Here is my response to the aforementioned post, containing an article in a local high school’s newspaper about cutting weight in wrestling:

While RRRR did bring attention to an issue with some wrestlers, I’d like to bring some balance to the discussion.

First, some wrestlers do choose to “cut weight,” but a majority, at least on the Capo team, do not, and they eat perfectly healthy. 32 out of Capo’s 42 wrestlers don’t have to lose a single pound. Most of our upper weight wrestlers are undersized, so I actually tell them to gain weight, not by eating everything in sight, but by lifting hard and eating healthy. For some of the 10 left, simply eating healthy and working out hard does the trick.

Secondly, for those that do lose weight, realize there is a healthy, productive way to do it, and an unproductive way. I tell the athletes to work out more, not eat less. In addition, the high protein/vegetable/fruit/nuts/fats, few-grains diet that RRR mentioned in the article is a lifestyle that many competitive athletes even outside of wrestling have adopted because they have found it helps them compete at a more elite level of fitness. The basic idea is that processed grains, which tend to be high glycemic, unduly raise the body’s insulin levels and thus contribute to lower quality of performance. The aforementioned foods keep the body’s insulin levels more stable and body fat at manageable levels.

Not only does that lifestyle help athletic performance; it also helps athletes avoid many of the pitfalls of the typical American diet, which has led to record high levels of obesity and other diseases in this country.

Some, admittedly, still choose to cut corners. It is a problem. Anywhere you have competition, some will go to extremes, and though the particulars may be different, it is like this in every sport. Most wrestlers, like many young people and even adults, often don’t see the problem until they actually get in a match, and their performance suffers. Then they “get it.”

Third, there were some things that RRR presented as problematic that actually are common outside of wrestling and are perfectly ok. Many serious Crossfitters and other athletes, for instance, measure their food. This is normal. Likewise with practicing, lifting, then running for “an hour.” One of my assistants, who competes in MMA, jumps rope for an hour, boxes for two hours, spars in jiu jitsu, wrestles in our freshman practice, then wrestles in the varsity practice…and he does all this just about every day, not because he has to make weight, but because he’s in shape.

These habits can become unhealthy, especially when combined with an obsession with weight and appearance. That needs to be showcased. However, those sorts of habits are not shocking or automatically strange. It’s what fit people do!

Fourth, realize that wrestling is not alone when it comes to athletes cutting corners and doing foolish things about their weight. How many sports deal with steroid abuse? Quite a few, and although discussions about those issues sometimes come up and those issues need to be dealt with, they never overshadow the many benefits that athletes in those sports get by competing. It should be the same with wrestling.

There are so many benefits to wrestling that many who are outside the wrestling community easily miss. For one, wrestling skills easily transfer over to other sports. There is a reason why wrestlers make great MMA fighters, Crossfitters, football players, and the like.

Next, the habits forged in the wrestling room and on the mat stick with the wrestlers their whole lives, and that is good. Due to their participation in the sport, they develop the discipline, confidence, and self-knowledge it takes to succeed in anything outside of the mat. Once a wrestler has mastered his own body and mind, the rest of life becomes mere details.

Perhaps the greatest gift wrestling gives is mental toughness! Look at men who have spent their lives wrestling; what you’ll see is a depth of soul, character, and mental toughness that , while it is found in other places, is a rare thing indeed. So much of the success I’ve had in my own life can be attributed to my years on the mat!

There are even benefits for athletes when it comes to managing their weight. Through the process, they master themselves. What’s more, they know how to eat healthy. They know how to stay in shape. They have the self-discipline to avoid all the junk food out there. Along with this comes an incredible amount of confidence.

In conclusion, I applaud RRR for tackling a controversial topic that needs to be discussed. However, there is still every reason in the world to wrestle, even given the existence of weight classes. The way I look at it, while cutting weight should be avoided, managing weight is not a wholly bad thing.

Overwhelmingly negative.  They usually bring up one of two things.  Either a) wrestlers roll around with other guys and touch their butts, or b) “aren’t you the guys who run around school in garbage bags, spitting in cups?”

Regardless of the respect that is actually due the sport, you usually won’t get much of it from an outsider.  Wrestling is widely misunderstood by those who have never directly experienced its discipline.

This week, the school newspaper at the school at which I coach published a negative article about wrestling, focusing on weight cutting, titled “Wrestling Unhealthy Habits.”  While she did bring up a problem in the sport, she got some facts wrong and missed another way of looking at it.

I’m going to quote her article here (editing out parts that would ID certain individuals), and then I will post my response in the next post:

_________________________________________

Imagine weighing your food prior to each meal.  Imagine practicing every day, then lifting weights, and after all of this physical exertion, running for an hour in order to make your weigh-in.  Some of the wrestling boys strictly follow this routine in order to compete.

At the beginning of the school year, each of the boys on the wrestling team choose what they think would be a manageable weight class.  Once they choose this weight, they have to maintain it throughout the season.  There are fourteen weight classes that the boys are allowed to choose from, ranging from 106 to 220 lbs.  These weight classes are made by the National Federation of State High School Associations, a system that creates the rules for most high school sports.  In this system, each weight class may only be occupied by one boy per team.

Wrestler XXXX considers his natural weight to be yyy.  At the beginning of the season he chose the zzz weight class, fourteen pounds below his starting weight, knowing that he’d be able to maintain this weight from previous wrestling years, but also knowing that this weight wasn’t innate.

“I’m never going to weigh zzz naturally,” XXXX said.

When XXXX needs to lose weight, he’ll go on runs.  The amount of time that he runs for depends on the amount of weight he needs to lose.

According to XXXX, when the wrestlers need to maintain their weight they consume fish and chicken, two lean proteins, and veggies and fruit as sides.  Carbs are virtually nonexistent in a wrestler’s diet.  “The food’s not very good taste-wise,” XXXX said.

XXXX explained that in order to make their weigh-in, the wrestlers hardly drink or eat anything the day before their match.

“My first tournament this year I weighed zzz lbs.  an hour before the match.  That night and the following day I just ate.  That next day I weighed twelve pounds heavier,” XXXX said.

