Should School Test Standards be Changed?

Well, maybe yes, maybe no, maybe both.

It seems the Obama administration is deciding that maybe standardized testing in K – 12 education has gone too far:

Faced with mounting and bipartisan opposition to increased and often high-stakes testing in the nation’s public schools, the Obama administration declared Saturday that the push had gone too far, acknowledged its own role in the proliferation of tests, and urged schools to step back and make exams less onerous and more purposeful.

While a similar statement (followed by concrete action) on foreign military adventurism might offer an unequivocal cheer from lovers of less government intrusion everywhere, I cannot say that this is always and everywhere true for standardized testing.  But I am getting ahead of myself.

The so-called Common Core standards seem to have broken the camel’s back:

States, led by the National Governors Association and advised by local educators, created the so-called Common Core standards, which outlined the skills students should have upon graduation, and signed on to tests tied to those standards.

As a new generation of tests tied to the Common Core was rolled out last spring, several states abandoned plans to use the tests, while others renounced the Common Core…

What is motivating this change?

… “I can’t tell you how many conversations I’m in with educators who are understandably stressed and concerned about an overemphasis on testing in some places and how much time testing and test prep are taking from instruction.”

It is the educators.  So says Arne Duncan, the secretary of education.

Teachers’ unions, which had led the opposition on the left to the amount of testing, declared the reversal of sorts a victory.

On the left, parents and unions objected to tying tests to teacher evaluations…

More precisely, it is the teachers’ unions.

Considered the lusciousness of this – the reason the federal government wants to reduce standardized testing has nothing to do with the students; it is because the teachers are failing the test.

Now, returning to the question that is the title of this post, and my answer to this question: Should school test standards be changed?  Well, maybe yes, maybe no, maybe both.

There is something close to 55 million K – 12 students in the United States.  55 million.  Let the number sink in.

Those of you who are parents consider – even in your small sample size of about two children per family: does one size fit both of your children when it comes to their interests, how they learn, how they study, how they progress, etc.?  To ask the question is to answer it.  Yet here we have a one-size-fits-all testing regimen for 55 million.

For some students, the regimen may be just fine; for most, I am certain that the regimen is wrong.

Just remember, they aren’t changing it because of the failure of 55 million students to conform to a one-size-fits-all curriculum, they are changing it because the test score are used to grade the teachers, and the teachers are failing.

You see, they aren’t giving up on one-size-fits-all 55 million – they just want to try on a different size:

“I still have no question that we need to check at least once a year to make sure our kids are on track or identify areas where they need support,” said Arne Duncan, the secretary of education, who has announced that he will leave office in December.

How would he know – does he have a close relationship with each one of 55 million of them?

“What happens if somebody puts a cap on testing, and to meet the cap ends up eliminating tests that could actually be helpful, or leaves the redundancy in the test and gets rid of a test that teachers can use to inform their instruction?” asked Michael Casserly, the executive director of the Council of the Great City Schools, an organization that represents about 70 large urban school districts.

Who can say what is “helpful” for each one of 55 million students? 

The administration said it would issue “clear guidance” on testing by January.

Apparently the federal government can say.

Rest assured, nothing in the new testing regimen will come close to examining the pillars of the religion that is the American state.

BU2B

All is for the best

Believe in what we’re told

Blind men in the market

Buying what we’re sold

I was brought up to believe…

…King George was a tyrant.

…Americans fought for independence.

…Americans won their independence.

…the founding fathers were selfless.

…Robert Morris was America’s financier.

…government exists to protect my life and property.

…the time during the Articles of Confederation was chaotic.

…a written constitution is a check on government expansion.

…the Constitution protects my rights.

…Thomas Jefferson favored a smaller central government.

…America was never about Empire.

…Lincoln saved the Union.

…Lincoln cared about the slaves.

…Lincoln was honest.

…the West was wild.

…Japan’s aggression in Asia was a shock to the US government.

…Germany started the Great War.

…Wilson made the world safe for democracy.

…democracy represents the best form of government.

…democracies are reluctant to go to war.

