama's recent declaration that we won't use nuclear weapons against an enemy if they attack us with other than nuclear weapons reveals this weakness. This parallels earlier statements regarding the use of certain types of interrogation techniques. He seems to operate under the assumption that if we are nice to them, our enemies will be nice to us. Similarly, the New York Times and other media outlets have divulged information critical to our national security which they seem to think demonstrates a spirit of journalistic fairness.

Now, I am not a warmonger. I do not wish to see Muslims dead because they follow Mohamed. I firmly believe that in this country, citizens must be free to practice whatever religion does not restrict the rights of other citizens. This is the only path I know that will ensure that I may hold my Christian faith freely. Yet as all rights are limited by the coexistent rights of other citizens, no religion which denies "unbelievers" equal rights can be tolerated. This is what Obama and his administration have forgotten. The people who attacked us on September 11, 2001, were radically unconcerned that they were depriving thousands of Americans the right to live as they chose.

In the same way that the appeasers of the 1930's allowed Adolf Hitler to annex more and more of Europe, Obama and the liberals across the globe are now ceding ever larger physical and moral territory to the radical Muslim agenda. These are not people with whom we can coexist. They seek our destruction unless we convert to their way of thinking and believing. While the economic policies of the Obama administration are obaminable [sic,] his foreign policy is so naive as to be dangerous. He doesn't realize that the people he is trying to be nice to will murder him at the first opportunity. He has no real concept of the power of religious belief that is radical.

The resurrection of Jesus Christ is the sine qua non of Christianity: without it, there is no religion to believe in. But this reality rests on a mundane, elementary, level. As Paul says, our faith is empty without confidence in the resurrection (1Corinthians 15:14.) This intellectual basis for faith is less exciting than the experiential, feeling based commitment; in the end though, it is far more substantial. The Muslim homicide bomber believes he is earning himself a heavenly harem based on the words of a long dead prophet. I believe when I die, I will be welcomed into paradise by the living Lord who purchased my entry with his own life, then rose from the grave to seal the deal. Both paths require faith and commitment; the difference is the person in whom we each place our faith. The object of my faith is alive; no one has ever claimed that for the prophet Mohamed.

The Curtain, Please

I sometimes wonder if I am becoming paranoid in my old age. Then a voice says, "It's not paranoia if you really are being targeted." Maybe it isn't paranoia, but just cynicism. The point is that I am starting to look for ulterior motives in everything. It's possible that I have begun to see my own heart clearly, and I realize that there are no truly pure motives there either. But enough psychobabble; here is the topic for today. When something doesn't make sense, look for hidden reasons.

Case number one: the group formerly known as the American Association for Retired Persons (AARP) was loudly championing Obama's health care reform efforts. This made no sense to me since there was so much for senior citizens not to like about the Democrats' plan. Reduced services, increased premium costs, death panels (so-called,) and more elements made the reform bill onerous to most savvy seniors. I know that AARP lobbying usually tracks with the Democrat issues and candidates, but this one seemed too contrary to the stated purpose of the organization.

In a World Net Daily article , Chelsea Schilling pulls back the curtain and reveals the wizard behind all the smoke and mirrors. According to Schilling's investigation, AARP collected $249 million in membership dues last year (2008.) In that same period, the organization received $773 million from royalties and advertising associated with the "Medigap" insurance policies it recommends to its members. In other words, over seventy percent of their 2008 revenue came from insurance companies. Confused? Aren't insurance companies at odds with Obama over health care reform? Maybe, but when the dust settles, insurance companies will be charging even more for their "Medigap" products because of the way the reform bill is structured. Higher premiums means more royalty dollars to AARP. Make sense now?

(Time out for a brief testimonial: I have discovered an alternative to AARP which seems to be more to my liking. Check it out at www.amac.us if you are interested.)

The way the Democrats abandoned the democratic process to push health care down the throats of their constituents also puzzles me. I used to think, in a mildly cynical way, that all any politician cared about was getting re-elected. One of the most amazing aspects of the health care reform debacle we just witnessed was the way Nance Pelosi strong-armed reluctant members of her party to vote for the bill even though it was political suicide. An LA Times article details the incredible position shifts that were forced upon the Speaker's own principles (if that word applies) and those of her colleagues. No constituency, no cause was safe from "Mean Machine 1," as her late night battle jersey named her.

Unfortunately I can not take you to the Emerald City and pull back the curtain on this one. I have a suspicion about what forces pull the levers in Washington these days, but no real proof. Either through naivete or giant hubris, Barak Obama has chosen to step out from behind the curtain just enough to expose at least the tip of the ideological iceberg that is floating down the Potomac. I must quickly admit that the impending disaster didn't begin when Obama took office. Sadly, George W. Bush was letting some bergy bits bang into the hull of the ship of state before he left (think bailouts and stimulus.)