While Coach Bordner discourages these, “yo-yo diets,” at times the wrestlers find themselves adhering to these unhealthy habits.  Sometimes a wrestler of a lower weight class will challenge a teammate of a higher weight class in order to  move up a weight class.  While the implications are good for the teammate moving up a weight class, allowing the wrestler to gain weight, they aren’t too healthy for the teammate moving down one, forcing the wrestler to lose weight.

Wrestler AAAA experienced this.  He originally competed in the bbb weight class, but after a challenge had to drop down to ccc, ten pounds lighter, which was a difficult weight to maintain given that he considers his natural weight to be twenty five pounds heavier.  In order to lose weight, he has cut out all bread, potatoes, rice, and mainly munches on proteins, fruits, and veggies, much like his teammate above.

On Friday Jan 6, he weighed bbb lbs.  In order to compete in the match the following Tuesday he had to drop ten pounds.  That’s about two pounds per day.  In order to reach this weight AAAA weighed himself about five times a day.  He finds himself visiting the scale frequently in order to monitor his weight and weigh his food.

Wrestlers’ diets can come with consequences.

One day in December while trying to lose weight for a competition and not drinking enough water, AAAA stood upo too quickly, and as a result fainted.  While he wasn’t bruised or externally hurt, his fainting probably resulted from a detrimental diet and rigorous excercise schedule.

“(Eating less) makes it harder to stay awake in class, but I had a problem with that before,” AAAA said.  He also noted that he gets angrier than he used to.

Wrestler DDDD, has used binge eating as a last resort to losing weight in his years of wrestling.  As a sophomore, he wrestled in the vvv weight class.  This year, he competes two weight classes lower.  Throughout his yeasr in wrestling he has struggled with gaining weight immediately after a match and then having to lose it in order to  make his weigh in a few days later.

“I’ve struggled with after weigh-in binge eating.  When I’m six to nine pounds overweight the day after a match you have to starve yourself or run it out,” he said.

Although he knows that eating five small meals throughout the day is ideal, when he has to lose this weight ina  day or two it’s not realistic.

“It’s been accepted by wrestling society that you have to lose weight in order to get results,” VVVV said.

UUUU considers himself to be a healthy wrestler.

“Basically I just don’t eat anything artificial.  I eat natural foods and watch my sugar intake, but I don’t feel like I’m restricting myself,” UUUU said.

UUUU firmly believes his disciplined eating will help him with the rest of his life; he does however, admit that he sometimes feels pressured to lose weight and perform well.

“It’s all about controlling your food intake and for the most part I’m happy, but sometimes I do feel pressure from my parents to lose weight,” UUUU said.

The wrestling lifestyle can become unhealthy when circumstances demand that competitors maintain unnaturally low body weights.  While Coach Bordner stresses healthy dieting and discusses nutrition frequently, he ultimately can’t alter the competitive system set up by the NFHS that has so many wrestlers striving to maintain unrealistic weights.  A dire consequence of this system can result when wrestlers believe that this way of eating is quotidian.

You’ve probably guessed that I wasn’t amused.  I get that in the comic genre, we give writers some leeway when it comes to caricaturing and the like.  However, this comic takes it to extremes.  Going through it all would take all night, but let me catalogue some of the reasons why I wasn’t amused by addressing the overall way the comic author advances his ideas, and by examining a few of the ideas themselves:

For starters, notice the way in which it argues that certain ideas are “Christian:” by simply quoting a Bible verse…emphasis on verse.  This is a tell-tale sign that the author started with a pre-conceived notion of who he thinks Jesus was/is, and he cherry-picked some verses to fit that pre-conceived notion.

With this way of reasoning, you can make any piece of communication say anything you want.  That is not a mark against whatever text you are using; it’s a mark against you.  Were I to use the same methods of this author, I could make Barak Obama sound like Sarah Palin.

With these sorts of methods, its quite easy to make Jesus sound like he eschewed any and all moral judgment (except the judgment of left wing secularists…that’s legit), thought sexual activity outside of man/woman marriage (including homosexual behavior) is completely fine, held single payer health care to be a moral obligation of any democratic society, thought all religions are equally valid, held any and all war to be automatically immoral on its face, that increasing the size and scope of the state is always the way to go when attempting to usher in utopia (and: utopia was what he was shooting for anyway), and similarly, that communism is the rational form of government to bring about human flourishing.

Lest anyone think I’m singling out left-wing views, the same goes for pet projects of some on the other side too: incredibly easy to make Jesus say that all he wants is “your best life now” and that his number one agenda was/is to make you materially prosperous.  Yeah, it bugs me when its done in Christian circles too.  Point is: I’ve heard it all when it comes to Jesus.  That’s not a fault of Jesus or the Bible, it’s the fault of those who forget that meaning in a text flows from the whole to the parts, and the fault of those who look at Jesus as if looking in a mirror.

So no, just by quoting some verse somewhere and insinuating a conclusion, the author’s work is not done.  I am not impressed.

A simple case of the tail wagging the dog here.  I’ve seen time and time again where those on the left and/or secularists do this in regards to Jesus and their pet views, though its also quite common in Christian circles too.  Usually when this happens, most of what follows is junk.

Where else in do we reason like this?  Answer: nowhere.  There are certain rules of communication that we all take for granted when trying to infer what a piece of text–written or otherwise–means.  Context, genre, et al are all important, and we all automatically utilize those rules when it comes to communication, however, for some reason, those rules fly out the window when otherwise intelligent people address the Bible.

I simply remind PI readers that the Bible is no different than other communication, and you do not get a pass from using the rules of inference when determining its meaning.   It is not made of silly putty.

The point here isn’t that the author is wrong for simply supposing to know what Jesus said/thought, etc.  I do that in my own arguments so it would be hypocritical for me to take him to task for that.  Rather, I object to the method used–starting with a Jesus-of-his-own-understanding, and playing fast and loose with the Bible to justify that Jesus and argue against some folks he doesn’t like.

Of course, this observation alone doesn’t mean the author is wrong.  He could have gotten it right despite his sloppy methods.  You know what they say about broken clocks and blind squirrels.  But: its a red flag, and just by glancing at the comic, I’m on alert.

