Teaching to the test, 2.0

Standardized-Test-0201

I never cease being amazed how some issues and concerns never seem to go away.

They hang around so long that you’d think they would get moldy, would wither and just disappear like so much dust.

Back to the Earth.

But they don’t. They linger. Forever and ever.

Standardized tests and the concerns about how Texas educators administer them remains a hot topic.

Seven years ago, on April 13, 2009 to be exact, I wrote a blog about Texas’s standardized testing regimen that went by a different name.

Here’s what I wrote then:

https://highplainsblogger.com/2009/04/teaching-to-the-test/

Another school year is drawing to its conclusion. The Texas Legislature will convene next January for its biennial 140-day bloodletting.

Teachers are still complaining about the current form of standardized tests they must give to their students. Parents gripe about them, too. I’m betting students — particularly those who don’t test well — also are complaining.

You’ll recall that three decades ago, a fiery Dallas billionaire named H. Ross Perot led a blue-ribbon commission to reform the Texas public school system. He’d bitched out loud about how Texas was more interested in developing blue-chip athletes than in developing blue-chip academic scholars. Then-Gov. Mark White called him out and challenged him to come up with a method to improve Texas students’ academic achievement.

That’s when the Perot Commission came to life.

A special legislative session in 1984 produced a new set of standards that included testing for students.

Few folks liked it then. Few folks like it now.

Why can’t we craft a system that makes more people happier about it than angry about it?

My kids are graduated long ago from Texas’s public school system. They got by just fine dealing with the tests they had to take. Were my wife and I happy about the requirement that they take the tests? Not really. Still, we persevered as a family.

Our sons have done well for themselves in the 20-plus years since they graduated from high school.

Now, though, we have a granddaughter who’ll be entering school soon. We don’t know what her parents have in mind for her education. If it involves public schools, well, she’ll have to pass her tests.

The Texas Legislature comprises 181 individuals who serve in the House of Representatives and the Senate. Surely some of them have a creative idea in their skulls to come up with a testing procedure that doesn’t cause heartburn among teachers, parents and students.

Or …

They can find a committed “civilian” out there to lead another effort to overhaul the public education system that’s been overhauled already.

Unless, of course, these legislators actually like hearing their constituents gripe at them about how teachers have to keep “teaching to the test.”

 

Texas voters need to share in Paxton saga

AP_16102639500954-729x450

Erica Greider, writing a blog for Texas Monthly, takes note of Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton’s growing legal problems.

He shouldn’t stand alone in the alleged culpability, she writes.

Part of the responsibility — perhaps most of it — belongs to the Texans who elected him in 2014 as the state’s top law enforcement officer.

http://www.texasmonthly.com/burka-blog/indictments-texass-attorney-general/

A Collin County grand jury indicted Paxton this past year on several counts of securities fraud. Now, though, the Securities and Exchange Commission — the federal agency that oversees investment transactions — has leveled complaints against the attorney general.

Greider notes correctly that Paxton deserves the presumption of innocence, but she adds: “Even so, for an attorney general to rack up so many indictments with such ease and rapidity is in poor taste and raises troubling questions about his efficacy as manager.”

But none of this was a surprise sprung on Texans after he took office. It had been reported well before the November 2014 election that Paxton was in trouble for allegedly receiving income for investment advice he was giving to friends without reporting it properly to state election officials.

With that, Texans knew they were possibly electing a top legal eagle who himself might be facing some serious legal difficulty.

They elected him. He took office and then — wouldn’t you know it? — the grand jury indicted him and then the SEC weighed in with complaints of its own.

It just seems — to me, at least — that voters ought to be a good bit more discerning when selecting people to high public office.

It’s especially true — again, in my view only — that such discernment ought to be tuned even more finely when those selections involve people we entrust to enforce the state’s laws.

We can do a whole letter better than electing folks who are lugging around this kind of baggage.


 

Bernie turns mean against Hillary

sandersclinton_040116getty

What in the world has gotten into U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders?

The kind old gentleman has turned into a grouchy curmudgeon as he seeks to forestall Hillary Clinton’s march to the Democratic Party presidential nomination.

Sanders lit into Clinton at a Brooklyn, N.Y., rally over the weekend, firing up an already-raucous crowd.

Isn’t this the fellow who said he was “tired of hearing about your damn e-mails” during an earlier Democratic debate with Clinton? Isn’t this the man who pledged to keep his campaign positive?

