Thinking Critically About Critical Thinking

I am upset, frustrated, disappointed and bordering on angry. I know I should not let emotion into this, but it is hard to watch my fellow conservatives make donkeys of themselves. The braying I refer to is about the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) for education. I have written about this before, but I must do so again in response to an article that floated onto my Facebook wall today.

I have been following a news service called the Tea Party News Network (TPNN). They certainly lean toward the right fringe, but much of what they say has been worth reading -- until today. The article in question by Jennifer Burke reports that a school in California following Common Core standards asked students to write a critical analysis of the holocaust deniers. At least, that's the way I see the assignment. Burke sees it quite differently.

Burke went ballistic calling the assignment openly anti-Semitic. According to the article, students were told to weigh the evidence from history using whatever legitimate sources they could find against the argument presented by the deniers. I think this is a wonderful assignment; what better way to convince young people that the deniers are full of hooey. Apparently, Burke does not believe the truth will be evident in an open debate of the facts. I want to ask Ms. Burke how she knows the holocaust is true and the deniers false. I suspect she would claim it is an opinion based on real evidence whereas the opponents' argument is conjecture and contrived conspiracy theories.

The spokesperson for the district involved in the kerfuffle, Syeda Jafri, defended the assignment with a logical assertion: "Teaching how to come to your own conclusion based on the facts, test your position, be able to articulate that position, then defend your belief with a lucid argument is essential to good citizenship." Amen. Using this method on the TPNN article reveals that they are on shaky ground rhetorically and logically.

First, I say again that the Common Core State Standards are not curriculum. The school did not get the assignment Burke decried from CCSS. Each district, each school, each classroom teacher makes decisions about what curriculum to use to meet the standards. In this case, the standard calls for teaching critical thinking. The assignment in question is perfect for this: it is current; it is controversial; it has plenty of coverage in terms of source material. 

Elsewhere in her tirade Burke criticizes "Common Core based anti-American lessons that have been reported across the country." These undoubtedly do exist, but they cannot be blamed on CCSS; liberals pervade our education system, so the lessons they teach will appear frequently. Given the freedom CCSS gives to local entities to come up with curriculum, Ms. Burke should be calling on conservatives everywhere to get involved in their local schools. (Ironically, CCCS actually requires the teaching of our country's founding documents, one of the rare curricular demands.)

Second, Burke displays the very weakness the CCSS are trying to strengthen: the lack of critical thinking skills. Besides confusing standards with curriculum, she peppers the article with loaded language (anti-Semitic) that begs the question: the assignment is only anti-Semitic if you assume the students could correctly side with the deniers. Is the truth of the holocaust so fragile that it cannot stand up to critical analysis? I don’t think so; Burke implies that she does.

Sadly, the district succumbed to pressure brought by a contrived media campaign and had Jafri announce, “This was a mistake. It should be corrected. It will be corrected. We all know it was real. The Holocaust is not a hoax. … I believe our classroom teachers are teaching it with sensitivity and compassion.” Burke then blasts Jafri for saying the school's critical thinking approach to the truth has no "sensitivity and compassion." I beg to differ with Ms. Burke; it is terribly insensitive and dis-compassionate to give our students facts but not the ability to distinguish truth from error.

As believers we are called to test the spirits, to judge the fruit, in short, to be critical thinkers. I believe part of the reason so many young people are disinterested in the church today is because they were told for a generation or more NOT to question the faith. They were spoon fed a diet of doctrine which may have been theologically correct, but they were reprimanded for asking questions or "experimenting" with new ideas. I say, give them the tools to do good critical thinking (in this case, good Bible study methods) and let them at it. I know the case for Christianity can stand up to scrutiny. I wonder what Ms. Burke is afraid of.

The Cold Facts of Packing Heat

This morning while I drank my second cup of coffee I stumbled across a blog by Nathan Roberts debating whether a Christian should exercise the "right" to self defense using deadly force. Stand your ground, the Castle doctrine and concealed carry debates swirl around every news report of the latest shooting incident. The debate over the godly response in these situations dates back to the aftermath of Cain v. Abel, I imagine. So what is a Christian supposed to think?

Roberts fell into the trap of letting one verse control his thinking on this issue. I do not believe the command to “love thy enemy” extends to allowing my enemy to exercise his evil schemes without constraint. Tasers and pepper spray may be non-lethal substitutes for a firearm, but they are also less effective, in some cases ineffective. I too once thought I should allow God to protect me and my family from evildoers without my assistance. I have changed my view. I now see Romans 13:1-4 as a license to provide self defense against evil. Who is to say I am not the “minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil”? And it is not solely out of fear that I do this as Roberts supposes; it is also as a wise watchman seeking to keep his city safe (Psalm 127:1).