…laissez-faire capitalism caused the great depression.

One Less Brick in the Wall

Of all of the dastardly deeds imposed upon us by the elite, two stand at the top of the heap: central banking and public funding of education.  This post is about the latter.

I have written before about this topic – perhaps not often enough given its importance.  I cite from an earlier post:

[Gatto] quotes H.L. Mencken: “The aim [of public education] is simply to reduce as many individuals as possible to the same safe level, to breed and train a standardized citizenry, to put down dissent and originality”

Professor Arthur Calhoun wrote that the fondest wish of utopian thinkers was coming true: children were passing from blood families “into the custody of community experts.”

R. J. Rushdoony: “They have tithed their children to the State, and then they complain against how much the government is costing them.”

The state will educate your children.  These words should be poison to every thinking and caring parent.

A few factors will slowly, but certainly, move society from a model of structured schooling to a model of open education.

First is the demonstrable failure of the public schooling model.  I’m not merely referring to the failure to properly educate – meaning the success of indoctrination into the politically-acceptable narratives; sadly, most parents have no concern about this – state-approved brainwashing is acceptable to many, it seems.  I mean the failure to teach the basics – reading, writing, and arithmetic. 

Second is the slow but sure drumbeat of failing government finances.  Where will the resources come from to continue to advance a failed model such as public schools?  Note, I write “resources,” not “money.”  They can print the money.  They can’t create the resources.  And eventually, the ratio of dependent to independent will grow too large…and topple.

Third is the power of the internet.  Again, not just in the fact that it unleashes all sorts of information to counter the politically-acceptable narratives.  The internet offers solutions to the two factors above: the failure of the public schooling model, and the failure of government finances.

Thank You, Tim Russert!

Today at LRC, the headline article is by Tom DiLorenzo, entitled “Why Neocons Are Freaking Out Over Lincoln.”  It is a worthwhile read; yet one sentence really caught my attention.  This one sentence reminded me of the kind praise I have for Mr. Russert.  From DiLorenzo:

The neocons are still punch drunk, in other words, from how the Ron Paul phenomenon, during the congressman’s two attempts at securing the Republican Party presidential nomination, captured the imaginations of millions of young people and continues to do so.

Many will remember Ron Paul’s visit to “Meet the Press” during his presidential run in 2007.  This was just after the two large money bombs, but before any primaries were held.

Russert’s purpose in this interview was the “gotcha,” throwing out statements and questions that were unquestioned in the mainstream – the various myths that prop up the American religion.  Russert’s task was obvious from his method – make it clear to so-called serious voters that Ron Paul is a flake.

Most memorable was the exchange regarding Lincoln:

MR. RUSSERT:  I was intrigued by your comments about Abe Lincoln.  "According to Paul, Abe Lincoln should never have gone to war; there were better ways of getting rid of slavery."

REP. PAUL:  Absolutely.  Six hundred thousand Americans died in a senseless civil war.  No, he shouldn't have gone, gone to war.  He did this just to enhance and get rid of the original intent of the republic.  I mean, it was the--that iron, iron fist.

MR. RUSSERT:  We'd still have slavery.

REP. PAUL:  Oh, come on, Tim.  Slavery was phased out in every other country of the world.  And the way I'm advising that it should have been done is do like the British empire did.  You, you buy the slaves and release them.  How much would that cost compared to killing 600,000 Americans and where it lingered for 100 years?  I mean, the hatred and all that existed.  So every other major country in the world got rid of slavery without a civil war.  I mean, that doesn't sound too radical to me.  That sounds like a pretty reasonable approach.

I am certain that after the interview, Russert got one big bro hug from his fellow gatekeepers.  They felt certain they had buried the man.  There is no doubt that every effort was taken to do just this, both in 2008 and 2012.  However, instead of burying Dr. Paul, I suggest that what Russert and his cohorts did was to make him eternal.

The video of this interview was viewed hundreds of thousands of times.  My guess is that 1% of these views were by Oligarchic, Loudmouth, Despicable Friends and Acquaintances of Russert, Tim (OLD FARTS).  The remaining 99% of these views were by young people and others who either supported or at least were open to Ron Paul and his message.