Armed with that as the background, let’s take a look in detail at one of the rows.

“If any one of you is without sin, let him cast the first stone.”  This is a quote from the famous passage in John where Jesus comes to the defense of a woman caught in adultery.  The Pharisees want to stone her, and use her to try to catch Jesus in His words.  Jesus stops their quest by noting they are all standing in hypocritical judgment of her.

The author of the comic contrasts the supposed non-judgmentalism of Jesus with the intolerant attitude of Christian Republicans, who supposedly “hate fags.”  What idea is the author advancing?

It is this: those that are truly loyal to Jesus would not judge, ie, would not pronounce anything–at least in the area of sexuality–as morally wrong. Why? Because everyone–including those loyal to Jesus–are fallen and sin themselves, and by this they relinquish their footing on which to stand and make moral judgments.

Never mind that in the passage, Jesus tells the woman caught in adultery to “leave (her) life of sin,” and never mind that plenty of times elsewhere in the Bible He makes plenty of moral judgments as to sexuality (and other areas) and commands His followers to do the same.  Therefore, using this one verse to suggest Jesus recommended an attitude of non-judgmentalism (defined as, “you should not say anything in X area is wrong”) towards sex or any other area is quite off.

Jesus actually does say plenty about hypocritical judgment, and judgment that is done with an intent of hatred/lack of compassion towards human persons.  He had strong words about that kind of judgment, but that is a far cry from the suggestion implicitly made in this comic.

Let me put it this way: if I were to slam homosexuals on Facebook with my pet Bible verses, but then I left my computer and went cruising, and I found nothing wrong with my crusing, that would be hypocritical and the kind of contradiction Jesus condemmed.  Likewise if I were to speak against homosexuality as a way of showing my own superiority, without regard to the well-being of those who identify as gay and/or live a homosexual lifestyle. That, too would be condemned by Jesus.

Well, there’s plenty of that to go around in Christian Republican circles, right (think: Ted Haggard)?  Sure, but its there aplenty on the left too, so I don’t know where this would get you.  Seems to be a critique against human nature, sure, but cannot be used to argue against a political view.

The author’s got one thing right: at least when it comes to me, I’m fallen.  Actually, he probably doesn’t know the half of it: I’m much worse than he probably thinks.  So any moral judgments I make are made in the context of my own falenness, not because I want to parade any supposed moral superiority around.  I am simply convinced by the arguments that the views I embrace are true and thus conducive to human flourishing.

Though it is possible I’m mistaken, I argue based on principle and conviction, not any supposed hatred, and there are plenty of Christian Republicans out there who are in the same boat.

Are there those who claim to be Christian who “hate fags”?  Yes.  Are there even Christians who “hate fags,” or who at least have an improper attitude towards gays and lesbians?  Yes.  Are there those who vote Republican who have that attitude?  Yes.  The author of the comic, therefore, should address those groups.  It is completely out of bounds to paint all Christian Republicans (keep in mind the target of the comic, as referred to in the title: the Jesus of the Republicans) with that brush.

This is a problem in addition to the problem earlier mentioned, namely, that the author is just making a plain silly suggestion: that no one should judge at all (at least in the named area) because we’re all fallen.  Such a position is unsustainable.  Afterall, the author himself is fallen, yet has no problem making moral judgments (namely, that guys like me are wrong).  I guess when I, as a Christian Republican, make judgments, I’m intolerant, but when he makes moral judgments, he’s just right?

What’s more, if an action harms people and is not conducive to human well-being, then to pretend its not isn’t tolerant: it’s cowardice.

Perhaps the author could respond by pointing to things that are more commonly held by Republicans.  “You guys are for traditional marriage,” he could say, “you think the only valid marriages are those between one man and one woman.  You are discriminating against gays!  Most of you Christians also think homosexual behavior is wrong.  See!?  You do hate fags!”

This brings up arguments for and against same-sex marriage, and the reasons why many Christians and conservatives hold homosexual behavior–as well as all other sexual behavior outside conjugal marriage (and some inside it!)–to be immoral.  Some reasons are biblically based, some not.  I can’t get into all that here, so I’ll simply refer you to links here and here for those interested.  I do want to venture a few comments that are directly relevant though.  First, notice that the response equates a moral point of view with hatred.  In other words, if you don’t accept homosexuality as a completely legitimate form of sexual expression, you are a homophobe and you hate gays.

Such an assertion is common enough, but think about it for a minute: just because I’m against a certain lifestyle, or hold something to be wrong, etc etc, does that mean I hate those who do it?  Obviously no.  I’m glad my parents didn’t take that attitude in raising me, for one.  They understood that growing up, certain things I did were wrong, harmful to me and others, or both, and they staunchly stood against such things because they loved me, not because they hated me.

Of course, the author could respond by saying that the difference here is that being glbtqia_ _ _ _ is part of “who one is,” ie, biological, or at least part of one’s makeup akin to skin color.  To question the behavior is then to question one’s very being.

This is very controversial and needs to be argued for, not asserted.  I don’t know how the author would proceed himself, but it’s typically asserted based upon feelings or some notion of “s/he just knew.”  If studies are mentioned, usually they are mentioned without regard to a full scope of the literature on the topic, and those who mention the studies take huge liberties with what the studies actually show and prove.

Sexuality is simply more complicated than that, and more to the point, one’s desires are not his destiny, and is does not mean ought.  One thing that separates us from the animals is that we have the capacity to take stock of our inclinations and say no to them, especially when such inclinations are harmful or wrong in themselves….just ask anyone (like me) who has been a part of a 12 step group at one time or another in their lives.  Doesn’t make it easy, but it’s doable.

So, bottom line: I simply don’t buy the assertion that moral objection to a certain lifestyle means we “hate.”  It’s especially laughable to suggest our moral objections mean we use the derogatory slurs referred to in the comic.

The rest of the comic is just as–if not more–confusing.   Are drug and alcohol consumption justified by mere reference to Matthew 15:11?  What can we conclude about Jesus’ attitude towards them from that verse?  I have no idea.