One of the comments on Roberts’ blog points out that on a larger scale this issue becomes the debate over just war theory. When is it right for a nation to “execute wrath” upon another nation that is perpetrating evil on others? Should the Allies have “loved” Hitler and allowed him to continue to exterminate Jews? Some would say that only nations or governments in general have the Romans 13 right to execute wrath. The text only says that God has ordained that some authority exists, and that authority has the right to “wield the sword.” I believe the state delegates that authority when it issues concealed carry permits to lawful citizens, or when it upholds the stand your ground or Castle doctrines.

Roberts is correct to observe that we serve a God of love who commands us to love; but he seems to forget that our God is also a righteous God who seeks justice and employs human ministers to execute that judgment. Our understanding of God’s love must be informed by the recognition of his wrath. I am prepared to be that guy in the audience attempting to take down the crazed teenager with an AK-47 and saving Nathan Roberts’ life and maybe dozens of others. I do not hope for that situation to occur, nor would I relish it. But I would do it if I had to. If you want to pray for me, pray that I will shoot straight. I will take my chances with the Judge when I see Him.

Social In-Security

I have become a welfare case, and I am not ashamed. I did not change my opinion of the entitlement culture the American welfare system has spawned. I still think people who are young and capable should work for a living as much as possible. I don't even object to short term unemployment "benefits" to tide one over a period of looking for work. This is actually a form of insurance that an employer partially pays for on behalf of employees; it can be considered part of the worker's wage. I am not in favor of the federal government turning unemployment insurance into a welfare program as it has recently. I also think the system needs to be revamped so that a person could work part time and still collect unemployment benefits, but that is another subject.

The subject here is my welfare -- literally. I have reached the statutory age at which Social Security Retirement benefits are available. And I am happily collecting my fair share. I use the word "fair" intentionally because it is only fair that I should get a return on my "investment" in the Social Security system that has been confiscating my wages for 46 years. When I started weeding the fields at Weller's Nursery at 16, the federal government began taking a portion of my paltry $2.50/hour earnings and stashing them away for my eventual retirement. (OK, I know the money was never "stashed away;" it was spent as soon as they got their hands on it, but let's pretend.)

Here is how my "investment" in Social Security might typically look. If I had earned an average of $30,000 per year over my 46 year working lifetime and invested 13% (SS contribution) at 5% interest, I would have an account balance today of approximately $553,344 (based on annual contributions, not monthly -- that would be a higher number). If I invested that amount as a lump sum at age 62, I could draw $27,667 every year if my investment earned the same 5% for the rest of my life. When I finally die, my heirs would still get $553,344 in my estate.

My Social Security retirement benefit is less than half of $27,667. The odds are I won't make it to 92, so I won't collect anywhere near what I have "invested," and my heirs cannot inherit any remaining "balance" of my Social Security "investment." In other words, I am not sponging off the system taking money I haven't earned; rather, I am being short-changed, and so are my children.

As a Christian, I subscribe to the biblical principle that senior citizens should eat of the labors of their own hands. I do not think it harsh that the Apostle Paul told the Thessalonians that one who would not work should not eat. I contend that I have worked for the bread I now eat, even though it is paid for from my Social Security benefits. I earned those benefits and then some. I am sorry that our government turned the system into a giant Ponzi scheme by spending instead of investing my contributions and those working today are funding my retirement from their earnings. In a way, even that arrangement reflects a biblical principle that the younger should care for their older.

I regularly thank the students in my classes for endeavoring to improve their lot and earn better incomes. (Yes, I work part time to supplement my meager benefits; but I must take care not to earn too much or my benefits will be reduced even more.) My advice to anyone under the age of 50 is to save and invest every dollar that can be allotted. All Ponzi schemes eventually topple, and the one known as Social Security is quickly headed for a fall. Young people who are not investing for retirement are violating another biblical principle: look to the ant, grasshopper.

Common Core Commonalities

I am about to get myself in trouble with a bunch of my friends. Common Core is not the monster many people think it is. An article by the Associated Press posted on Fox News makes my point perfectly. Let me start by re-stating what I said in an earlier blog: Common Core is not a curriculum. The standards in Common Core simply state what things students should know at certain grade levels. How those things are taught and what materials are used remain at the discretion of the local school districts and even classroom teachers.

What the AP article says is typical of overblown criticism of Common Core by ignorant parents and educators who try to paint it as an effort to wrest local control or dictate what specifics must be taught. The truth is that the standards are not asking for more than what any reasonable parent or educator would want from a decent school program. It asks that the students be taught how to think, not what to think.