So in my metaphor, Obama and his merry crew of socialists are sailing purposely into the path of the enormous growler. (Yes, Virginia, they are socialists -- and communists; read the resumes of those the president has gathered to himself.) They have taken over the US auto industry and health care. Steel, coal and petroleum were long ago hobbled by government meddling; a quick survey of recent history reveals several overt statements by Democrat leaders indicating a desire to "nationalize" these industries. Even agribusiness is becoming a government run sideshow with all the ill conceived subsidies and ridiculous mandates (ie. ethanol.)

I may be too trusting, too optimistic, but I hope that Michigan candidates like Bill Cooper and Pete Hoekstra can get elected and become a counterbalance to the leftward swing we are seeing. I hear hopeful honesty in national voices like Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann, Bobby Jindal, Tom Tancredo and many others. I hope there are enough people dissatisfied with the wizard who has been revealed to vote him back to Kansas (or Illinois.) I trust my Oz metaphor is near to the truth. I sometimes think, however, that this is more like Alice's tumble down a rabbit hole. If we have descended into absurdity, there is no hope.

Clouds Without Rain

For several years now I have had an idea for a novel simmering on the back burner of my mind. (This time frame is not unusual; it took three decades of simmer and one of writing for my first novel to see printer’s ink.) The working title for my back burner project has been Clouds Without Rain, from “Like clouds and wind without rain is a man who boasts of a gift he does not give.” (Proverbs 25:14 ESV) The key scene is a smoky back room meeting between fictional characters John Dooley and Horatio Mann. These two entirely imaginary villains concoct a scheme to take over America not by violence or political action, but by surreptitiously flooding the public schools with subversive curricula. Over a few generations, these patient masterminds propose to convert the entire US population from independent thinking, free market capitalists into mind-numbed robots groveling at the government teat.

I hadn’t progressed very far with this idea, for lack of a good cast of supporting characters and a credible plot line until this week. In one short periodical, Eagle Forum’s March edition of Education Reporter, I found enough ingredients to move the pot from simmer to boil. In one article, the Reporter cites recent research published in the Archive of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine concluding that “abstinence-only sex education can be more effective than so-called ‘comprehensive sex ed.’” Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation identifies eleven other studies that found abstinence programs reduce sexual activity. Not only that, Rector notes that abstinent teens are happier, less likely to drop out of high school, and more likely to graduate from college. If this is surprising news to you, perhaps it is because previous positive evaluations of “comprehensive” sex ed programs by the Center for Disease Control (CDC) are not supported by the evidence and suffer various methodological problems, according to two independent reviewers. In less kind words, the CDC has been promoting false information.

Another attack submarine waiting to be included in my plot was discovered in a reprint of a National Review article by Roger Kimball commenting on the legacy of one Howard Zinn. (I won’t even have to change his name because it already sounds sinister.) Few people outside academia would recognize Zinn, but as Kimball reports, Zinn’s A People’s History has been beloved by progressives since it was published in 1980. And why not, as it encapsulates their hatred of America as an imperialistic, “wellspring of earthly evil,” according to John Perazzo from frontpagemag.com. Purporting to tell history from the perspective of “the slaughtered and mutilated,” Zinn does his job as well as a tour guide at Versailles who presents a tool shed as exemplary and then comments on how shabby the whole place really is, says Kimball.

So we have the degradation of both morals and morale underway; what else might thicken the stew? How about an Orwellian plot to track the success (an uncover the failures) of the clandestine educational plot. The front page of the Forum’s March Reporter details Obama’s plans to require applicants for "Race to the Top" money to establish pre-K through college data systems to “track progress and foster continuous improvement.” If these records included only test scores, it might not be cause for alarm, but much more is anticipated. Other data may include Social Security numbers, disciplinary records and family wealth indicators. One has only to consider the things that go into “disciplinary records” these days to worry about their misuse. In our PC crazed academy, fostered by “outcome based,” touchy-feely standards of “tolerance,” the potential for mischief is beyond troubling. One wonders if nine-year-old Patrick will suffer later recrimination for threatening his schoolmates with a weapon, a two-inch plastic toy that he placed in the hands of his Lego policeman.

It would be sad enough if our public education system had merely failed to deliver the promised gift of a well informed citizenry. The real story of my novel is that the clouds which appear not to bring the promised rain in fact bring a deadly radiation of poisonous thoughts that will ultimately set the stage for America’s destruction through internal decomposition. Think about that the next time you hear one of Obama’s people talking about setting national standards for education. Maybe if I get my book in print quickly, I can look like a prophet when disaster comes. Or maybe we can stop it.

Nailing Down Jesus

I am sometimes baffled by the way other people think. I am fully aware that not everyone sees the world the same way I do; I made that point recently in "All the News That Fits." But I occasionally forget that there are those out there who don't think Heaven matters at all; many don't even believe Heaven exists. Perhaps I am guilty of having the same closed mind I accuse them of having.