It ain’t happening these days, I’ll tell you.

He’s teeing off on Clinton’s acceptance of big money from “corporate special interests” which, he says, have corrupted the electoral system. He’s questioning her “judgment” in voting to approve funds for the Iraq War. He’s labeling her a tool of the super PACs that have lined up behind her candidacy.

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/276624-sanders-scathing-clinton-attack-invigorates-brooklyn

I’m sure it gives Sanders a rush to hear all the cheering, whoopin’ and hollerin’ from the crowds that come to hear his message.

It also seems to smack a bit of desperation from someone who needs to win Tuesday’s New York primary if he is going to remain a serious challenger to the Clinton juggernaut.

If he doesn’t win the primary, they might start blinking the “last call” lights on Sanders’ campaign.

I’ll say this about Sanders: He’s managed to dictate the terms of the Democratic primary debate. To that end, he’s scored a sufficient victory already.

This extreme negativity, though, is unbecoming from someone who once sought to stay on the high road.

 

Constitution silent about the nominating game

DENVER - AUGUST 26: Ohio delegate Peggy Tanksley displays her Democratic Party pride during day two of the Democratic National Convention (DNC) at the Pepsi Center August 26, 2008 in Denver, Colorado. U.S. Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) will be officially be nominated as the Democratic candidate for U.S. president on the last day of the four-day convention. (Photo by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)

All this yammering and yapping about the delegate selection process has given the 2016 presidential campaign its unique feel.

Interesting, to say the very least.

So-called Republican frontrunner Donald J. Trump is getting wiped out by Sen. Ted Cruz in these caucus states, resulting in Trump griping about the selection process. He calls it “rigged” against him.

Meanwhile, on the Democratic side, Bernie Sanders is wiping Hillary Rodham Clinton out in those caucuses, but can’t seem to make a serious dent in her delegate lead. She owes her lead at the moment to the “super delegates” who pledged to support her; these are the political heavy hitters who are free to declare their support for whomever they wish.

The U.S. Constitution doesn’t say a single word about the nominating process. This belongs to the parties exclusively. They make their own rules and force the candidates to play by them.

For that matter, the Constitution doesn’t even mention political parties. The founders wrote only in terms of governance.

We need not amend the Constitution to create a political party presidential selection system that everyone must follow.

How about, though, if the party bosses were to huddle along with selected members of their respective brain trusts to hammer out a uniform system that both parties could follow?

Is that so hard?

My first priority would be a way to apportion the delegate selection process for primaries and for caucuses that make sense for every state. Why not dole out the delegates in direct proportion to the votes they get in a primary election? But what the heck, perhaps the parties could follow the framework used in electing a president: Give the winning candidate all the delegates up for grabs in the primary state. If a candidate wins a state in the general election, he or she gets all the Electoral College votes in virtually every instance.

The caucuses also could be made uniform in those states that choose to select delegates in that fashion.

This whining and griping about delegate selection — which seems heightened this year by Trump — need not cloud the issue of the nominating process.

This is the most serious purely partisan political activity that occurs; I must add that it’s serious in spite of the picture of a 2008 Democratic convention delegate that accompanies this blog post. We do this only once every four years.

It seems we ought to be able to make these choices without quibbling and quarreling over whether the system is rigged.

Whinin’ Donald needs to quit griping about delegates

cruz

Donald J. Trump has a trove of nicknames he tosses out at his political foes.

Lyin’ Ted is one. So is Little Marco. Now he’s come up with Crooked Hillary.

Oh, but one of those adversaries, Ted Cruz, may have coined a name for Trump.

Whinin’ Donald.

Sen. Cruz today told Trump to quit his “whining” about the Republican Party’s delegate selection process leading up to the GOP presidential convention in Cleveland this summer.

Trump is griping about the process, calling it a “sham” and a “disgrace.” He says the game is rigged against him.

Actually, it’s not. It’s the way the RNC has set up the selection process. It allows candidates to persuade delegates to join their team. Trump’s campaign staff apparently hasn’t gotten the word on how the process works. They’re being outhustled by the Cruz Missile’s team.

Trump doesn’t like it.

RNC Chairman Reince Priebus says he isn’t changing anything. The rules are the rules, he said. Trump has to work within those rules, the chairman added.

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/276595-rnc-chief-no-changes-to-delegate-requirement-likely

Priebus said the RNC will continue to insist that one of the candidates for president must have a majority of delegates pledged to capture the party’s presidential nomination. Trump suddenly is looking vulnerable in the hunt for delegates and he is arguing now that a plurality ought to be good enough.