Here’s the worst of it: the author insinuates that Jesus never spoke of abortion.  Correct.  What should we conclude from that?  What follows?  Certainly not that Jesus had nothing agaisnt abortion, certainly not that Jesus thought it was no big deal, certainly not that its ok in and of itself.  That is a clear non-sequitur.  Need I point out that Jesus also never spoke of incest, sex slavery, or rape?

Next row: what should we conclude about war from the mentioned verse?  What was its context?  What was the situation in which Jesus said it, and what issue was He addressing?  What’s more, how does it fit in with other verses in the gospels and the Bible as a whole that pertains to war and the role of government?  Should we be out and out pacifists?

It doesn’t get any better.  What can we conclude from the verse offered about the separation of church and state?  That phrase is a very loaded one anyway with all sorts of ideology that doesn’t come from the consitution, and who knows what it means, but really: I see how the verse applies to giving taxes per se, and to other things that rightly belong to the government in the first place, but therein lies the rub.   Jesus doesn’t really say in that verse what, exactly, belongs to the government.  The verse has nothing to say about limited vs. big government, what amount of taxation will lead to economic flourishing, or about the role of religious motivations in forming public policy.  It doesn’t even say anything about the role of religious arguments (as opposed to motivations…the two are different) in the public square.

The last row is somewhat intelligible.  I see how it is a critique against some televangelists’ practice of using patron donations to make themselves rich.  What makes it confusing is putting it in the context of an attack against Christian Republicans–in other words, making a political point.  Maybe he intends it as an attack against many Republicans’ friendliness towards capitalism, or the notion that we’re fans of the free market, or even as an attack against policies of de-regulation in the free market.  I have no idea.  If so, it’s a strange juxtaposition, and the verse used falls prey to the same critique all the others do.

In sum, 1) if the author wants to attack the attitude of certain groups or individuals who call themselves Christian Republicans, fine, but he should address those particular groups or individuals, not the whole lot of us.  2) If the author wants to attack certain public policies or views held by Christian Republicans, fine, but use actual arguments, not half-hearted eisegesis.  3) If the author wants to argue that the views held by many Christian Republicans are out of step with what Jesus thought and/or what the Bible teaches, fine, but do so with passages that actually pertain to the issues and with arguments that make sense, rather than utilizing random verses and coupling them with insinuations that only confuse rather than clarify.

I’m somewhat contrarian in my outlook on standardized tests, however. I sympathize with some of my colleagues’ concerns and agree with them and the unions that there’s much about the current standardized testing focus that’s broken and in need of fixing. Where I part company with them is that I do not think the focus is the boogeyman we make it out to be. Sure, we should focus on other things, but the bottom line problem with public ed in America is much deeper.

I had a conversation with a fellow teacher after Thanksgiving dinner about our frustrations with public education in America. Predictably, the conversation quickly bent towards standardized tests, and out came the vitriol. I’ve heard the arguments and assertions about the horror of the tests so many times that I almost can recite how conversations like these go before hand with near word-for-word precision. I know all the catch phrases. That doesn’t mean my colleagues’ arguments and assertions are false…it just means they’re predictable. But I digress.

My fellow teacher held that standardized tests are responsible for the ills of American public education. She lamented that things have changed from when she was in school. Kids can no longer critically think, and that is because we “teach to the test” and do not encourage and foster critical thinking skills. In other words, our focus is too narrow—on the score from a multiple choice test that rewards rote learning, and is culturally biased to boot. Furthermore, these tests reinforce the disenfranchisement of minority groups, such as kids with learning disabilities and immigrants, that are already on the margins of our society. A kid that is an immigrant, for instance, might not pass the test—and therebye would not graduate (at least in the case of the exit exam)—not because she is “dumb,” but merely because the test is culturally biased and she does not have the background needed to be able to successfully understand the passages featured in the test.

Her solution to the problem of disenfranchisement and the loss of critical thinking skills was to eliminate the tests entirely in favor of a more “grassroots” method of assessment. She preferred a system where teachers are trusted as professionals who have the freedom to assess their students as they see fit. The current method is “too narrow,” she said. “There are many learning styles. We need assessments that reflect this. Teachers know their students best and should have the freedom to tailor assessments to their own individual classrooms.”

Lastly, why should *one* test score reflect a teacher’s performance so much, when much of what determines a student’s score (such as family life, their nutrition, access to distractions outside the classroom, etc) is out of the teacher’s control? When you are given a classroom of 40 kids where 5 of them have 5 different learning disabilities, 15 of them have horrible home lives, 8 don’t eat breakfast before they get to school, 10 of them have 3 tv’s but zero books in the home, 4 of them are addicted to some kind of substance, you have about 15 distinct learning styles in the classroom, 9 of them are alcoholic, half have some other personal issue that distracts their learning, and the other half are too zonked out on digital media to be able to focus, raising a high stakes test score can be a herculean task.

What is there to say to all that? What follows, I admit, is a very unscientific analysis. I’m not going to cite studies of teacher interviews or analyze data. I merely want to give some comments based on informal observation and limited experience. Hey, I could be wrong, though I think I’m on to something.

I gave a mixed review to her thoughts. On the one hand, there does seem to be too much focus—at least in some instances—on raising the score of one “high stakes” test. I get all that. I also get that there are a multitude of learning modalities, and assessment needs to reflect that. Thirdly, though I don’t have any studies to back this up, experience and testimony from the past tells me that yes, there has been a loss of critical thinking skills in the last 30 years or so, though I’m not quite sure my conversation partners’ era represented the “glory days” she thought it did. And lest I forget, I too am wary of being judged by a score that is heavily influenced by outside factors largely out of my control. To paraphrase C.S Lewis, it’s almost like our society has castrated, but the government still expects the geldings to be fruitful.

Where I begged to differ, though, was on the notion that the “standardized testing craze” is at the center of what’s wrong with public education. Though the testing culture should be tweaked quite a bit, it is an all-too-convenient scapegoat that teachers typically use. There are other things going on more fundamental. Consider the following.

