Response to Editorial: "Keeping my fingers crossed..."

In response to my classmate's blog post, found here:

I think that many of the criticisms of the TAKS test are misguided. Standardized testing does have weaknesses, especially the problem of "teaching to the test" which makes teachers feel they are restricted in their methods. However, the issue of "teaching to the test" is, in my opinion, more a reflection of the general inadequacy of our school system than a damaging by-product of standardized testing.

 

The primary purpose of a standardized test is to ensure that the progress and achievement of students is comparable across a range of different schools and districts. The centralized way that our schools are organized (with curriculum and graduation standards set by the state so that a high school diploma earned by a students in different districts are of comparable meaning) necessitates a standardized way to measure academic progress. Standardized tests like the TAKS are designed to measure the progress of students in certain essential academic areas like math and reading, and students with a mastery of those subjects in a grade-level appropriate way should have no problem passing such a test. Minimal “teaching to the test” should be required if students are being equipped with the skills that each grade is supposed to provide them. The problem is that some students don’t have a sufficient mastery of the curriculum to pass the test (i.e., they haven’t learned what they are supposed to have learned in that grade or set of grades). Instead of allowing those students to repeat that grade and acquire those essential skills, teachers are given incentives to ensure that students simply pass the test, and often try to accomplish this by teaching the students tactics for navigating and mastering “the test” rather than what the test is intended to measure. This is where “teaching to the test” becomes an issue, and thus it would not be an issue if students were being properly educated in the areas that the state has deemed essential.

 

So I think, unlike your contention that phasing out the importance of the TAKS test will help teachers and students, eliminating the need to pass the TAKS test in 3^rd, 5^th, and 8^th grades will only hurt students in the long run. If a student cannot pass the TAKS test in those grades it is almost certain that they haven’t gained the proper tools to advance to next grade. Not being prepared to handle the curriculum of the next grade will only leave students at a greater academic disadvantage and place an greater strain on teachers that will have to devote valuable teaching time to remedial skills. Similarly, when you say that teachers should be able to devote more time to college-preparedness, I believe you are missing the fact that the skills tested on TAKS are essential to college success.

 

I agree with you that the idea of having three “tiers” of high school classes will be beneficial for Texas’ education system. Elite students generally have no problem with minimum state graduation requirements and separating low-performing students can help them get more personalized help and reduce the chances that they will “fall through the cracks.”

Editorial: Exonerees deserve better compensation

    Exonerees are currently not compensated enough to adequately cover the consequences to their lives that being unjustly imprisoned has cost them. This is the claim made by the author of the editorial Exonerees deserve better compensation found HERE on the Dallas Morning News website.

            Because this piece is well structured and easy to understand, the intended audience of this editorial seems to be the citizen of Texas who does not know about the Timothy Cole Act. This editorial would also be helpful to those who have reservations about the bill since it offers a good deal of background knowledge to support the author’s claim and the language used has a sense of urgency for people to address the issue and understand the severity of it, arguing the bill “deserves quick approval.”

            The author of this editorial has a high credibility a member of the editorial board of the Dallas Morning News. The reader can tell that the author is informed. His/her piece is well written, succinct, to-the-point and uses a diverse amount of evidence. The author’s argument is weakened, however, by the lack of information provided regarding any oppositional opinions.

            The author provides factual evidence and background information, such as current Texas policies regarding exonerees, as well as anecdotal evidence to support his claim that currently exonerees do not benefit much from the current laws. The author clearly and briefly lays out his/her argument for the Timothy Cole Act to be passed. This bill increases the amount of financial compensation given to Texas exonerees and addresses the issues in a more holistic manner than the current legislation by providing health insurance, tuition payments and the option of annual payments (so that exonerees do not squander their money and end up on the streets).

            I agree with the author of this editorial. Government too often feels they can throw a bunch of money at people in order to solve a problem. Rafael Anchia’s Timothy Cole Act takes into consideration the various levels of trauma experienced by Texas exonerees and allocates the money in a way that is much more helpful in getting these victims back on their feet. Though nothing could ever make up for sending someone to years of jail when they are innocent, this bill should be passed!

