When the “Slate” article says that Texas high school performance on assessment tests jumped nearly 20 points in 2004; there is much they fail to tell you. The indication, of course, is that the NAEP I cited had no impact on their graduation (and so they underperformed) while the TAKS (Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills) did (and was thus a more accurate assessment of American students abilities).

There are several necessary corrections: 1) According to the Houston Chronicle TAKS passing scores were lowered in 2002. A student can pass the high school exit exam, for example, by answering correctly only 25 of 56 math questions, 23 of 50 social studies questions, 41 of 73 reading and English questions, and 27 of 55 science questions (this according to Connie Mabin, “Questions, Answers About TAKS,” Associated Press, December 2, 2002). Then in 2003, Mike Moses, the superintendent of Dallas Independent School District and former Texas Education Commissioner, proposed that the passing scores be “re-examined” (read “lowered”) after the spring results were in. In fact, a report on TAKS by his school district argued that TAKS was too “difficult.” (From the Houston Chronicle, January, 2003)

Bruce N. Shortt comments on this situation by saying: “Perhaps Texas needs a 12-step program for “test result manipulation recidivists.” In any event, be on the watch for future newspaper headlines and television stories breathlessly reporting how Texas children are passing the TAKS at the “highest scores ever!”

2) We can expect Julie Jary (who oversees test assessments in Texas) to say that no “substantive alterations” to the test before 2004; but we’ve clearly seen that there were. And even if there weren’t the passing scores were to low already to be considered encouraging.

3) Also, notice that the article says that math and English portions improved 20 points. This wasn’t an overall improvement; just two subject areas.

3) Next, the article says that from 1994-2004 SAT math scores have increased 14 points and verbal scores inched up 9 points; and this is despite a 6% increase in the amount of minorities taking the SAT. Even though it doesn’t sound too good to be true, it isn’t.

What the article doesn’t tell you is that in 1995 the ETS (Educational Testing Service)”re-normed” the scoring of the S.A.T. This mean that a performance that would have earned a verbal score of 428 before the “re-norming” was reported as a 505 after the “re-norming.” According to the New York Times reporter Diane Ravitch (in an 1996 article) the change in testing standards caused roughly a 100-point upward shift in combined S.A.T. verbal and mathematics scores (the two areas “Slate” reported have improved).

Granted, the newspapers “dutifully” reported in 2003 and 2004 that the “36-year high scores” did take into account the 1995 re-norming. But what they didn’t tell us is that the 2003 and 2004 S.A.T. test was a very different test than the test the ETS administered in the 70’s, 80’s and early 90’s. For instance, since 1994 students have been able to use calculators on the mathematics test, and, in same year, an antonym test, which many considered one of the harder sections of the verbal test, was dropped in favor of a easier “vocabulary in context” test. Plus, in order to ensure that no one is left behind students with learning disabilities get extra time on the test.

That last change could be considered the most significant. Prior to September of 2002 (I’m pretty sure it was 2002) only 2% of students qualified as “learning disabled.” Those that were allowed extra time had an asterik on their tests to inform colleges that they receive special accommodation.

However, under pressure from activists for the disabled, ETS moved eliminated the asterik starting September of 2002. This means that those who can obtain a suitable “learning disability” diagnosis can take almost 200% longer on the test and college admission officers will be none the wiser.

The “diagnosis shopping” that ensued became so flagrant that the New York Times ran a front page story on it in September of 2002. (Jane Gross, “Paying For A Disability Diagnosis to Gain Time on College Boards,” The New York Times, September 25, 2002)

I don’t have time to address the ACT scores the Slate article mentions, but I think I’ve made my point. Realize that I’m not disagreeing with you Nqoire so much as Alexandra Starr from Slate. Also, remember that this is the information no one is supposed to have (if the ETS had their way).

My conclusions are as follows: perhaps American students are lazy, but they clearly aren’t in an environment that encourages them to pursue excellence. The public school system is failing to inspire them or educate them, and is now doing its best to veil its own shortcomings.

Again, my information has come from great books such as Bruce N. Shortt’s “The Harsh Truth About Public Schools.” I would encourage all of you to check out his book and to feel free to ask me for specific sources for anything I say. I have them ready.

In Christ,
Brett Harris

In Christ,
Brett Harris

In Christ,
Brett Harris

This is a rather interesting article somewhat pertaining to what we’ve been discussing over the last few days. It outlines, first, how the scores recieved on the NAEP aren’t necessarily accurate, and, second, the reason behind that, or American students’ inherent laziness towards work that doesn’t directly benefit them.

That isn’t to say I disagree with the statistics you’ve cited, Brett. It is a shocking fact that many American students know less about America than the rest of the world. This is due, in large part, to what is being taught in our schools today, as Abraham stated. And, as he stated, one of the major problems is the switching of beliefs - from unity to diversity.

But I’d like to throw in a caveat. It is important to study the different people groups, the different cultures and the different beliefs that are both in America now and have been in America in the past. Our diversity is part of what makes us America. We’re “The Great Melting Pot.” If we forget that, and ignore the diversity we do have, we risk losing even more of our identity than we have already. Perhaps the problem with history classes today is they place too much emphasis on ‘what goes into the pot’ and not enough on ‘what comes out of the pot.’ But that doesn’t change the fact that we need to look and both the ‘ingredients’ and the ‘cake.’

Our diversity, when kept in its proper place, makes us stronger as a nation. It allows us to see things from various view points, seek out unique and novel solutions, and gives us our identity in the world - because there is no other nation made up of so many diverse people groups.