First, I’m not so sure that emphasis on standardized test scores is responsible for the dip in critical thinking. Afterall, standardized tests have been around for quite a while…even if correlation suggested causation, they didn’t pop up suddenly at the same time public ed went down the tubes. We’ve had the SAT/ACT, the GRE, GMAT, the AP test, the bar exam, etc etc etc for a looong time. There is even a series of standardized tests that teachers themselves must pass in order to be able to teach. Though the differing high school exit exams and the state standards tests differ from all those in the degree of rigor, they are all standardized and similar in format. What’s more, for as long as these tests have been around there have been tutoring classes whose sole focus is to prepare their students to get high scores on these tests. In other words, these classes take “teaching to the test” to a different level. Kids spend YEARS taking such classes, and they often are the very definition of “a horse with blinders on” as they study for these tests. They graduate high school with flying colors, go on to success in college, and become bright stars in law, medicine, and politics. In other words, “teaching to these tests” doesn’t seem to dumb them down.

Secondly and similarly, the high stakes tests that my fellow colleagues love to criticize actually *do* test critical thinking…they just set the bar really, really low (the CA high school exit exam, for instance, which is given to students starting their sophomore year of high school, tests skills at about the 8th grade level). If you look at the passages students must read and the questions asked, you’ll see that what is required of students are such things as summarizing, paraphrasing, editing writing, revising writing, analyzing, and synthesizing. These *thinking skills,* afterall, are what the standards are all about, and the tests are tied to the standards. Those things *are* critical thinking skills! This is precisely *why* standardized tests are not the critical-thinking-eliminating-culprit the education preachers claim they are. Perhaps “teaching to the test” does make learning boring. No beef there. Perhaps boring teaching leads to less student engagement, which influences students’ ability to think critically (because they aren’t engaged in the classroom and hence exercising their minds, but instead are tuned out). But there are plenty of things that are and should be central to any classroom—like, oh, reading a book quietly, or writing in a journal—that most public ed students today consider boring, so lets be honest and not make “the test” out to be a villain it’s not.

Third, what about her concerns with disenfranchising certain minority groups? The test is culturally biased, isn’t it? Well, I don’t know. Though she wasn’t able to produce any examples when I asked, it’s not crazy to assume there’s some form of bias to some questions, so let me grant the point for now. The question is, “where do we go with that?” Is the answer to eliminate the test entirely, as she advocated? No. If anything, the solution is to vet the test thoroughly and eliminate as much bias as possible (though eliminating it entirely might be too difficult a task) by tweaking the problematic questions.

As it stands, though, I’m not sure eliminating *all* bias (defined as cultural background that a student must have to answer the question, cultural background that usually those outside the culture do not possess) would even be the best idea. If someone is to get a degree from an institution of *any* culture, there should be a bare minimum amount of cultural knowledge that someone must demonstrate in order for that degree to have any value. This is far from racist or elitist. It should go for those that immigrate to America, as well as those that immigrate from America to other countries. Were I to move to France and enroll in a college there, I’d expect nothing else. French citizens would and should feel insulted if I demanded a degree without taking the time to learn the history, literature, language and idioms of French culture.

That might touch upon immigrants, but what about groups within America, such as inner city youth, that might not be familiar with the language employed in these tests, and might not be familiar with the literature? One teacher blogger, for instance, said,

“Just out of curiosity, I looked up this past January’s Regents ‘Comprehension Examination.’ The topic of the two readings? Advice from a dietitian, and the ecological viability of using straw bales as an alternative building material.

Now, if you don’t think a white kid from the suburbs is about one hundred times more likely to have talked about things like this in his home than the child of a Dominican immigrant in the city, you’re fooling yourself. These tests are racially biased, whether they mean to be or not.”

Really, I don’t know *any* student, suburban or inner city, who would have talked about the ecological viability of using straw bales as an alternative building material in the home. Even if the scales are tipped in the first example, that doesn’t automatically mean racial bias is there. Seems like the blogger is assuming that if something is not a common topic of discussion in a subculture, that a question about that topic is racist. I find no reason to buy that assumption. Seems to me that a better conclusion would be: if nutrition is not a focus of inner-city homes, perhaps it should be.

Realize that the sword cuts both ways here. Sometimes tests feature questions about literature from the Harlem Renaissance, like poems from Langston Hughes. *If* it somehow turns out that suburban white homes aren’t nearly as familiar with the lit from Harlem Renaissance as inner city homes, does that ipso facto become an argument for eliminating the so called “racial bias”? No. If I encounter a test question featuring a passage about the cooking of a popular Puerto Rican meal, I have absolutely no familiarity with that, and neither do many of my white, middle-class students. Even worse for Asian students. I am not therefore going to cry racial bias.

When I did a little reading up on this argument, the examples typically given from the “racial bias” group were things that all schools—suburban and inner city–do and should be teaching their students. For instance, the same teacher above was concerned about a passage on the Appalachian Mountains. Hello? That’s basic U.S geography. If a school district didn’t cover that in grade school, they should be ashamed. My own students were frustrated after a recent benchmark test, because the test had passages from the letters of George Washington and the Stamp Act. “We’ve never covered anything like that” they complained. Even though we didn’t cover those two pieces specifically, *all* public schools cover literature from our country’s founding, just like *all* public schools cover geography and basic nutrition (health class), so there was exposure to that alien way of talking. Their quizzical looks do not mean the questions should have been eliminated…it simply means I should have done a better job when we hit the Rev. War period.

As far as the claim that inner city students are unfamiliar with the vocabulary and language, this simply becomes an argument for teaching students the formal register (academic English), not an argument for eliminating a supposedly “unfair test.” Though there are people out there that would argue this is racist, I have a hard time taking this seriously, for the formal register is a gateway to success in college and beyond. It is not “talking like you’re white.” Many in the black community find such a notion offensive.

Even if I were to recognize these concerns, that would only mean that the “bias” should be eliminated. This does not make a good argument for eliminating standardized testing entirely.

What about learning styles, though? Doesn’t “teaching to the test” force teachers to focus on one rather rare learning style, at the expense of others (verbal, conversational, kinesthetic modalities, for instance)?

Somewhat. However, recognize that in a system where resources are limited and the task is large (namely, educating *everyone* no matter the background), you can’t get everything. In a perfect world, methods of assessment could be tailored to individuals’ needs and personalities. Giving each student a portfolio of several kinds of assessments both formal and informal, along with the professional input a team of educators, would be great.

