THE DISCOMFORT OF THOUGHT vs THE COMFORT OF CERTAINTY: considering "woke"

GALILEO FACES THE INQUISITION

 There is an essential tension between the discomforts of thought and the comforts of certainty. The comfortably certain sense that the glue holding their world together is soluble when immersed in inquiry. So, they seek to eliminate that threat by stifling inquiry and muzzling, even murdering, whomever, or whatever, promotes thought. After all, thinking can promote discomfort, even anguish, and we can't have that!

Here's one historic example: In 1615 “His Holiness and the Most Eminent Lords, Cardinals of this Supreme and Universal Inquisition” declared that Galileo has “rendered (himself) vehemently suspected by this Holy Office of heresy.” We command him “to abjure, curse and detest the said error and heresies in our presence.” 

 Galileo's 'crimes' were:

 

 1. “Making the proposition that the sun is in the center of the world and immovable from its place is absurd, philosophically false, and formally heretical; because it is expressly contrary to Holy Scriptures.”

 2. “Making the proposition that the earth is not the center of the world, nor immovable, but that it moves, and also with a diurnal action, is also absurd, philosophically false, and, theologically considered, at least erroneous of faith.” 

 Wielding the authority of their offices, the Pope and the Lords of the Inquisition determined that when Galileo abandoned the scriptures and heeded his own observations he strayed from holy truth into damnable error, from virtue into vice, and from morality into immorality. Hence the Holy Inquisition ruled, without fear of error, that Galileo’s thought and resultant findings were “unlawful” as well as “disordered and immoderate.” 

Of course Galileo's findings were neither "disordered" nor "immoderate." He was 100% right when he "abandoned the scriptures and heeded his own observation." But it took the Roman Catholic Church 359 years to admit that and apologize. That's a while.

 This is no isolated instance. History is crammed with example after example of established authority declaring that the results of thought and scientific evidence were “disordered and immoderate. It sparked an inquisition whenever deviance from the norm discomforted them and threatened their interests. 

Consider a few of the many vital medical discoveries that were initially regarded as disordered and immoderate by the established authorities of the day:

 

• Dissecting and studying the structures and functions of the human body 

 • Inoculation 

 • Vaccination 

 • The germ theory of disease 

 • Anesthesia 

In thousands of similar instances the prevailing authorities tried their very best to wipe out unwelcome knowledge and discomforting inquiry. In short, to wipe out anything that disturbed contemporary balance and established authority. Especially their authority.

We still have that today. Only now it includes the "woke." Hypersensitive to what they perceive as social injustice — especially racism — they employ especially blatant racism to "fight" it,) America has long contended with the likes of the Women's Christian Temperance Union, the KKK, the German-American Bund, the Communist Party USA, and other extremists. But now we have a fanatical, quasi-religious new left who enforce their dogma with the same kind of inquisitional thoroughness.  

This new religion is especially common in academe where so-called "professors" now preach rather than teach. Disagree with these academic right-thinkers, disturb their self-righteousness, contradict their gospel and you are immediately branded a racist, fascist, heretic, male chauvinist pig, ad nauseam. Your arguments might be logical and your facts might be totally accurate. It doesn't matter. Challenge their gospel and an academic inquisition, composed of right-thinking 'scholars' and their administrative bedfellows will eagerly prove their ideological meddle by finding you have strayed from holy truth into damnable error, virtue into vice, morality into immorality. You are someone who must be driven from the temple, or at least denied tenure and closely watched. 

George Orwell describes the dystopia that results from demands for right thinking. "A nation of warriors and fanatics, marching forward in perfect unity, all thinking the same thoughts and shouting the same slogans, perpetually working, fighting, triumphing, persecuting — three hundred million people all with the same face." But we face  a divided nation of antagonistic warriors and fanatics marching toward each other each shouting oppositional slogans, perpetually working, fighting, triumphing, persecuting each other. Meanwhile the rest of us yearn only for moderation, thoughtfulness and empirical facts. 

