 | John Edwards on Teaching to the Tests |
For people looking to get more of an insight into the presidential campaign of John Edwards, there’s a solid description of a meeting that John Edwards had with voters in Merrimack, New Hampshire, from the blog Blue Mass Group (Merrimack is just a few miles from the Massachusetts border).
I was particularly struck by the response John Edwards gave to a question about the No Child Left Behind Act, which many educators say has created an educational system which punishes schools that do not push students to perform well on standardized tests to the detriment of non-test subject matters and learning styles. Edwards made his point by saying, “You don’t fatten a pig by weighing it more often.”
I’ve never heard that particular critique of the No Child Left Behind Act, but it makes clear sense. Shaping education according to standardized test performance won’t necessarily improve systems of education, but it will teach a generation of students (and teachers) that learning is important mainly because there are tests that need to be passed.
America needs more imagination than that. That’s why, as John Edwards reminds us, it’s important to elect a progressive President in 2008 who will ask Congress to reform the No Child Left Behind Act.
Contact Us
“… it’s important to elect a progressive President in 2008 who will ask Congress to reform the No Child Left Behind Act.”
We’re on the edge of our seats. Whom should we elect that will do this thing?
Don’t keep us guessing, Little j., you must know who it is.
Comment by SpankyTuTone — 8/27/2007 @ 5:58 pm
You have more than one seat?
Comment by Jim — 8/27/2007 @ 7:15 pm
I speak for mutlitudes who desire to know who is the best Progressive candidate for president.
Comment by SpankyTuTone — 8/27/2007 @ 7:25 pm
And they need more than one chair?
Comment by Jim — 8/27/2007 @ 7:28 pm
You know, Spanky, you need to learn some patience. There will be a selection of the best progressive presidential candidate, but the time for that is not yet at hand. The current step in the process is to assemble 2,008 reasons to elect a progressive President. When that list is assembled, there will be a detailed set of criteria for choosing a progressive presidential candidate. The goal for the completion of the list is January 1, 2008 just in time for the primaries.
Comment by J. Clifford — 8/27/2007 @ 8:56 pm
Really? You mean in all the years you’ve been a Progressive, you haven’t yet figured out what you stand for? You have to wait until someone else compiles a list for you to know what you believe?
What happens if you come up with the 2008 reasons and no one fits the bill? Are you willing to actually say so? Or are you going to just go with whoever comes close? Would that mean that your other 2000 reasons are now invalid? And what happens when Perfect Candidate A flops on Super Tuesday? Would you then go on to endorse Not-So-Perfect Candidate B? What happens to your criteria then?
The reason I ask is this: Candidate A is a close fit, but let’s say 20% of A’s platform is against your criteria. When you vote for Candidate A, you are voting also for that 20%. Candidate A does not poll the electorate post election and ask, “Which of my policies did you vote for? Those are the ones I’m going to push forward.” No they take their election as an endorsement of their -entire- platform, not just the parts -you- liked.
For example, let’s say the most appealing candidate is A-OK on the war on terror, education funding, Social Security, nationalized medical, personal privacy protection, same-gender marriage and civil rights, but wants to go slow on global warming. What you’ve voted for is “go slow on global warming,” which, by your vote, means that you are not as concerned with global warming as you let on.
This is why I advocate finding someone who fits your bill right now, and endorsing that person whole-heartedly from the get-go. If there is no such person, say so right now and tell the politcal parties loud and clear that you want someone who meets all your criteria.
I know your most probable objection, you will say, “Then someone who is 100% against my criteria might get elected.” That’s the myth of the wasted vote, which can be summarized as, “It’s better to vote for someone I don’t like all the way but who can probably get elected than vote my conscience and let the bad guy win.”
If you don’t ask for what you really want and always settle for what you can get, then all you’ll ever get is what you are willing to settle for.
Comment by SpankyTuTone — 8/27/2007 @ 9:31 pm
Golly, no, Spanky, that’s not right.
I know what I stand for. Who I stand for in the 2008 presidential election is another matter.
There are very large number of factors to consider in the 2008 presidential election, and I’m not expecting for someone to agree with everything I think.
What I want to do is to put out a comprehensive vision for what a presidential candidate ought to look like, along with a lot of arguments in favor of progressive political positions. I’m putting that list out, along with the other people here at Irregular Times. We aren’t waiting for someone else to come along and compile it for us.
Then, when the list is done, and the ideal vision is identified, there will have to be a practical choice made about who comes closest to that ideal, in spite of flaws.
I don’t have sufficient information yet to choose a candidate. I need to explore more, and the candidates need to be tested more. Choosing a political candidate from the get-go is like going to a used car lot and choosing a car before test driving anything.
Comment by J. Clifford — 8/27/2007 @ 10:15 pm
Have you read the NCLB? I have. There’s nothing wrong with it. The problem is with the administration of the program. I don’t see anything wrong with testing students. And sure, schools will teach to the tests. Why not. It forces a dialogue about what test to use, and what students should be learning, which, believe me isn’t what students were supposed to be learning 30 years ago when they gave us all those Iowa Tests.
Comment by Iroquois — 8/27/2007 @ 11:37 pm
As someone who’s taught in an educational system where standardized tests are given year after year, I’ll tell you what’s wrong with teaching to the tests - it encourages fraud, and one of the frauds it creates are the tests themselves, which are dumbed down in order to create the impression of progress, when really, the tests just got easier.
It’s a political shell game that pushes schools at all levels to cheat, because they get funding according to test results. It’s brutally dishonest, and it makes a mockery of the idea of educational integrity.
The fraud started with George W. Bush’s own standardized test system in Texas, which was flushed full of cheating teachers and administrators before he left for the White House to ruin at a national level the education that he had ruined at the state level.
Comment by Henry — 8/28/2007 @ 3:07 am
Little j.,
Do you really expect me to believe that these candidates who have been in public office for six years or more are going to manifest some special characteristic in the next few months that they have not heretofore revealed?
I asked you before why something Ron Paul did years ago is sufficient to remove him from consideration, but the other candidates’ records are not enough for you IT writers to judge them now, but you brushed me off (as usual). Your used car analogy fails. Hillary has been in office for six + years, Barack has been in Federal office for one or two terms but had time in State office before that, and so on with the other candidates. We’ve been “test driving†them for years. I would expect their actual performance to be much more meaningful than what they say in their upcoming stump speeches.
As for your 2008 reasons, you just negated them in two ways: One is that you have to wait until the list is complete to start deciding. That means all the reasons you have had in the past for choosing Progressive candidates are inapplicable to this batch. Again, I have a hard time believing that some issue is going to pop out of the ground in the next few months that will magically separate the wheat form the chaff. Unless you’re waiting for a deus ex machina, everything that matters in the next election is already an issue.
The other way you negated your 2008 reasons is because you used the “p†word. By invoking practicality, you just proved what I said above about being willing to forgo things that matter for the sake of backing someone who comes close, even when it means voting for things you are against. If your values can be abandoned for the sake of what’s currently practical, then they ain’t worth much, and if –you- aren’t willing to defend Progressive values through thick and thin, why should anyone else?
Comment by SpankyTuTone — 8/28/2007 @ 10:48 am
Oh, fer cryin out loud Spanky, would you drop it already? If they want to talk about issues instead of acting as a shill for one candidate, I for one rather like that approach.
If you really believed endorsing a candidate was that important you would do it yourself.
Comment by Iroquois — 8/28/2007 @ 10:59 am
If there was somebody worth endorsing, I would.
Comment by SpankyTuTone — 8/28/2007 @ 1:41 pm