What does high stakes testing do to children's desire to participate in democratic society?

Since 1996, 47.9% (www.electproject.org) of eligible U.S. voters have participated in presidential and mid-term elections. That is an abysmally low number. We know that voter suppression and the violation of civil rights is a problem historically in the U.S.

Still, there are other factors at work here. Why do young people of all classes in US society, avoid participation in voting?

Why aren't voters under the age of 25 turning out in droves to participate in the electoral process?

There is an x-factor at work here. It has everything to do with how children are educated in the U.S.

What does that say about state and federal legislators capacity to implement legislation that promote the most important part of being a U.S. citizen?

It says that legislators do not listen to educators who understand the affects of standardized testing are not benign to the well-being of children or to society.

What does 16,000 hours of test-centric behavior modification do to a child during their formative years with respect to developing an outlook and attitude for participation in the social arrangement we call democracy?

Robert F. Kennedy once said, "The youth of our nation are the clearest mirror of our performance."

What does that mirror reflect when looking at the way K-12 education prepares children for participation in democratic society?

For the World's most important and most powerful democracy, it's not a pretty reflection:
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/05/21/u-s-voter-turnout-trails-most-developed-countries/

How Does 16000 Hours of Behavior Modification Prepare Children For Participation In A Democratic Society?

Why do young people not vote despite having the eligibility to do so?

I think children deserve more than experiences extrapolated from behavior modification experiments designed by Ivan Pavlov, Edward Thorndike, John Watson and B.F. Skinner.

When the state exerts pressure on educators with evaluations that place a high value on how well children do on standardized tests, teachers will continue teaching to the test and place more pressure on children with classroom experience that mimic test events. 

One of my issues is when administrators believe high stakes testing is a benign process.

Does your administrator wield banal slogans like, "All children can learn," or "We will do what's best for children," while pushing a narrow curriculum driven by Pavlovian behaviorism in order to extract standardized test scores?

Curriculum is a mind altering instrument. You can reinforce and affect children's reactions to participate in high stakes tests with a narrow curriculum structured around radical behaviorism but you will have a difficult time affecting their capacity to think for themselves.

When explaining away low voter-participation rates in states like Indiana where there is opportunity for early voting, simply stating we make it harder for young people to participate in the electoral process doesn't fly. Young people are apathetic about participation in democracy. Why?

You can't prepare young citizens for participation in democratic society in which they are fundamentally outside the decision making processes central to learning experiences they are compelled to participate in. Traditional public education in the U.S. is primarily an exercise in authoritarianism driven by an instructional psychology oriented around radical behaviorism.

Let's be honest here. Parents should ask their school administrators what kind of instructional psychology is used most frequently within their school.

What conception of the human mind can your school administrator provide you with? Does your administrator wield banal slogans like, "All children can learn," or "We will do what's best for children," while pushing a narrow curriculum driven by radical behaviorism in order to extract data-driven standardized test scores from children? If that is the case, I question that administrator's ability to understand there is a difference between high stakes test training and learning experience that is democratic and consensual.

Indiana HB1004: Because Some Teachers Are More Valuable Than Others

I was at the Indiana State Capital today discussing the detrimental affects of taking wages away from the majority of teachers in order to pay to a select few a higher salary.

IN House Bill 1004 directs school superintendents to do exactly that.

Collegiality, partnerships and morale will be compromised when administrators unilaterally offer higher salaries to a select few. Where will this additional compensation come from?

The pockets of the rest of the teaching staff.

HB 1004 will destabilize teacher morale and pit teacher against teacher.

While I was waiting to talk to a legislator today, I overheard Kokomo Representative Michael Karickhoff, a supporter of the bill, tell three of his constituents how good HB1004 would be.

Karickhoff reasoned, "HB1004 will give superintendents the flexibility to hire teachers that are hard to find, for example a chemistry teacher. After all, some teachers are more valuable than others."

This kind of thinking by Republicans at the Indiana General Assembly typifies a mindset that teachers are a dime a dozen.

Karickhoff and his cohorts think a high school chemistry teacher is more valuable than a 3rd grade classroom teacher? A kindergarten teacher? A 5th grade teacher? A music teacher? An middle school English teacher? Any teacher?

