Thursday, August 10, 2006
Testing, Parent's Rights, and Accountability
In case you have not read Spunky's post, Some people just don't get it, please do. And make sure and read the comments, too.
There were several things I wanted to say that were inspired by the post and the comments. The first has to do with testing. I have made comments about testing previously here. In my experience, there are too many flaws with standardized tests at the same time that there is a false confidence in the tests' abilities.
In Texas, many years ago, the EXCET test was implimented. It's a test of subject matter and pedagogy, given to teachers. Certification depends on it. I do not know if this is still true, but at the time I took it, I thought the subject matter test was pathetically easy. I thought the pedagogy test was more difficult, because you had to know the currently politically correct educational practices in order to get the right answer. In any case, the test was written to have a 3% failure rate, and the law allowed, I believe, 6 tries. What kind of validity can a test have if 97% of takers pass it?
I happen to be a "good test taker." I passed all the Excet tests I took with 90-something percentages--including the Speech test (and I had never taken any class other than the Freshman level Speech class that everyone has to take) and the Reading test (and I had only taken the one Sophomore level reading class that all Ed. majors had to take). Did getting a 90 really mean I was qualified to teach those subjects?
I do have my certifications in those areas--remember that the next time some public school cheerleader makes much of "certified" teachers, as if the certification is any kind of proof of knowledge and competence.
In the comments, Spunky has a bit of a back and forth with a woman who argues that there is no Biblical basis for arguing that the family has authority over the children in it, while Spunky argues that the Constitution states that the family has the natural right of authority over the children in it. Spunky makes the point several times and it is ignored several times. Frankly, this woman stands as an example of why I resisted being a Christian for many years--I kept finding Christians with the attitude that if you can't find it in the Bible it absolutely doesn't have any bearing on anything. I don't want to get sidetracked by a theological discussion here; suffice to say, I believe one can be a good Christian AND support your argument with authorities other than the Bible.
In terms of parental authority and accountability, this is a an area where my Libertarian leanings are the strongest. The government ought to be accountable to it's citizenry and NOT the other way around. However, I believe we have gotten so lazy that we take the easy way out--which is to hand over our authority to the state and meekly submit to their demands for us to be accountable to them.
I have been saying for years that I completely don't see the point of having kids just to turn them over to other people to raise. But part-time children is eveidently all that most Americans care to have. We kid ourselves when we justify it by thinking that those who are raising our children are the professionals. It was my job to force feed your spoiled, whiny child enough World History to allow them to pass the class. Do you think I loved your brat? Do you think I cared about his emotional, social, physical development? Put him on Ritalin so I can handle my class or he's going to spend the rest of the year in the Principal's office. Is that professional enough for ya'?
Labels: Culture
Read or Post a Comment
I don't want to get sidetracked by a theological discussion here; suffice to say, I believe one can be a good Christian AND support your argument with authorities other than the Bible.
And what is your evidence to support such an argument? Chapter and verse please! :)
Funny!
Seriously though, today I do feel like a theological discussion! Here goes: the Bible does not address every issue or aspect of modern life. It contains principles or guidelines for living that are, generally, broad enough for those of us living in the modern world to apply to our lives, even though they were spoken or written in a pre-modern time. Hallelujah for that--or else Christianity would condemn its followers to a pre-modern life (like Islam does).
When Jesus said to render unto Cesar, Christians through time have taken that to mean that we should (in general--yes, there are exceptions) be good citizens of the countries we live in. Paying taxes, voting, running for office, etc. So, for a Christian to use the Constitution as a support of his/her argument is totally valid.
We, all of us, as individuals and as churches and as denominations do a bit of picking and choosing out of the Bible in terms of what we will and will not practice. For instance, when was the last time you saw women in church with their hair covered? Paul wrote to Timothy that they should not only cover their hair, but also sit segregated from the men. If the Bible is your sole basis of reasoning, why do you sit beside your husband with your hair uncovered on Sunday while you argue, "The Bible says..."?