No can do, Priebus said.

Trump now has turned to whining about the process.

This GOP campaign gets more fun as each day passes.

 

 

 

Hoping to hear more from Jack

AAEAAQAAAAAAAAU-AAAAJDYzOWJiZTc2LTY3NjYtNDE1MC1iMjFhLTk5MTEzYmFhMmE0Zg

Have you ever met someone who loves to tell stories about the old days?

And have you ever heard that someone tell those stories in an way that enthralls the listener?

I’ve met such a man. His name is Jack. I don’t know his last name. He’s 82 years of age. He lives in the town where he was born, raised and where he came of age.

It’s in Dripping Springs, Texas.

We met with Jack this morning at a popular diner on Dripping Springs’ main drag: U.S. Highway 290; there’s a sign on the wall next to the kitchen that says, “Dripping Springs: Just west of weird,” meaning, I presume, Austin.

We had breakfast, but Jack just strolled in on one of his several regular coffee stops before going to church. He’d already been to the Whataburger and was headed to Subway after downing his coffee at the diner.

We had met Jack once before. He’s a friend of my wife’s brother. My wife and I were camped at an RV park in Johnson City, just a bit west of Dripping Springs. Jack and my brother-in-law came over that day.

What’s so appealing about Jack?

Frankly, I can’t quite describe it.

Dripping Springs ain’t exactly Austin or San Antonio. The sign entering the town lists its population at 1,788 individuals. My guess is that it’s larger than that now. Construction crews are leveling property all over town, laying utility lines down in preparation for more home and business construction.

One of these days — probably quite soon — Dripping Springs is going to be much larger than it is today.

Jack’s head must be spinning.

He told us this morning about a bison that got loose and was roaming through the town in the old days; he talked about how cattle walked and grazed through the town. “No one cared,” Jack said.

He talked about how his parents were able to provide for young Jack with so very little in the way of what we could call “modern conveniences.”

There is just something remarkably unassuming and so durn “down home” about ol’ Jack. He speaks with that classic Texas twang.

He’s a delightful gentleman who just seems to love regaling “young folks” like my wife, brother-in-law and me with tales of how it used to be in a place that to my eyes doesn’t look too terribly removed from how it was.

I am certain Jack sees it through an entirely different prism.

I’m hoping to get back to the Hill Country soon and perhaps listen to more tales of days gone by from Jack. He has me spellbound.

 

Retirement is looking even more attractive

whyretire

This is the latest in a series of blog posts commenting on upcoming retirement.

DRIPPING SPRINGS, Texas — We’re about to head back home after a quick-turnaround, action-packed weekend in the Hill Country of Texas.

The late Lyndon Johnson loved this part of the planet. We’ve been here many times during our more three decades living in Texas; so, we get what attracted ol’ Lyndon and his beloved Lady Bird to the Hill Country of Central Texas.

We visited family here and the question came to us several times: Oh, did you bring your travel trailer with you?

Um, no. Too quick, too brief for that.

I’m finding myself longing more and more for the ability to haul the fifth wheel RV behind our Dodge Ram pickup, which we’ve nicknamed Big Jake.

Sure, we do it whenever we can. The only problem for my wife and me — and this will change, eventually — is that we don’t do so often enough.

We’re about to take the RV out for a trip south to Carlsbad, N.M., where we’ll tour the caverns national park in southern New Mexico. Time permitting, we’ll go to Guadalupe Mountains National Park just over the state line in far West Texas.

Then we’ll head west to Casa Grande, Ariz., where we’ll visit my aunt and uncle for a couple of days.

After that it’s home. Again.

We find ourselves parking our RV and then longing more fervently for the next time we can haul her out onto the open road.

I’m telling you, the pull of full-time retirement is getting stronger each time out.

One of these days, maybe sooner than we expect, we’ll surrender to its allure.

 

Could they live in today’s world?

house

DRIPPING SPRINGS, Texas — The house pictured here belonged to Joseph and Sara Pounders, the couple who founded the community of Dripping Springs.

They built the place in 1854. Joseph Pounders practiced medicine here. He got to know the Comanches who lived in the area. According to the fellow who walked us through the place, Dr. Pounders “had no trouble with the Indians once they found out he was a medicine man.”