I have previously referred to my reconnection with Philip Yancey's book, The Jesus I Never Knew. (Some may wonder if I am getting a percentage of the royalties since I mention the book so often. I have no motive other than to recommend the book to anyone who seeks to understand who Jesus is.) In the chapter on the ascension Yancey wonders what the world would be like if Jesus had not come out of the grave. It strikes me that those who don't believe Christ rose now live in just such a world, at least by their own measure. Those who scoff at religion, particularly the miraculous episodes, imagine that they live in a world without any significant impact bythe "myths"of Scripture.

To pretend that an historical event never happened is foolish; to believe that the founding events of the Christian religion have not had a singular effect on the world is ludicrous. Even if you could ignore the millions of lives which have been undeniably transformed by Christian belief, you would stumble into the system of hospitals and schools which owe their very existence in large part to religious principles put into practice. Though present day doubters try to deny the religious underpinnings of our forefathers, America would not have taken its present form, if any form at all, were it not for the foundational principles of natural law taught by John Locke and others, which spring directly from Judeo-Christian religious teachings.

Christians themselves often behave as if they doubt the implications of the resurrection. Yancey writes, "In many respects I would find an unresurrected Jesus easier to accept. Easter makes him dangerous.... Easter means he must be loose out there somewhere. Like the disciples, I never know where Jesus might show up.... As Fredrick Buechner says, 'we can never nail him down, not even if the nails we use are real and the thing we nail him to is a cross...' Killing Jesus, says Walter Wink, was like trying t destroy a dandelion seed-head by blowing on it."

The last thing anyone would logically do to convince doubters is repeat the unlikely story that their leader had come back from the grave, unless he had in fact done just that. This Easter season, if you feel self-conscious telling the old story, remember what Paul said, "I am not ashamed, for I know whom I have believed." (2Tim 1:12) If you feel like you are bucking the trends, swimming upstream, fighting every day just to do what you believe is right, you are in good company; that's what they nailed Jesus for just three days before the first Easter.

All the News That Fits

The New York Times motto, "All the news that's fit to print," needs to be carefully parsed these days. There has always been a false assumption by many readers that the motto means the Times prints an assortment of current events that are "fit" in the sense of being sufficiently broad and unbiased to inform the public, while maintaining an air of professionalism. Not a scandal rag nor repeater of gossip, the Times can be trusted, so the thinking goes, to provide the essentials necessary for sound thinking and good citizenship.

The problem is that no news organization is free from bias. The simple decision to run one story and not run another is bias against the story not run. The editing process pares down (or fluffs up) the reporter's submission according to the editorial policies of the organization. Money has always played a part in editorial choices both from the standpoint of the need to sell papers and the less obvious need to keep advertisers happy. Finally, the world-view of the reporter and the editor impact all five journalistic W's: who, what, when, where and why -- especially the why.

Given that a survey by Media Research Center indicates the vast majority of big city journalists today are left-leaning in their politics, liberal in their social views, and atheistic or agnostic about religion, is it any wonder that conservative issues do not get reported fairly? One has only to listen to Diane Sawyer's interview of Mel Gibson after The Passion of the Christ became a surprise box-office hit. The look on her face as she asked Gibson if he actually thought the Bible was true tells the whole tale. She was astounded that he professed to believe the Bible. The liberal elite simply do not grasp the concept that millions of their fellow countrymen still believe and at least attempt to live by the ancient truth of Scripture.

I am gradually losing all respect for people who bash Fox News because they think it is biased. Of course it's biased. Every person who mouths opens his mouth speaks from a personal bias. But their complaint says one of two things about these people. It may simply reveal an innocent ignorance, either of media bias in general, or, as is often the case, ignorance of what Fox is all about because they won't watch it. More seriously, it may suggest that the person who can't abide Fox is so thoroughly immersed in the world-view presented by the liberal media that anything outside of the New York Times box is disregarded as unimportant.

Fox News is biased; they admit it, in a manner of speaking. I know the phrases "fair and balanced" and "we report, you decide" seem to indicate even handedness and neutrality. But in fact, they do what every other media outlet does: they cover the news in a way that satisfies a segment of the population. They openly admit that they are conservative in their views and hope to please enough viewers to stay on the air. If success is measured by numbers of viewers, then Fox is a resounding success. This shouldn't surprise anyone who understands America. We are liberal on the coasts and conservative in the heartland. People in New York and LA think they are the rulers by which all things are measured. They are different from Fox in that they pretend to be unbiased.

(Notice to the coasts: though you may think you are the majority because you and your buddies are packed together like sardines in a can, there are more of us running free out here in fly-over country than you can imagine. Furthermore, we hold some things dear that you have cast aside: decency, honesty, morality, and yes, God, guns and country music.)

If God had chosen this generation to bring the Christ into the world, and he could only appear on one television interview show, which one would he choose: Larry King or Bill O'Reilly? It's a trick question. I think Jesus would pick Larry. Remember what he told the grumbling Pharisees: "Those who are well have no need of a physician; I have not come to call the righteous but sinners to repentance."