The AP article mentioned above says, "Adopted by 44 states, the Common Core is a set of English and math standards that spell out what students should know and when. The standards for elementary math emphasize that kids should not only be able to solve arithmetic problems using the tried-and-true methods their parents learned, but understand how numbers relate to each other." The article highlights the frustration of parents who cannot handle the concepts their children are being taught. I contend that this is not a problem with Common Core, but rather a problem with the parents' education.

For about a generation now, our schools have been teaching students the answers to the questions instead of teaching students how to think. Educators have finally realized that teaching pat answers won't be sufficient if the questions change (as they have). Suddenly, we realize that the ability to think creatively, critically is more important than knowing the "answer" to a prescribed question. Parents who have only been taught the "answers" are now complaining that they can't think alongside their students. Good.

I am regularly amazed (shocked) by the inability of my college students to think creatively. They come to me expecting to receive answers, not to think about the possibilities of answers. They want me to tell them what to think rather than how to think. They are utterly unprepared to read or hear on their own and make informed decisions about critical matters. If they have opinions, they are untried and unconsidered. If there was ever a fertile ground for mass indoctrination, this is it. 

Maybe this is how Hitler or Stalin or Idi Amin were able to accomplish their atrocities. Maybe they had a population that had been rendered helpless to think for themselves. I know the Common Core standards are not perfect. I know the implementation can be misguided. But if the main objection is that Common Core asks more of the next generation that of the last, is that really a bad thing? I mean, do we want Justin Bieber as our next President? After all, he's not even a citizen... but who cares... really? Aren't Christians supposed to be about tolerance and all that? Wouldn't Jesus and Justin be best buds? Really, dude.

The Dumbing of America

The College Board announced recently that it will take another step backward on its flagship SAT college entrance exam. The SAT, once the dominant test for high school juniors hoping for a seat in a discriminating college, has lost its numerical advantage. On the coasts of the nation, it is still the test of choice in most schools. In the mid-section of the country, however, the ACT has steadily gained numbers so that it now has surpassed its rival in numbers of test takers nationwide.

It cannot be said for certain that the College Board is changing because of the competition from the ACT, but the fact remains that recent changes will bring the venerable measure closer to its younger foe. The real story of what the College Board has done comes into focus with a little historical perspective. The SAT has been gradually dumbed down to accommodate our increasingly less capable high school population. Back in 1994 the College Board succumbed to pressure to remove the devilish antonym and analogy questions. These questions measured both vocabulary and critical reasoning skills, two elements found dwindling among high schoolers. Anyone who works with college freshman and sophomores as I do can attest to their poor vocabulary and paucity of reasoning skill. To protect them from ego damage, the SAT stopped asking them hard questions. I think that is metaphorically called punting (and I don't mean using a long flat bottomed boat.)

The other major change in the SAT is the removal of "SAT words," a term of derision that has been applied to any word that the hearer does not recognize. In other words, erudition is passe; we be down with dumb. The remarks by one high school student concerning the changes are telling. Commenting on the old test which had, "hard words and stuff," she was relieved to know her vocabulary would not need to grow much to score well on the test. I can't wait to get her in Composition class.

On another front there is a furor over Common Core standards in education. Many conservatives are joining the fight against them. Rachel Alexander of the Christian Post makes a false statement typical of many objectors: "Conservatives are in an uproar over Common Core, an educational curriculum being forced upon the states by the Obama administration." First, Common Core is not a curriculum; it is a set of standards. Curriculum is what and how you teach; standards, like Common Core, are the goals you hope to achieve by teaching what you teach. The Common Core is simply a set of concepts that students are expected to know at a given stage in their education. It is up to the local school, even the classroom teacher sometimes, to decide what materials and lessons to use. Second, Obama is not forcing any state to adopt Common Core. Sure, there is federal money available for those who do, but just like many federal programs, states can choose not to take the money.

Alexander also cites Diane Ravitch, a former assistant U.S. secretary of education, saying Common Core has not been proven. That is not true either. Tennessee has vigorously applied Common Core standards along with a rigorous teacher training and accountability regime and their student scores have rocketed toward the top in national rankings. Meanwhile Michigan dithers over what to do and our student scores are rapidly sinking toward the bottom. There may be honest objections to how standards are applied and how and when students are tested, but objecting to standards is like saying you don't care if students learn anything.

We cannot spank them anymore; that would be abusive, so they misbehave with impunity. They might sue if we make onerous demands on them as teens, so they have freedom without responsibility. Schools purport to teach diversity and end up promoting mindless uniformity. Across the country nearly 20% of high school graduates are functionally illiterate. Year after year American students fall farther behind students from many other countries. If I didn't know better I would suspect a sinister conspiracy to produce a generation of mindless automatons who will stand for nothing and fall for anything. That sounds suspiciously like the technique used by the Serpent in the Garden. Surely we wouldn't fall for that again.