They had a smoke house. A sistern sat outside the walls of the place to catch rain water. Mrs. Pounders had a tub where she bathed once each week, yes, whether she needed it or not. Dr. Pounders had a place by the fence in the back where he bathed.

They moved their outhouse from place to place once the pit they dug under it filled with … well, you know.

It was a primitive life to be sure.

The question always enters my mind when I see visit like this: Could I ever live under these conditions? The answer is obvious. No! Not just no … but hell no!

I am not ashamed to admit such a thing.

My lack of shame comes from my belief that Dr. and Mrs. Pounders — or any of the settlers who forged the country we know today — could live in our world.

 

 

GOP erects fortress of obstruction

garland

Merrick Garland should be confirmed by the U.S. Senate to take a seat on the Supreme Court.

Why? He’s qualified in the extreme. He is a model of judicial restraint. Garland is held in high regard by his peers and even by politicians of both parties.

So, what’s the trouble?

He happens to have been nominated by a Democratic president in his final full year in office. Senate Republicans, the folks in charge of the body who must confirm these nominees, say that Barack Obama doesn’t deserve to name the next justice.

And why is that? Well, it’s because the next nominee is going to succeed a conservative judicial titan on the court. Antonin Scalia went hunting in West Texas and then died suddenly earlier this year.

The Supreme Court’s balance has been narrowly conservative. Scalia’s death occurring during the presidency of a progressive politician means that the politician — Barack Obama — should get to select the next person to serve on the nation’s highest court.

But, no-o-o-o-o, say Republicans. He can’t do that.

The nomination must wait for the election to occur and for the next president to take office, say Republicans. Their hope, as if it’s not clear, is that one of the Republicans running for the White House will win the election.

Garland has launched what some are calling a “charm offensive” against some targeted Republican senators.

It hasn’t worked. The GOP lawmakers thought to be vulnerable to Garland’s judicial brilliance aren’t budging. They’re standing by their own man, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, who has said — laughingly, in my view — that “the people deserve to have a voice” in choosing the next Supreme Court justice.

It’s a crock of horse manure. The people’s voice was heard in November 2012 when voters re-elected Barack Obama as president.

Oh, but wait! Didn’t the people speak in 2014 when they voted to hand control of the Senate over to the GOP? Sure they did.

However, as one who believes in presidential prerogative, I also am of a mind to place greater value on the votes collected by the one individual who is elected head of government and head of state than on the votes earned collectively by the legislative branch of government.

Garland’s charm offensive likely won’t — by itself — change enough minds to earn him a confirmation hearing before Barack Obama leaves office.

However, it very well could awaken the people once again this election, who in turn might seek to have their “voices heard” when they toss aside the Senate Republican majority while electing a Democrat to assume the presidency.

Obstruction can be difficult to disguise.

 

Lady Bird had the right idea

flowers

DRIPPING SPRINGS, Texas — Lady Bird Johnson well might have been the most intuitive first lady ever to grace the White House.

The picture accompanying this blog post illustrates my point.

The picture is of a small meadow just down the road and around the corner from my brother-in-law’s home in this tiny burg near Austin.

The flowers brightened our day as we drove to his house after a lengthy drive from Amarillo.

Lady Bird became first lady in November 1963 under the most dire of circumstances. Her husband’s predecessor as president, John F. Kennedy, had been murdered in Dallas. The nation, indeed the world, was in shock. We were grieving deeply.

That was the context the Johnsons inherited when Lyndon Johnson became president and “Bird” became first lady.

Understand this: I have no earthly idea whether Lady Bird was reacting to our national tragedy when she came up with the beautification initiative. First ladies have “themes” they promote while they live in the White House. Mrs. Johnson chose to make beautification her signature effort.

She embarked on a campaign to promote wildflower planting along public rights of way throughout the nation. Texas, of course, became a sort of “ground zero” for that effort. And why not? She and Lyndon were native Texans, so she might have felt obligated to gussy up her home state.

I’m happy to report that in the Spring of 2016, Lady Bird Johnson’s flower-planting initiative has taken root.

The flowers in this picture are wildflowers. Of that I’m quite sure.

So, too, are the bluebonnets and the Indian paint brush we saw spread for miles along Texas 71 between Llano and the outskirts of Austin. I regret I didn’t take pictures of them; you’ll just have to take my word for it. They’re gorgeous.

With that, I want to bow in honor of Lady Bird Johnson. She helped lift the nation — whether she intended to or not — from its deepest despair.