This method works great on a small scale. Schools and individual teachers do something like this all the time. I use small, individualized, informal and formal assessments that touch upon multiple learning modalities frequently in my classroom, and focusing on raising the standards test scores at the end of the year doesn’t eliminate the use of these kinds of assessments. Instituting a high stakes standardized test from the top down doesn’t mean we do nothing but practice bubble tests all day, though some teachers you talk to might throw out that canard. In fact, constantly assessing with the varied methods I just mentioned is a proven way to raise test scores.

The problem comes when you try to replace the standards test with the portfolio method on a large scale. It is horribly inefficient. Think of the manpower it would require to pull off. All those different tests would need to be accurately assessed from the outside. Self reporting, especially when the stakes are high, would create a huge temptation to fib feedback. The tests would need to be graded by neutral third parties. That would take a lot. The public ed system is already of gargantuan size. It is far from a lean and mean effective educating machine. It is large, over-sized¸ and moribund. Also, to go along with the manpower needed, a massive tax hike would be in order, larger than the most blue blooded Democrat could ever dream of or even put up with. Due to the growing size of entitlement programs, our government is already of Titanic size.

Another disadvantage to this is that it would increase, not decrease, teaching to the test. Whenever the stakes are high, the focus is located where the stakes are. Think about sports. Where are the stakes the highest? The post season. Where does any good coach worth his salt focus his team’s training? Towards the post season. That is where all teams hope to peak.

Take the stakes away, and you take away the focus. If the post season wasn’t where all the glory’s at, no one would give a whit. If the tests *really* didn’t matter, no one would teach to them.

Multiply the assessments but keep the stakes, and all you’ve done is make sure teachers must teach to and prepare those students for multiple tests. There would be more, not less, teaching to the tests. Maybe this wouldn’t be a bad thing. It would definitely step up expectations. It at least *wouldn’t* mean that having “high stakes” is ill informed. There needs to be some form of teacher and student accountability, afterall, and some way to accurately assess where students are at. What it does mean is that such a system wouldn’t eliminate “teaching to the test,” it wouldn’t eliminate students not graduating (since the expectations would be higher), it wouldn’t eliminate cultural bias (the way to take out cultural bias here would be the same way to take out cultural bias with the standardized tests), and, as I mentioned above, it would be incredibly difficult to administer and manage.

If you are the Sec. of Education, the problem you face is: “how can I get an accurate, objective vision of where the students under my charge are at, when I am far removed from the classroom?” Perhaps several informal and formal assessments made by individual teachers, tailored to their individual classrooms, injected with their own individual personalities, would yield good information *for those individual teachers,* but it would be a nightmare to interpret for anyone removed from those individual classrooms. My individual assessments might not even be *that* valuable for the teacher next door.

Think of this analogy: you are the head of a ten teacher PE department. You want to know if the kids under your charge are physically fit. So you tell the teachers in your department to go out, take a look at the kids, and report back what they know. So one teacher has them run the mile. Another has them to situps for one minute. A third has them do situps for three minutes. A fourth has them do a one rep max bench press. A fifth also has them do a one rep max bench press, but his weights and bars all vary and he uses inaccurate scales to determine their weights. Teachers seven and eight don’t do any objective tests, preferring to simply observe during free play time. Nine and ten just report back their hunches. If you were that department head, what would you do with what the teachers reported back to you?

This is roughly analagous to the job the Sec of Ed would have if we implemented my conversation partner’s idea, except even more so. The tests would be as individual and, in many cases, as subjective as the teachers themselves. If you think hedging standardized test data is currently easy, fibbing under this rubric would be exponentially easier.

Administering a test that yields a set of objective data is much more efficient. Efficiency isn’t the sunum bonum, but it needs to be considered when the system is so large. I know that stories of school and teacher cheating are becoming more and more common with these tests, so when I say “hard to fudge” I don’t claim that cheating is impossible or even rare…it’s just a lot more difficult to cheat there than in the “grassroots” system my conversation partner lobbied for.

Perhaps all this is simply an argument for decentralizing education by taking it out of the government’s hands. Localize it. Foster competition. That way, there’d be no standardized test forced from the top down. Individual schools could assess as they saw fit, and given that parents, due to the competition, could always go elsewhere for their child’s education, that would be high stakes accountability enough. There’s the advantage. Disadvantage: it probably would not be free for all.

As for students with disabilities, there should be, and often are, accommodations to assist these students in taking the test.

It’s not that I’m a “fan” of bubble tests…I’m not…it’s just that I’m skeptical of the common arguments I hear in my profession. Like I started out by saying, I tend to be contrarian.

So there’s her arguments and my response to them. There’s more going on under the surface, though. I think all the hub-bub about standardized tests is coming from somewhere else. Now, this is just my hunch. I repeat what I said above: I could be wrong, and since this is a rather unscientific post, I hold my views loosely. But here it is:

We teachers hate any sort of loss of autonomy, and we are leery of any sort of outside accountability, and the standardized tests ultimately represent both for us. Those tests are tests we didn’t make up, given to us by people we don’t know, and our performance on them is likewise assessed by, well, not us. I sensed this going on in the debate about merit pay…no matter what the proposed evaluation is, no matter what the benefits are of those who excel, you will find teachers’ unions and many teachers themselves come out hard against any and all forms of pay that is tied to performance. This is all about control and who ultimately has it.

We love to be the captains of our own individual ships. As soon as someone else comes in from the outside and tests us and our students—in any way—we bristle. We might not put up a huge fight always, and sometimes we keep our misgivings to ourselves, but expect a really hard pushback if there are stakes involved. That’s really where I think all this is coming from.

Like I said, there’s much not to like about, say, the STAR test or the CAHSEE (the CA high school exit exam), but are they really the educational black holes we say they are? We need a scapegoat, and they have become for us an easy way of ignoring more fundamental problems while arguing to maintain—or, to get back—our prized educational autonomy.

What is—or are—the problem(s), really? This post is already quite long, so let me just bring a mention. The problems are many, and what you see in classrooms (as far as lack of interest in education, lack of critical thinking, lack of a moral compass in students, etc) is *most of the time* merely a symptom. Public ed usually reinforces those problems, for sure, but they originate in other places. Breakdown of the family is one primary culprit. The problem is a moral one.