What do you think that 99% did?  Probably many of them first said to themselves “the Lincoln that Ron Paul describes isn’t the one that I know.  I wasn’t taught this in school.”  After some reflection, and considering that many of the odd things Ron Paul said certainly held truth when examined, they then thought, “Maybe I will look into this.”

So they did.  They found books by DiLorenzo: “The Real Lincoln” and “Lincoln Unmasked.”  After reading these, they concluded that maybe Ron was onto something, and the Old Farts were lying to them.  “If they are lying about Lincoln, what else are they lying about?”

For many, this interview with Russert likely caused a desire to explore other deceptions and myths behind the American religion.  More from DiLorenzo’s article at LRC:

In his essay on "The Nature of the State" Murray Rothbard pointed out that all states, no matter how tyrannical they may be, rely crucially on inculcating in the minds of the public the alleged grandiosity of the state and the alleged failures of private enterprise and the civil society.

Such propaganda is essential to statism, said Rothbard, because it is essentially an economical way to get the public to acquiesce in being enslaved by the state.

The neocons are becoming unglued and freaked out because they no longer control the culture of ideas among "conservatives"…

I can thank Russert because he certainly helped to contribute to this loss of faith.  Had he not tried his “gotcha” approach with Ron Paul, it is likely that many of the 99% would have never looked into the Lincoln myth, and thus might not have found reason to begin to question the myriad of other myths. 

The myths, as Rothbard suggests, provide economical leverage for those who would control us.  Russert, so caught up in the mainstream, had no idea what he helped to unleash – and leverage, after all, works both ways.

A prerequisite for the final collapse of the Soviet Union was the widespread disbelief in all the lies, myths and superstitions about socialism that the people of the Soviet empire had been brainwashed into accepting.

I am sure the interview was uncomfortable for Dr. Paul, despite the man being more courageous than all other members of political office combined.  Yet, just like the Rudy Giuliani moment, in the most uncomfortable of situations, Dr. Paul likely prompted many people to say to themselves “I will look into that.”

I still look back fondly on that Tim Russert moment.  He certainly helped to bring on the destruction of one of the most valuable myths supporting the American religion.

A Strategy for Liberty

The title of this post is taken from chapter 15 of Murray Rothbard’s “For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto.”  Throughout the book, Rothbard has laid out the case for the libertarian solution to the problems of politics and government.  In this chapter, he suggests how to get from here to there.  He also deals with some of the common objections to the idea of liberty and to the approach taken by some.  For these reasons, I found this chapter to be most valuable.

Education: Theory and Movement

We face the great strategic problem of all “radical” creeds throughout history: How can we get from here to there, from our current State-ridden and imperfect world to the great goal of liberty?

On one point there can scarcely be disagreement: a prime and necessary condition for libertarian victory (or, indeed, for victory for any social movement, from Buddhism to vegetarianism) is education: the persuasion and conversion of large numbers of people to the cause. 

Sadly, this point is missed by many.  Without education – “the persuasion and conversion of large numbers of people” – there is no hope ever to see a movement toward liberty take hold.  This was the benefit of Ron Paul’s two recent presidential campaigns – through his efforts, countless millions have had the scales lifted from their eyes. 

Many individuals and organizations contribute today to this education.  Two of the most prominent are The Mises Institute and LewRockwell.com.  There are many others that contribute as well: The Daily Bell, Justin Raimondo, Economic Policy Journal, and the Future of Freedom Foundation to name a few.  I certainly am leaving off many.  Each one speaks to people in different ways, yet each makes a valuable contribution to the education of liberty.

Rothbard deals with one criticism often heard – “we” are only talking to ourselves:

Furthermore, one often hears libertarians (as well as members of other social movements) bewail that they are “only talking to themselves” with their books and journals and conferences; that few people of the “outside world” are listening. 