 For similar considerations see www.newfoundations.com 

HOW MULTICULTURAL SHOULD AMERICA BE? looking at schools

ABOUT TO BE KILLED FOR "CRIMES AGAINST GOD"

Immigrant children are flowing into our schools from all over the globe. And they bring with them a bewildering, often conflicting, variety of cultural beliefs and practices. Teachers have to deal with this new, multi-cultural America that is struggling to life in their classrooms. And that generates multiple problems and unique opportunities. 

So what help do front-line teachers receive in the face of this challenge? Usually little more than warm, fuzzy slogans issued by administrators who are safe in the rear. These rear echelon commandos generate simple-minded humbug in which conflicted polyglot schools become multicultural rainbows where “You can be you and I can be me.” Would that it were that simple. 

Why can't our public schools be happy multicultural rainbows? For one thing, because the cultural values brought into the schoolhouse often are at odds with one another. For another, these values are often incompatible with core American ones. Take, for crucial instance, the very tolerance that makes multiculturalism possible. Such tolerance can be totally at odds with many of the student's cultures of origin. 

Consider Iran, for instance. Their theocracy lives and breaths intolerance. It publicly hangs citizens for "crimes against God." (That essentially means discomforting the clerical establishment.) They also mercilessly persecute the entire LBTG community. Then there's the Afghan Taliban who just banned females from any schooling beyond the 6th grade. Does any of this dovetail with schools that are multicultural rainbows? Does any of this fit the fabric of American democracy?

Remember too, some cultures define themselves in terms of animosity or distain for others. The antagonism between Israeli Jews and Palestinian Arabs, Afghanistan's Hazzara and Pashtun, or Catholics and Protestants in Ulster comes to mind. Or how about Hindus who regard some of their fellow Indians as so repulsive as to be literally untouchable.  How does any of this fit in a cultural rainbow?  

Apparently, the most enthusiastic advocates of multicultural education have rarely thought about such things. In fact, they don't seem to think very much at all. For them, multiculturalism is a topic for emoting, not thinking. 

 No doubt aspects of an immigrant's native culture can, often do, make a valuable contribution to American culture. Our way of life has been enriched in that way many times over. But the fact remains that some foreign cultural practices are totally at odds with a tolerance and a,democratic way of life. If, for example, we value free and unfettered expression, or if we think that women’s rights should equal those of men, the native cultures of many immigrants stand in stern opposition. 

Remember too, lots of immigrant children do not want to be defined by their parent’s native culture. They long to escape those confines and join mainstream America. Should educators help that happen? Or should they join forces with their parents to keep these kids in the old-world fold?   

 The core reality of all of this is that multicultural education is much more problematic than its evangelists would have us believe. Any careful consideration of multi-culturalism inevitably turns from simple-minded tolerance to thoughtful reflection. That, not the current pablum about multicultural rainbows, must guide educational practice and school policy. Otherwise frontline teachers are left twisting slowly in the wind.

 To further examine this and similar educational issues, see articles at www.newfoundations.com 

UNDESERVED ACADEMIC CREDENTIALS: why are they multiplying?

Anxious to maintain enrollment, school administrators cleverly use equity "concerns" to covertly press for lower standards. Professors, worried about class numbers and eager to "earn" good "course evaluations" (which everyone knows are really student evaluations of professors) pass way too many dolts. Politicians simultaneously push for increasing high school diplomas and college degrees. But as these things happen, what else occurs? 

The law of supply and demand provides the answer. As the percentage of students receiving diplomas and degrees increases, the value of those credentials decreases. That's because their value depends on their scarcity. If nearly everyone has one, any credential offers little competitive advantage. The only remaining value becomes defensive That is, not having one now becomes a devastating handicap. 