I believe people focus too much on public schools economic task of making sure everyone has certain skills, rather than on their social task of making sure everyone has certain beliefs. Public schools were first widely adopted when the United States was in the midst of our first great wave of immigration. One of their major purposes was assimilate those immigrants, providing a kind of “social glue” to American society by ensuring that everyone shared certain experiences and certain beliefs, encouraging conformity. However recently, public schools have stopped acting as social glue because they have adopted post-modernism. They choose to emphasize race, gender, and sexual preference rather than American history at least in part because of this ideology; history emphasizes the unity of America, while they would emphasize its diversity.

But this new emphasis harms America because it reduces our “social capital” in academic jargon. Basically, this new emphasis on diversity has the social cost of making people less able to trust one another. We trust that which we understand; it is difficult to trust those who are substantially different from us, at least until we get to know them. That’s human nature and moderate mush about “tolerance” is incapable of changing it. Encouraging people to see their differences is not a recipe for concord. Two impacts:

Politically, this undermines democracy, at least in theory. Democracy has to be founded on a degree of social altruism. Politics is war by other means, and to prevent escalation, conflict must be moderate. America’s democracy has been stable because there the people of America were AMERICANS, not Southerners, not Hoosiers, not Mexicans, not Asians, not Caucasians, not conservatives, not homosexuals, or homeschoolers - AMERICANS first and foremost. This motivated them to vote (What “logical” reason is there other than a sense of duty?) and to respect the votes of others, because “the common good” had real meaning. People trusted others to look after everyone’s interests, because everyone’s interests were reasonably similar. By undermining this consensus, postmodernism has encouraged the rise of special interests and the polarization of America. When people do not trust people, THE people are not trusted to rule.

Economically, this increases transaction costs. If I have do not trust you, then I will create barriers to ensure that you cannot hurt me. In the economic realm, this takes the form of contracts thicker than my history book and mechanisms to enforce them. These cost money to create and maintain, draining resources from more productive ends. The rise of litigation and regulation in America is at least in part the result of the decline of social trust.

~Abraham

I believe people focus too much on public schools economic task of making sure everyone has certain skills, rather than on their social task of making sure everyone has certain beliefs. Public schools were first widely adopted when the United States was in the midst of our first great wave of immigration. One of their major purposes was assimilate those immigrants, providing a kind of “social glue” to American society by ensuring that everyone shared certain experiences and certain beliefs, encouraging conformity. However recently, public schools have stopped acting as social glue because they have adopted post-modernism. They choose to emphasize race, gender, and sexual preference rather than American history at least in part because of this ideology; history emphasizes the unity of America, while they would emphasize its diversity.

But this new emphasis harms America because it reduces our ?social capital? in academic jargon. Basically, this new emphasis on diversity has the social cost of making people less able to trust one another. We trust that which we understand; it is difficult to trust those who are substantially different from us, at least until we get to know them. That’s human nature and moderate mush about “tolerance” is incapable of changing it. Encouraging people to see their differences is not a recipe for concord. Two impacts:

Politically, this undermines democracy, at least in theory. Democracy has to be founded on a degree of social altruism. Politics is war by other means, and to prevent escalation, conflict must be moderate. America’s democracy has been stable because there the people of America were AMERICANS, not Southerners, not Hoosiers, not Mexicans, not Asians, not Caucasians, not conservatives, not homosexuals, or homeschoolers - AMERICANS first and foremost. This motivated them to vote (What “logical” reason is there other than a sense of duty?) and to respect the votes of others, because ?the common good? had real meaning. People trusted others to look after everyone’s interests, because everyone’s interests were reasonably similar. By undermining this consensus, postmodernism has encouraged the rise of special interests and the polarization of America. When people do not trust people, THE people are not trusted to rule.

Economically, this increases transaction costs. If I have do not trust you, then I will create barriers to ensure that you cannot hurt me. In the economic realm, this takes the form of contracts thicker than my history book and mechanisms to enforce them. These cost money to create and maintain, draining resources from more productive ends. The rise of litigation and regulation in America is at least in part the result of the decline of social trust.

~Abraham

This is a rather interesting article somewhat pertaining to what we’ve been discussing over the last few days. It outlines, first, how the scores recieved on the NAEP aren’t necessarily accurate, and, second, the reason behind that, or American students’ inherent laziness towards work that doesn’t directly benefit them.

That isn’t to say I disagree with the statistics you’ve cited, Brett. It is a shocking fact that many American students know less about America than the rest of the world. This is due, in large part, to what is being taught in our schools today, as Abraham stated. And, as he stated, one of the major problems is the switching of beliefs - from unity to diversity.

But I’d like to throw in a caveat. It is important to study the different people groups, the different cultures and the different beliefs that are both in America now and have been in America in the past. Our diversity is part of what makes us America. We’re “The Great Melting Pot.” If we forget that, and ignore the diversity we do have, we risk losing even more of our identity than we have already. Perhaps the problem with history classes today is they place too much emphasis on ‘what goes into the pot’ and not enough on ‘what comes out of the pot.’ But that doesn’t change the fact that we need to look and both the ‘ingredients’ and the ‘cake.’

Our diversity, when kept in its proper place, makes us stronger as a nation. It allows us to see things from various view points, seek out unique and novel solutions, and gives us our identity in the world - because there is no other nation made up of so many diverse people groups.