Keep in mind that Rothbard wrote this book more than two decades before there was even a semblance of a user-friendly internet – a world of mimeo-graphs and snail-mail lists.  With the internet, the possibility of reaching out to others has increased exponentially – and the facts have proven this out.  It is still amazing to see this in tangible results – twenty-four years ago Ron Paul received less than 1% of the vote as the Libertarian Party candidate for President.  He might draw dozens to an event.  The difference today is like night and day.  Yet, the charge is often made today, as if nothing has changed – as if all the libertarians could fit in a phone booth or something.

Rothbard finds fault in this charge; he sees value in such internal dialogue:

But this frequent charge gravely misconceives the many-sided purpose of “education” in the broadest sense.  It is not only necessary to educate others; continual self-education is also (and equally) necessary….Education of “ourselves” accomplishes two vital goals.  One is the refining and advancing of the libertarian “theory….”  Libertarianism… must be a living theory, advancing through writing and discussion, and through refuting and combatting errors as they arise.  

This charge is often made – why get into debates about oftentimes minor issues when all that this does is divide an already small movement?  Rothbard makes clear why this is helpful.  There is continual education needed amongst even those who have embraced the political ideas of libertarians. 

But there is another critical reason for “talking to ourselves,” even if that were all the talking that was going on.  And that is reinforcement—the psychologically necessary knowledge that there are other people of like mind to talk to, argue with, and generally communicate and interact with….A flourishing movement with a sense of community and esprit de corps is the best antidote for giving up liberty as a hopeless or “impractical” cause.

How true this is.  There is a remnant, and to know and be reminded that there are others of like-mind offers hope and encouragement.

Are We “Utopians”?

This comes up regularly – it has never worked, who will control the bad guys, you have to believe man is perfect if you advocate this, etc.  Libertarians are utopians.

Every “radical” creed has been subjected to the charge of being “utopian,” and the libertarian movement is no exception.

Some libertarians themselves maintain that we should not frighten people off by being “too radical,” and that therefore the full libertarian ideology and program should be kept hidden from view.

The Legends Supporting the American Religion

Religion and Legend

Religion (noun)

1. A set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

In this article, I intend to explore the legends underlying the American religion.  By American religion, I mean to suggest the belief by a large segment of the population in the structures and institutions of government, and the belief that these structures and institutions are used for purposes beneficial to the people.  In other words, the religion is belief in the benevolence of the state and the goodness of the political leaders.

Legend (noun)

1. A non-historical or unverifiable story handed down by tradition from earlier times and popularly accepted as historical.

2. The body of stories of this kind, especially as they relate to a particular people, group, or clan….

There are several American legends that either support this religious belief directly, or otherwise contribute to the deification of the state and those who act through it.  Such legends, taught in the public schools and perpetuated through various mainstream media outlets – movies, books, and magazines, as well as mainstream web-sites – create a common foundation as the basis for the desired religious belief: belief in the state.

Legends are material to be moulded, and not facts to be recorded.

Hervey Allen

Many have done valuable to work toward the shattering of one or more of the key legends, thereby contributing to the loss of faith in the religion.  These efforts can only be beneficial to freedom.  The work of shattering these legends is the work of revisionist historians, although not all revisionists support the idea of shattering the religion of state.  Such historians have toiled tirelessly from the inception of each legend, yet many worked in relative obscurity.  Certainly the internet has made their work easily available to any who care to look.

Legends die hard. They survive as truth rarely does.

Helen Hayes

There are many such legends in American history.  I will explore three of these, and suggest that these three may be the most foundational due to the magnitude of awareness in and acceptance by the population at large – most importantly, due to the importance of these legends to the foundation of the American religion.  Proximity in time, I suggest, is not the key criteria – one event occurred 150 years ago, while the most recent is only ten years old.  But what these three cases hold in common is the level to which the legends have been internalized by large portions of the population.

Sometimes legends make reality, and become more useful than the facts.

