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.