So suppose high schools and colleges really do turn out even more graduates. Who pays the highest price? High school youngsters who do not, perhaps cannot, go to college. That's because they heavily depend on their high school diploma to open doors for them. The same ultimately applies to college degrees. In short these credentials become even less valuable than they are now. 

You might think that if we do graduate more kids, at least they will be better educated. But the easiest way to increase the number of high school graduates is to quietly reduce the requirements for graduation. Many inner city and rural poverty schools already have already done that. Their tacit policy is: "Come to school most of the time, generally behave yourself and we will give you a diploma."  This often degenerates into: "Come to school at least some of the time, don't create major disruptions and we will still give you a diploma even if you can barely read." 

These dynamics of degeneration are not confined to basic education. They also are active in higher ed. Encouraged by political correctnes, by ranking equity over excellence, and by a scarcity of customers, professors and administrators who try to maintain high standards have become unwelcome. Instead, professors are encouraged by the new breed of administrator to cox, cajole, coddle 'students' and "be the student's friend." 

Spurred on by political correctness, fear of negative student evaluations and a paucity of students in their classes, professors, in turn, often decide, "I'm not going to be a policeman"and ignore both their student's subject matter ignorance and their often remarkably egregious plagiarism. Some so-called professors even completely abandon their duty and openly say things like, "I couldn't sleep at night if I prevented someone from graduating." (An actual quote from a Georgia State professor.) Consequently we're getting more and more college graduates who, to put it crudely, can't tell shit from Shinola.

Of course it isn't just political correctness that feeds this cancer. In fact it is often merely a cover for a more basic concern: the need for ever scarcer tuition income. Administrators ultimately have to pay the bills or shut up shop; and college applicants are frighteningly scarce these days. So they subtly pressure professors to not discomfort or discourage students by actually maintaining standards. It's become, "the customer is always right."

Of course college degrees are subject to the very same law of supply and demand that applies to high school diplomas. The more plentiful they are, the less value they have. That's why it is now often necessary to get an advanced degree to gain the same competitive advantage that a bachelor's degree used to confer.

So how can we reverse these trends? Toughen graduation requirements at every level thereby reducing the number of high school and college diploma recipients. This will increase the diploma’s value and offer a boost to those who must depend on them for competitive advantage. It will also reduce the number of "students" who not only have no interest in reducing their own ignorance. 

This is a drastic solution to a drastic problem. It means fewer students, fewer school administrators, fewer professors, and fewer institutions of higher education. Educator jobs will disappear. Unemployment roles will swell with youngsters who are currently engaged in pretending to be students. Will this prove politically and practically unacceptable? Yes. That's why it probably won't happen. But that doesn't mean it shouldn't.  -GKC 

 For a more detailed examination of this and related issues See Dissecting School Benefits" 

"HIGHLY QUALIFIED TEACHERS?" nah, ya get what ya pay for

 

If you enjoy dark humor you might get a laugh out of this. A few years ago schools in a number of states began importing teachers from the Philippines! Yep, staffing our public schools with folks who aren't Americans! 

Why is this even remotely acceptable? Because the politicos in those states, not to mention the voters who elected them, apparently didn't care what happens to other people's children. And because these non-American teachers largely end up trying to teach in schools serving in the pedagogical equivalent of the Russian front.

Do these Filipino teachers speak intelligible American English? Maybe not. That requirement could be too stringent, given the urgent need for cannon fodder. Perhaps their teaching resembles the "assistance" one gets from 'help' desks that corporations have moved overseas.

Given the conditions these imported teachers face, this is pure exploitation. But exploiting the people who teach America's children dates way back. For years and years we relied on a steady supply of bright, hard-working women because they had few other opportunities outside the home. Secretary, nurse, teacher, that was it. For many years this worked reasonably well. Acceptable and docile service at minimal cost. But when America's females gained other opportunities and a mature of pride, the teacher pool shrank dramatically. A shortage ensued that has never really been remedied. So, since women's liberation, we've been scraping the bottom of the collegiate barrel. 