Here is the deal. Children are not constructed in homogeneous cohorts. Children are not blank slates.
All teachers contribute mightily to the intellectual development of the community of learners that exist within school settings. To compensate a few at the expense of all is immoral.

Professional educators see this policy initiative as a slap in the face.
Prospective teacher candidates will stay away in droves from the profession further exacerbating the teacher shortage.

Contact your Indiana Legislator today and tell them HB1004 pits teacher against teacher and will only worsen the Indiana teacher shortage : https://iga.in.gov/legislative/2014/legislators/

Interview with a Finnish Foreign Exchange Student

After viewing an art exhibition this evening with my son, we ran into one of his high school friends who just happened to have in tow with her a young visitor from Finland. I found out our visitor is attending a popular suburban high school here in the Midwest. During our discussion the Finnish visitor revealed American high schools “treat their students like 10-year olds.” "You have to ask permission to use the bathroom!" "At my old school we just get up and leave." “Here it's like being in juvenile detention.” In Finland we emphasize creativity and thinking outside the box, and we have no testing like you do here!"

There seems to be much ignorance within the body politic responsible for US education policy regarding learning experience and matters of the mind. Then again, perhaps it’s not ignorance at all. Perhaps there is a reason why our schools look like factories, learning is fragmented outside children’s interests and intellectual development is measured like meat on a butcher’s scale.

Of course the American “bewildered herd” doesn’t know anything except testing and rating schools by test scores. Who is responsible for that drum beat? Mass media? Who is selling that message? 

No mention that over 20% of children in the US over the age of 18 suffer from mental illness. No mention that testing drives curriculum into a year-long radical behaviorist drill exercise for high stakes standardized tests with little time for creative or personal learning experience.

Looking at US juvenile incarceration rates ( http://www.aecf.org/resources/youth-incarceration-in-the-united-states/ ), crime rates, poverty rates, drop out rates…highest in the industrialized world, one can make the inference there is a reasonable causation for these statistics.

US children suffer under structural violence.

Who is responsible for this structure?

Pence and Indiana State Board of Education Power-Grab Seeks To Overturn Authority Voters Entrusted To Glenda Ritz

There is no question. Two bills introduced in committee this week at the Indiana State General Assembly are meant to undo the will of voters.

HB1486 authored by Rep. Jeff Thompson and SB1, authored by Senator Travis Holdman, are all about transferring authority of the Indiana Department of Education to the politically appointed body of the Indiana State Board of Education. These bills are about stripping away an elected officials duties and giving them to political appointees. Remember the Center for Education and Career Innovation?

Governor Pence has pledged 5 million dollars to create a new shadow agency through the State Board of Education to do the work of Superintendent Ritz's agency. We do not need more bureaucracy nor do we need taxpayer dollars spent on school oversight functions the Department of Education is already doing at no cost to Indiana Taxpayers.

Tell your state representatives to oppose HB 1486 and tell your State Senators to oppose SB1.

On High Stakes Testing The 20% Of Children With Mental Illness....

According to the National Institute of Mental Health, twenty percent of children (actually 21%) have a mental illness of one sort or another. 20% is a big number! Illnesses like post traumatic stress syndrome, panic disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, depression, bi-polar disorder and schizophrenia are serious conditions that cause functional impairments and cognitive deficits.

Question: Is it morally acceptable to push children through curricula and assessments centered around data driven instruction and high stakes standardized tests?

I sat through a discussion yesterday at the Indianapolis Marion County public library on standardized testing.

Derek Redelman, one of the discussion participants and a pusher of high stakes standardized testing for the Indianapolis Chamber of Commerce had nothing to say on this issue.

To her credit Dr. Dena Cushenberry Superintendent of Warren Twp. Schools, mentioned we have to be "concerned"and "mindful" but insisted that students would make their parents happy with good test scores.

I had a discussion with Dr. Cushenberry later in the lobby about emergent curriculum as a way of giving children a voice in non-consensual learning experiences that now amount to test prep and she had no idea what I was talking about.

More on this subject soon.

On Warping of Curricula and Immorality of Testing

Here is the trailer to "Standardized."

A dynamic discussion with members of Parent Power, Black and Latino Policy Institute and Education Community Action Team on high stakes standardized testing.