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.

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.