There has been a cyclone of hot air directed at this teacher quality problem. Some of it of Marx Brothers quality. Perhaps you remember when former President Obama's Secretary of Education and basketball buddy (a totally unqualified guy named Arne Duncan) toured the country wringing his hands about the urgent need to improve teacher preparation? Yet he lacked even rudimentary training, much less experience, in education. Perhaps he was distressed to find that teacher aspirants were almost as poorly selected and anemically prepared for their job as he was for his.

Predictably, Duncan didn't complain when President Obama classified thousands upon thousands of wanna-be teachers who were still in training as "highly qualified?" Why did he do that? Because "highly qualified" teachers were required by the federal No Child Left Behind law but California desperately needed more warm bodies in front of their classrooms.. 

Arne expressed zero concern about this palpapoly ridiculous move. His Education Department simply went along this ridiculously weak standard. When a federal judge finally ruled that Obama's presidential ruling clearly violated the No Child Left Behind Act, congress quickly passed a bill lowering that NCLB standard to the equivalent of breathing. 

Did "highly qualified"  mean anything before Obama castrated it? Well it didnt looked so at first glance. The law clearly stipulated that if you wanted to teach math, science, social studies, the arts, reading and languages you must have obtained a long-term teaching certificate, and demonstrated subject matter knowledge by either obtaining a college major in the subject, by passing a test in the subject taught, OR (and here's the where the politicians proved their slipperiness) "by some other means established by the state." Oh!

That's right, every state was provided with an escape clause. Never mind all the seeming hard-nosed requirements. In the end each state could decide what "highly qualified" meant for them. This shielded every state where teaching had so long been underpaid, under-respected and under-appreciated that the only qualification they could realistically impose was the ability to pee a hole in snow. 

This "by some other means" wording rendered all the preceding requirements meaningless. Only in the lala-land of public school policy could such a feeble requirement be taken as too tough. Later, though, both the George W. Bush and Obama administrations further weakened this already castrated law.

No Child Left Behind is far less influential these days. But the weak-kneed teacher selection standards just described remain very much extant. Worse still, public school teaching has gotten even less desirable because the right is systematically undermining public education, while the left struggles to impose' "woke" indoctrination of its' new religion. 

Teachers are caught in the middle. That's a major reason why the best and brightest, plus a whole lot of others, want no part of teaching. So abandon hope if you favor the tough, high quality teacher preparation standards our children deserve. That ideal has metamorphosed into hiring foreigners to teach America's children on the cheap. 

Those who are very well off and politically influential, need not care about any of this. They are very unlikely to have kids, or grandkids, in public schools. That's one reason why public schools and their teachers have become America's foster children. Those with decisive influence don't have to depend on them to educate their own. If they did, it wouldn't be in the state it's in.

For additional considerations please see: Highly Qualified Teachers: misgivings

-- GKC

PARENTS BOSSING TEACHERS: you can't be serious

              Here's one parental decision.

I remember when Democrat Terry McAuliffe was competing with Republican Glenn Youngkin in the tightly contested Virginia gubernatorial race. Facing off in a final televised debate, and were debating school curricula relating to race, gender identity and sexuality. Youngkin charged that school systems were “refusing to engage with parents.” Whatever that meant. Then McAuliffe made the critical mistake of countering with: “I don’t think parents should be telling schools what they should teach.” That retort probably cost her the election. 

  

But should parents be "telling teachers what to teach," really? That depends on whether parents could, first, agree and then, make wise pedagogical decisions. Would they? Can they? Let's review what it takes to become a parent. The qualifications are getting pregnant and delivering, or just getting someone pregnant. This lax selection process leads to a goodly number of parents who are unqualified to decide much of anything, much less an entire school curriculum. After all, there plainly is an abundance of addicted, ignorant, stupid, emotionally disturbed, closed minded, fanatical, bigoted, dogmatic, plainly incompetent parents.  