A Hill Worth Dying On

April 15 has come and gone once more. Like many Americans I dread its coming, work madly to complete the endless forms (or pay to have someone else do them), and grumble more loudly than usual that I pay too much for needless programs and wasteful spending. I am not going to fight the income tax battle here, but I did notice a couple interesting sideshows in the news that got me thinking.

Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy apparently was willing to pay his dues for the privilege of grazing cattle on federal land up until 1993. Then something changed his mind. Amid all the flag-waving and shouts of government heavy handedness, the true position of Mr. Bundy as a law-breaker may have been lost. Gracy Olmstead has a good summary of the situation in The Federalist this week. Politico reports that Bundy is more than just an aggrieved rancher; he is a radical activist who does not recognize the authority of the federal government. He's sort of like a holocaust denier in that way. I suspect many of the tea party flag wavers who gathered on his ranch this week are ignorant of the real story.

A strangely similar fight has been going on in a completely unrelated arena over Common Core educational standards. According to an article in The Foundry this week, fifteen states are backing out of their association with Common Core. This too is being framed as a battle against federal over-reach, but as in the Bundy case, ignorance abounds. Articles like one on Fox News website chronicle the activities of people who object to Common Core, but offer nothing substantive about their objections. A quick look at the standards themselves can dispel most of the objector myths. (There is a good myth-buster at the Common Core web site.)

What scares me most is not that the government wants to take our money or set standards for educating our children. I fear the kind of people who can jump on a band wagon without knowing where it came from or where it's really going. These are the same people who are swayed by half-truths and misdirection perpetrated by crafty policy salesmen. It is the grifter's trick to get you to look at his right hand while he steals your watch with his left. Only in this case we are not losing our watch, we are losing our freedom.

It is misguided for Christians to be fighting Common Core or the Bureau of Land Management. What we should be doing is taking a majority stand against the tyrannical minorities which are systematically stripping us of our Constitutional rights to practice our religion freely. A handful of atheists got prayer and Bible reading removed from public schools. A tiny minority has insisted that homosexual practices must be accepted as an alternative lifestyle and to disagree is bigotry. Although a Pew Research poll shows that Americans agree 4 to 1 that abortion is morally wrong, it remains legal to kill unborn children.  And I wonder how many people are really offended by Merry Christmas. Really.

The Bundy ranch has no hills worth dying on, but any one of the issues just mentioned qualifies. (OK, not Merry Christmas.) The Great Commission commands believers to make disciples. If we took that charge seriously we could effect the only change that matters in the long (long) run: changed hearts. That is why Jesus died on the hill he knew was worth the cost. The price paid on that hill must move us to pick our battles carefully, but pick them. There are hills worth dying on.

An Open Letter to My Children

The full title of this post is really "An Open Letter to My Children and Anyone Else Who Wants to Hear Clair Blather About the Joys and Disappointments of Parenting". Many years ago when we still had three children living in our home, I lived under the delusion that I was a pretty good parent. It wasn't until the three little birdies left the nest and started families of their own that I began to doubt my self assessment.

Each one of my dear ones has made it clear on separate occasions that they would not have been in unreserved agreement with my measure of my parental perfection. Likewise, each has exhibited some behavior which would cause any concerned parent to have some degree of disappointment. Please do not misunderstand, my children (or you listeners-in); I am still proud to call myself your father, and nothing you have done or can do will diminish my unconditional love for you.

And there it is: the major flaw in my parenting which has been pointed out by you and, at times, by your dear mother. I cannot seem to craft a compliment or statement of praise without inserting a "but" in it. You must hear echoes in the halls of your memory of me saying, "You did a good job! But..." Each of you has received deserved praise from respectable sources throughout your lives. Yet I wonder if I ever said how proud of you I am without sticking my "but" in it.

Perhaps each of you has reason to "hate" me. (I am using the 21st century, Gen-Y version of "hate," not the Bible version or the Webster version.) I know if my father was as you perceive me to be, I would "hate" him. I look back on the situations when I behaved really badly and cringe. I have said and done some really dumb things. And while it may be true that there is no excuse for stupid, there is a difference between stupid-mean and stupid-thoughtless. If I had only thought better...

So now that you are all parents yourselves, I want to encourage you to break the mold (if in fact there is a mold). Let your children know how great they are. Sure, you will correct them at times. But there must be more times when you simply praise them. If as parents we are to model God's love, it is imperative that we remember what manner of love we enjoy, "That while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us." When Jesus went to the cross, it was the Father saying,"I love you this much." And there are no "buts" about that.