Think back to the picture I painted at the start of this post about the typical problems students bring into a classroom. How many of those feature some sort of brokenness or failure in the home? How many of them would be solved in large part by a stable, loving, and disciplined home life? The questions are rhetorical.

There’s not much time to expound upon this theme, but I will say educators and their union help have a love-hate relationship with this notion. On the one hand, when the topic is low test scores and why they exist, teachers et al make large capital of the breakdown of the family. “It’s not our fault,” we say, “look at what we’re up against. The task is impossible!” But on the other hand, admitting the breakdown of the family gives ground to conservatives (like myself) who argue that the family is more primary than the school. Many educators implicitly—if not explicitly—hold that public education is the savior of society, and many are uneasy with policy that gives parents more control over schools. Witness the political backlash to things like voucher systems, and allowing parents to opt their child out of certain controversial lessons. There is special disdain in public ed circles for parents who have religious objections to having their child go through these lessons. There’s even unease when it comes to parental notification about birth control—including abortion—access and distribution. Many have voted in government policy and voted in politicians that have helped continue the Family’s slouch towards Gomorrah. Admitting the largess of the problems in the institution of the family subtly casts doubt on the notion that public education can do it all. It can’t. Not even close. It’s not the right horse for the job.

In conclusion: “the tests” might be bad, but if we’re really fans of education, we are fighting on the wrong battlefront. The most important battle is elsewhere.

Forgive me if I’m not impressed with his explanation. Given that the debate is supposed to take place tomorrow, and that the event organizers will have an empty chair at the event (in his absence, Craig will deliver a critique of his God Delusion book), seems like an appropriate way to warm up to it.  It’s not like I’ll be able to add anything to the already lengthy conversation–minds much smarter than mine have already said it all–but I can’t resist, so here goes.  I’ll just proceed in point-counter-point style.

Dawkins begins with a bang:

Don’t feel embarrassed if you’ve never heard of William Lane Craig. He parades himself as a philosopher, but none of the professors of philosophy whom I consulted had heard his name either. Perhaps he is a “theologian”. For some years now, Craig has been increasingly importunate in his efforts to cajole, harass or defame me into a debate with him. I have consistently refused, in the spirit, if not the letter, of a famous retort by the then president of the Royal Society: “That would look great on your CV, not so good on mine”.

This is quite a rhetorical backhand. Dawkins has his nose turned way, way up at Craig in this comment. It is typical of him. A close examination of the facts shows it to be flatly false, however.

All fine and good. I simply see no reason to buy that, though. I need an argument, a good one, not just a series of rhetorical jabs and loaded words—which is what he usually offers for this view.

First, before I get to the facts, though, let me address the “theologian” comment. In normal parlance, calling someone a theologian is not an insult, for theology is a body of knowledge and is a discipline of study every bit as legitimate as other academic disciplines. However, when guys like Dawkins says it, it is an insult. To him and his ilk, theology is utterly silly and is such junk that it cannot even come close to being a discipline of study.  In addition, if asking some philosophy professors if they’ve ever heard of WLC before is all he did to investigate who Craig is, he is being seriously negligent in his homework.

On to the main claim: is Craig a small-fry? A look at his credentials weighs in decisively against this. He would have a point if Craig were actually, say, The Pugnacious Irishman. He does not have an obligation to accept any and every challenge that comes his way. If I were to challenge him to a dual to be held at the Kiwanis Club of Cole County, Mo, a refusal would be reasonable. I really am a small-fry.

But in Craig’s case, it is not as if he just runs a puny blog or has just published a few creationist tracts and pamphlets by Tilamook County First Baptist Press. He has not only debated the best contemporary atheism has to offer over the last few decades, but he has published frequently in scholarly publications in a wide variety of topics. He has not only established himself in philosophy, but has shown himself conversant in science, cosmology, and history as well. In other words, he’s the real deal.

Consider just a small sampling of his publications:

• “On Truth Conditions of Tensed Sentence Types.” Synthese 120 (2000): 265-270.
• “The Extent of the Present.” International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 14 (2000): 165-185.
• “Why Is It Now?” Ratio 18 (2000): 115-122.
• “Timelessness, Creation, and God’s Real Relation to the World.” Laval théologique et philosphique 56 (2000): 93-112.
• “Timelessness and Omnitemporality.” Philosophia Christi 2 (2000): 29-33.
• “Omniscience, Tensed Facts, and Divine Eternity.” Faith and Philosophy 17 (2000): 225-241.
• “ Relativity and the ‘Elimination’ of Absolute Time.” In Recent Advances in Relativity Theory. 2 Vols. Vol.1: Formal Interpretations, pp. 47-66. Ed. M. C. Duffy and Mogens Wegener. Palm Harbor, Flor.: Hadronic Press, 2000.
• “Theistic Critiques of Atheism.” In The Cambridge Companion to Atheism, pp. 69-85. Ed. M. Martin. Cambridge Companions to Philosophy. Cambridge University Press, 2007.
• “The Metaphysics of Special Relativity: Three Views.” In Einstein, Relativity, and Absolute Simultaneity, pp. 11-49. Ed. Wm. L. Craig and Quentin Smith. Routledge Studies in Contemporary Philosophy. London: Routledge, 2007.
• “Creation and Divine Action.” In The Routledge Companion to Philosophy of Religion, pp. 318-28. Ed. Chad Meister and Paul Copan. London: Routledge, 2007.
• “Naturalism and Intelligent Design.” In Intelligent Design, pp. 58-71. Ed. R. Stewart. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2007.
• “The Indispensability of Theological Meta-Ethical Foundations for Morality.” In Ethics, Society, and Religion . Ed. K. Clark, Z. Qingxiong, and X. Yie. Christian Academics 5. Shanghai: Guji Press, 2007.

This is all just a partial list from two years of a publications list that spans over 35 years.  It is all a matter of fact. It is all right there in his credentials.

In sum, Dawkins and co. saying it doesn’t make it so…adding sarcasm and such doesn’t help.