It's pure fantasy to expect a broad assortment of parents to agree on much of anything, much less make reasonable and responsible, decisions concerning what all kids should be taught. For instance, some parents would rule out the teaching of evolution in biology class. Should their choice apply to every child in the class? Why ask that? Because it is plainly impossible to individualize each and every child's instruction in the factory-like setting that is our public schools.

Let's also ask ourselveslves if we should entrust individuals who often can barely read with deciding what schools teach? A Gallup analysis of data from the U.S. Department of Education reveals that about 130 million adults in the U. S. have low literacy skills. More than half of Americans between the ages of 16 and 74 (54%) read below the equivalent of a sixth-grade level. Many parents are borderline illiterate. Shall we entrust such individuals with deciding what is taught to everyone in school? That seems ridiculous.

Let's also remember that for children who come from dysfunctional families school is often a refuge. And the very last thing these children want or need is to give their deplorable parents play a bigger role in the life of the school. What such kids actually need is for their biological parents to have lesser role in their life. That's why, every two minutes in the United States, a child is removed from their family and placed in foster care. 

Remember too, parents already do have a say in what schools teach. That's because our public schools are the most democratically and locally controlled arm of government there is - bar none. The vast majority of our 13,000 plus school districts are run by elected boards. So every parent has some say at the most local level. They can even run for school board should they choose. Though let's nor forget that a lot of parents (usually the one's you most need to see) don't even bother to show up on meet the teacher nights.

Public schools are governed in this hyper democratic way to try to balance a myriad different, often competing, parental priorities, to try to balance various non-parental concerns, and to shelter educational policy from the most irresponsible extremism. With all its faults, this system works pretty well. And one reason it does so is that parents who care have always been included, though not allowed to dominate, the process.

After all, public schooling has never had a direct parental controlling intent to begin with. From its inception, public education has always been about ameliorating parental upbringing in order to insure each youngster's socialization is not only parentally acceptable, but acceptable to the rest of us. If, for example, Mom and Dad are sovereign citizen wack jobs, that's their business. But if their kids only view the world through sovereign citizen eyes, that's our business. Because the rest of us have to live with the consequences of such distorted vision. 

I can't imagine any candidate being unaware of the practical impossibility of every parent setting their individual youngster's school curriculum, readings, and so forth. And, unless they are a more complete jackass than the average politician, every one of them also knows parents shouldn't have chief say. But promising to achieve this impossibility still might get them elected. It certainly helped Glenn Youngkin win.

Enough said.

  -- GKC ------

See also, "Merit Pay for Teachers?" 

MULTICULTURALISM: probing the limits

Much obeisance is paid to the need for "multiculturalism" in the school curriculum. How else, ask earnest disciples, can educators promote a sense of empowerment and worth in all Americans? How else can they truly engage the many communities they serve? How else can they run schools that are strong and accountable community institutions? 

All that is true enough. But this comprehension and valuing will not change the fact that groups, be they clans, tribes or nations, compete for limited resources. And to the extent that these resources are limited, they do so at one another's expense. For instance, geographic territory is limited; and the demand for it exceeds the supply. It's a zero sum game. Consider the nearly three quarters of a century struggle between Israeli Jews and Palestinian Arabs over land. Think the Palestinians are going multicultural and recognize Jewish holidays anytime soon? Or how about Russia's invasion of Ukraine? Far from honoring Ukraine's culture, Putin alleges it doesn't even exist. Are the Ukrainians going to go for that kind of multiculturalism?

This competition for limited resources is one thing that strictly defines multiculturalism's limits. Why? Because it is difficult to even tolerate, much less honor, another group when that group's gain has been your group's loss. Competition for resources, be they jobs, desirable territory, natural resources, and so forth, has existed for all of recorded history. And, be assured, that this competition will continue, "... for as long as grass should grow and water flow." 