Salman Rushdie

A major impediment to shattering the legends is that such action runs full-force into a brick wall of “we the people.”  Too many accept the idea that “they” are the government; that the people are in charge; that the government and the country are the same; that I vote, so I have control.  As opposed to control through dictators and kings (where the self-interest of the rulers at the expense of the people was never in question), representative democracy has done a wonderful job of convincing the people that they are the rulers, choosing politicians to work on their behalf for their good.

Because they have been taught to believe that they and the government are one-and-the-same, they cannot accept that the legends are not only false but shed light on the murderous actions of government.  They cannot damn themselves.  Additionally, they cannot accept that the legends are false, because to do so will suggest that they have been dupes.

When the legends die, the dreams end; there is no more greatness.

Tecumseh

I do not intend to refute each legend in detail in this post – I am not qualified to do so, even if I chose to.  My purpose is to suggest the three that I view as the more important legends to burst, specifically because they are so deeply ingrained and hold significant sway as basis for the religion.

Alexander McCobin at The Daily Bell

I have posted the following at The Daily Bell today.  Quoted (indented) items are all Mr. McCobin’s:

[Debate] teaches critical thinking, writing skills, speaking ability, a broad understanding of current and philosophical issues and a love for ideas….[After attending McCobin’s private debate camps] Students would write to us, "I learned more in one week at this debate camp than in all of my years at school."

Many schools don't have debate programs at all….

Do you think there might be a connection here?  Is it by design, or merely an accident that a) schools don’t teach critical thinking, and b) virtually every school gets a majority if not the entirety of its funding from the state?  More on this later….

Perhaps creating dummies is the objective.

[While at Cato] the leading thinkers developing libertarian public policy…

“…libertarian public policy…” This seems quite the contradiction in terms and objectives. 

This is the most libertarian generation that has ever existed….

For us old guys, that would be nice to believe.  However, it is rather a bold statement when considering the sweep of recorded and unrecorded history.  More on this later….

[Regarding the possibility that the world is headed toward a depression] Given the growing commitment of my generation to fixing the problems given to us by older generations, I remain optimistic that we can correct things before they get to that point.

We face a future of either an inflationary depression or a deflationary depression (arguably, we are in a depression already).  To the extent there is an ounce of truth in Austrian economics, this is unavoidable.  Things will certainly get to that point before they get any better (or worse).

It's contradictory to argue that the government is both generally incompetent and inefficient and then argue it's capable of pulling off the greatest cover-up in history. I also think that if you assume the enemies of liberty are doing evil intentionally your misrepresentation of them will lead you to improper solutions. We have to understand that the enemies of liberty do so with good intentions and require responses with good intentions.

This one statement is enough to dismiss Alexander as a critical thinker.  First, he confuses “government” with those above government pulling the strings (as suggested in DB’s question).  But even looking at those in “government” – I will avoid the non- U.S. enemies of freedom – the pickings are way too easy.  Let’s stick to just the U.S. based enemies of just the last decade – do they really have good intentions: Hillary Clinton, Tim Geithner, Dick Cheney, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, George W. Bush, Barack Obama, Donald Rumsfeld.

The authors of the Patriot Act, NDAA, FATCA.  Lying the people into war.  Authorization of murder by drone.  Killing Americans without trial or jury.  Those building the spy center in Utah.  Initiating several wars throughout the Middle East and Central Asia.  Central banking.  Public funding of education.

His affiliations with Cato and Reason speak volumes of his positions.  See Walter Block here:

His view on war and the military is one big (and un-asked) question.  This comment (when writing elsewhere about some of the differences of opinion amongst libertarians) gives a hint:

While many libertarians opposed the invasion of Iraq, Randy Barnett wrote a strong, libertarian defense of pre-emptive intervention.

That he remains open to a discussion on this issue is…troubling, to say the least.

The other troubling issue is no mention of central banking (nor do I find any via a quick search of outside resources).

No comment on central banking; seems that the war in Iraq (and presumably other overseas adventures) are at least questions properly open to debate (certainly consistent with a Randian view); can’t link public funding of education and the lack of critical thinking in students; and sees no evil intent in those who implement these and other policies.

If this represents the greatest libertarian generation in history, you can have it.