Heck, it’s not like I’m worshipping Craig; a debate with any top Christian scholar will do. Alvin Plantinga; J.P Moreland; Stephen Meyer; Darrell Bock; Paul Copan; Paul Moser. The list goes on and on. All these guys and more are widely recognized scholarly authorities in fields in which Dawkins has often commented, and I’m willing to be they’d be willing to have an exchange or two with him.

Dawkins’ fans have been quick to insist that “rigorous Christian scholar” is an oxymoron. That is a load of Tosh. Such a claim only shows that those who say it have shut themselves in a skeptic ghetto and have not substantively engaged with their opposition. Disagree with them if you must, but calling them “country bumpkins” does not inspire confidence on your behalf.

All this makes Dawkins’ words quite strange, for he has gone after much lesser opponents.

In an epitome of bullying presumption, Craig now proposes to place an empty chair on a stage in Oxford next week to symbolise my absence. The idea of cashing in on another’s name by conniving to share a stage with him is hardly new. But what are we to make of this attempt to turn my non-appearance into a self-promotion stunt? In the interests of transparency, I should point out that it isn’t only Oxford that won’t see me on the night Craig proposes to debate me in absentia: you can also see me not appear in Cambridge, Liverpool, Birmingham, Manchester, Edinburgh, Glasgow and, if time allows, Bristol.

Normally I would think such an action to be presumptuous, but in this case, given the circumstances, I think it entirely called for. Recall that Dawkins has been eager to engage much lesser opponents. In addition, keep in mind that Dawkins has not merely rested content with academic study, experimenting in his lab and publishing the results in academia. He has gone public, often, brashly so, practically shouting from the rooftops that God “almost certainly” does not exist, and if He did, at least the biblical God would be guilty of crimes against humanity. He has made a career of doing so.

I have no problem with Dawkins proclaiming so. He–and his skeptic friends–have every right to do so and every right to insist that guys like me are actually, objectively wrong. However, the confidence (dare I say cockiness?) with which he does so should be in direct proportion to his willingness to engage the best the opposition has to offer. This is the main reason why I’m making such a big deal of this refusal. A guy who says the sorts of things he says and is as influential as he is deserves a bit of a ribbing if he refuses to do this. Though he has willingly shared a platform with religious folk, he cannot seriously lay claim to the supposition that he has done so with the best. Like I said above, he has plenty to choose from, though Craig is a game choice right in front of him.

I therefore find his list of other places he won’t be quite off, for there is a big difference between the event in Oxford and those other places. At Oxford tomorrow, he has a chance to put all the talk and questions to rest. He has a chance to put his best against the best of his critics, and to do so in front of an international audience. I doubt those other invitations—if they actually represent real invitations—offer that sort of shot.

It’s as if I, as a high school wrestling coach, make a consistent practice of trash talking our cross-town rivals, and when the opposing coach offers me the chance to put my money where my mouth is by dualing his team on a certain day, I reply with, “Bah. Self-promotion! I decline, just like I decline to wrestle Bathgate Elementary school, Newhart Middle School, and Arborland Montessori.”

But Craig is not just a figure of fun. He has a dark side, and that is putting it kindly. Most churchmen these days wisely disown the horrific genocides ordered by the God of the Old Testament.

What follows this is a lengthy tirade against Craig’s defense of God’s actions regarding the Canaanites, concluding with, “Would you shake hands with a man who could write stuff like that? Would you share a platform with him? I wouldn’t, and I won’t. Even if I were not engaged to be in London on the day in question, I would be proud to leave that chair in Oxford eloquently empty.”

A few observations here. First, when he says “most churchmen” disavow the part of the Bible in question, he exaggerates. There are plenty of “churchmen” and plenty of “scholars” who do no such disavowing. But that’s neither here nor there. The main point is that Dawkins’ response is simply an argument by outrage, which is not very rigorous, and the only ones who find it persuasive are ones who already agree with Dawkins, or those who are easily cowed by people who act offended.

What’s more, if Craig really is an “apologist for genocide,” here’s Dawkins’ chance to put him out to pasture. If he were to debate Craig, that does not amount to an endorsement of Craig’s beliefs, afterall. If Craig really is a fiend, he’s an influential one, and Dawkins has stated many a time that it is his life’s goal to wipe this sort of belief from the earth. This is as good a chance as it gets.  Dawkins would be defending the thesis of one of his best selling books.  Seems like a great opportunity for him.  Why so gun shy?

Thirdly, Dawkins can’t be serious. Afterall, elsewhere he has said:

The total amount of suffering per year in the natural world is beyond all decent contemplation. During the minute that it takes me to compose this sentence, thousands of animals are being eaten alive, many others are running for their lives, whimpering with fear, others are slowly being devoured from within by rasping parasites, thousands of all kinds are dying of starvation, thirst, and disease. It must be so. If there ever is a time of plenty, this very fact will automatically lead to an increase in the population until the natural state of starvation and misery is restored. In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.

(“God’s Utility Function,” Scientific American, November, 1995, p. 85)

(HT: Wintery Knight)

Out of one side of his mouth, he denies the reality of evil and wickedness, but out of the other side of his mouth, he calls Craig’s beliefs wicked. He cannot have it both ways. He is either flatly contradicting his own worldview, borrowing capital when it is convenient, or he is merely expressing a personal dislike with Craig’s beliefs, as if saying “ewwww, broccoli.” In any case, he is not inspiring confidence.

What else can be said about all this? Dawkins and co. are quick to insinuate that Craig seems impressive simply because of his command of rhetoric. Craig “bamboozles his faith-head audience,” is how he puts it.

This is just beyond silly. If you ever watch him debate, you’ll see that Craig’s “debate style” is to stick to logical arguments, with premises backed up by historical and scientific evidence, and said premises lead deductively or inductively to a conclusion. He presses his opponents to either refute or rebut with premises more plausible than the ones he offered. He stays focused on the issue and does not rest content with rhetorical jabs and evasions from his opponents. Again, disagree with the arguments if you must, but don’t call this “bamboozling.”

Many who are outside the faithful (of Dawkins’ camp) are recognizing this for what it is. Richard Dawkins is being exposed.