Now, in polyglot nations like the U. S., Canada or Australia, token recognition of the other guy's culture is de rigueur. For example, despite the vitriolic distrust and outright rejection that greeted Irish immigrants when they first arrived in the U. S., lots and lots of folks now wear green on St. Patrick's Day, perhaps eat a couple of those horrid confections, Irish Potatoes, or watch the parade. But that's only because the Irish have been so absorbed and intermarried that their presence is no longer the threat it once was seen to be. They now are a part of us.  And social science reveals that it is expressions of difference that result in negative appraisals.

Here is another strict limit on multiculturalism. Often one culture's values are diametrically opposed to those of another. Thus, they are utterly incompatible. And that leads us to the biggest problem of them all. The very tolerance required for a group to be multicultural is not only absent, but utterly rejected in many other cultures. Consider Saudi Arabia, for instance. They are so sure they are right about all sorts of things, religion for example, that they make no accommodations for difference whatsoever. Yet this fundamental incompatibility of multicultural tolerance for an intolerant culture is seldom, if ever, recognized by right thinking multicultural advocates. 

Sure, if another group's culture has been thoroughly adulterated by elements of the polyglot host culture, modest tolerance toward that other group's culture is likely. But even a long-resident group will still catch a world of crap if they remain sufficiently different. For instance, recent unprovoked assaults on Asian appearing citizens demonstrate that these Americans are sometimes punched in the face, beaten up, sometimes even killed, just for looking different. And if a group who wants to enter is really different, say, Middle Eastern Muslims, one quickly sees how minimally "multi-cultural" the rest of us are prepared to be. Remember Trump's attempted muslim ban? What kind of multiculturalism did that amount to? Then there is his border wall welcoming "the tired, the poor, the huddled masses yearning to be free."

Can one group's culture be enriched by welcoming another group and adopting, or at least respecting, aspects of their culture? Sure, it happens all the time. Nevertheless, due to the dynamics just described, this adoption will often be limited to the dominant group gingerly granting mere token recognition. For instance, deciding that their vittles are tasty.

So, to be realistic, advocates of multiculturalism, in education or out, must limit their ambitions and recognize the limitations. Too frequently that's not happening because of virtue signaling and imbalanced zealotry. Yet this is far too important an issue to address so thoughtlessly. The very growth, enrichment, coherence and stability of our society are at stake. 

For a more detailed treatment of this subject see: http://newfoundations.net/?page_id=303 

TRASH HIGH STAKES TESTS: use "leading education indicators" instead

Way too much is made of high stakes test scores. They tell us little or nothing about the impact schooling is having on the way people actually make decisions and live their lives. 

 Many admit the weaknesses of these tests. But most still argue for their administration. “We need some measure of school effectiveness,” they say. Sure we do. But there already are available ways of measuring educational success that do not require wasting instructional time, teaching to the test, or inadvertently fostering teacher and administrative dishonesty. All we need do is identify and assemble those measures that already exist. 

Economists call them "lagging indicators," and have long used them to compile their index of "Leading Economic Indicators. That's when they combine already existing economic measures to construct an overall picture of the health of the economy. That's precisely how we can and should evaluate schooling. Let's assemble an index of "Leading Educational Indicators." Here are some candidates:  

• THE NIELSON RATINGS What folks watch on TV could be one indicator of the success or failure of their schooling? Count the number of adults regularly viewing "The Celebrity Dating Game,"for example, and we might be mostly counting people that schooling somehow failed. So, the fact that ABC cancelled that wretched show after just one season would be good news on the school front. Similarly HBO's "House of the Dragon" has soared to 2022's number one spot for both cable and streaming. And Rotten Tomatoes says, "The story, the casting, the acting and the set, all superb." The popularity of this show could be a plus for schooling. Do you think the Nielsens might be helpful in evaluating schooling's success or failure? 

• MUSIC SALES Perhaps we should check the sales figures for various musical artists and genres. Like the enduring popularity of paintings of Elvis on black velvet, they might well reveal  information about schooling's success or failure. We could, for example, compare gangsta rap sales with those for classical music. Schooling has surely failed those who prefer Snoop Dog to Mozart or Ice Cube to Chopin? Presently lots of consumers are buying unmelodious, disharmonic trash accompanied by primitive, vulgar verse. Those who prefer that earn a black mark for their schooling? 

• CULT MEMBERSHIP Lets use the popularity of cult membership as a measure. Perhaps every Jonestown resident who drank cyanide laced Cool Aid represent a schooling failure? How about the men in David Koresh's cult who permitted that saint to sexually service their wives and daughters because, as Koresh patiently explained, he was the only man pure enough for the job. Were they well schooled? Then there's the  Heaven's Gate crowd who, in conformity with "Bo" and "Peep's" teachings, "left their containers" to rendezvous with that space ship concealed behind the Hale-Bopp comet. Don't all such cults seem to have been schooled deficiently? And let's not forget the most enthusiastic members of the Trump cult. Schooling was flagrantly deficient in these cases. 

•  SUPERMARKET TABLOID SALES The sales figures of these grotesque gazettes provide a more valid measure of educational progress than anything ETS could dream up. I'm talking about those tabloids that headline things like "WOMEN COMMITS SUICIDE IN DISHWASHER!", or "HALF BOY, HALF DOLPHIN WASHES UP ON BEACH!" What do you think? Aren't tabloid sales an inverse measure of educational progress? 

• THE POPULARITY OF CON-ARTIST TELEVANGELIST'S Their income, available from the IRS Tax Exempt Branch, might be a great measure of schooling's effectiveness? The more money these charlatans make, the less well our schools have done. Consider, for instance, the Reverend Benny Hinn's television ministry. Hinn, the subject of a devastating CNN expose, is the chap who claims to lapse into "trances" while conducting worship services. Then, according to the Reverend himself, the Holy Spirit uses his vocal apparatus to speak to the congregation. Shouldn't the incomes of this type of shameless con artist be added to our index? 

• THE CREDIBILITY OF CREATION "SCIENCE"  An astonishing number of Americans believe that our 4.6 billion year old earth was born a mere 6,000 years ago. They even believe that Noah assembled mating pairs of every animal on the planet, including dinosaurs, loaded them on his ark, and fed and housed them for over a year. Doesn't the enduring popularity of this mythology constitutes proof that schools aren't getting the job done — at least when it comes to logical reasoning and science?

Who needs high stakes testing when we have such well-established popular measures to choose from? Presently this index is just an idea. You probably have your own thoughts about what measures should and could be included. But the point is that this sort of lagging indicators index would be much more powerful than anything Educational Testing Service, etc., could possibly contrive. An Index of this sort surely would better reflect the real life results tax payers are getting for their average annual expenditure of $163,000 per child.

 I'll bet you are thinking that schools are not exclusively, even mainly, responsible for the state of affairs such measures reveal. You might even be thinking that dumb is the essential problem. Okay. But so what? Educators aren’t chiefly responsible for standardized test results either. No allowance is made for the fact that a little less than half of the kids taking those tests are below average in intelligence. As a matter of fact, 25% of them are far below average. And we're not allowing for the large number of kids who are average or above in native intelligence, but far too lazy or emotionally damaged, to evaluate evidence and think for themselves. Plus we're not even figuring in their school attendance record. Educators currently are even being blamed for not producing good test results from kids who are rarely attend.

Then again, maybe it really doesn't matter that high stakes tests aren't fair and do a horrible job of measuring anything of enduring value. Perhaps what really matters is simply blaming somebody. And since educators neither fight back effectively or don't fight back at all, they're an inviting target. 

What do you think? Is creating an Index of Leading Educational Indicators a good idea?

 To further examine issues of this kind, see www.newfoundations.com and www.newfoundations.net.