Response to jt's texas state stuff

On my fellow classmate's blog, she wrote an article on the "strengths and weaknesses" debate on evolution in Texas public school curriculum. You can find the original article here. This is my response:

While the position may have merits, the way in which the point was argued made it seem weak and bigoted. A short three paragraph blog post initially dismisses intelligent design, and then the bible, and then religion itself. The issue at hand is whether or not the strengths and weaknesses of scientific theory, specifically the theory of evolution, should be taught in Texas public schools. What is not being discussed is whether intelligent design should be taught in schools, which is something your post completely misses. 
Of course evolution should be taught in public schools. Much of modern biology is built on the framework of natural selection and evolution. But there are strengths and weaknesses to the theory and a well reasoned debate about whether or not to include these in school curriculum is not extreme. 
Belittling a legitimate issue facing our state is much less effective than presenting a well reasoned argument for why the strengths and weaknesses of the theory of evolution shouldn't be taught in our schools.

Single-Member Districts

Currently, the seven-member Austin City Council is composed of the Mayor and six Council members. All seven are elected on a citywide basis, meaning that each city voter selects their choice for mayor, Council member 1, Council member 2, Council member 3, etc. This method of selecting our city council creates a body that does not adequately represent the city it presides over. A new electoral system is needed for selecting the Austin city council that provides a more equal representation system better suited for our growing and diverse city.

 

Instituting single-member districts is the best way for Austin to create a more accountable and representative city council. By dividing the city into several smaller districts from which one councilperson is elected, the council would be better able to represent areas and neighborhoods that now feel excluded. Under the current system, as mentioned in an April 10, 2009 Austin American-Statesman article entitled Council to discuss single-member districts Monday, city council elections are now disproportionately affected by central Austin voters who historically have higher turnout. Creating single-member districts or a hybrid system incorporating single-member districts into the current at-large framework would create a council more in-tune with all Austin residents, not just those in central Austin.

 

Some proponents of the current city council election framework may point to the disproportionately high voter turnout in central Austin and argue that it is evidence that central Austin residents are simply more knowledgeable about city issues and care more about city politics. Thus, the current system is very representative because it caters to those residents who actually care about city issues. This argument, however, avoids the possibility that voters outside of central Austin vote less because they aren’t presented with candidates that they feel represent their interests. Creating a system that includes single-member districts would allow the diverse neighborhoods of Austin to select candidates from their own communities that represents their interests. Today’s city council is not accountable to the voters in this way since it is selected in large part by a portion of the city and not the city as a whole.

 

Single-member districts have been rejected by Austin voters six times. If city council elections are an indicator, the voters in those elections were probably central Austinites. The city is growing and diversifying at a rapid pace may finally be ready to transition into a city council system that incorporates single-member districts or adopts them exclusively. Doing so would create a council that is more sensitive to the wide range of community opinions and may ultimately result in a city that is stronger and better equipped to manage Austin’s future.

Other article used: Council votes to oppose bill on single-member districts

The Mueller Development of Austin

         A recent developer wrote an editorial in the Austin American Statesman entitled “Wendler: Was the Mueller project a mistake,” in which he argues that the way in which the city recently handled the development in east Austin of the Mueller neighborhood at the site of Austin’s old airport was a poor decision for the city of Austin that will bring in no money. Jim Walker responds in an editorial that presents a counter argument that I personally, as an East Austinite who lives minutes away from the development, support. His editorial can be found here. It is directed at Wendler and those who read the initial editorial as well as other citizens of Austin, especially taxpayers. 

         Walker himself is an Austin citizen and a taxpayer who supports what his city is doing. His credibility as an author is increased by the apparent knowledge he displays through his writing and understanding of the Mueller development. His occupation is not cited and this detracts from his credibility, especially since his editorial is a rebuttal of a developer and a former Planning Commission member.

         Walker lays out his argument as though it is an academic paper. He claims that the Mueller project was not a mistake. The city chose to make a long-term investment by giving the land to the developer for free and having the developer pay for park, utilities, roads, etc. Walker acknowledges Wendler’s idea that this move obviously did not bring in the amount of money to the city of Austin  as it could have if they sold the land to the developer. He goes on to claim that this was not stupidity nor a fantastical dream of the city of Austin leading to nowhere,  instead it was an ambitious vision for the city that encapsulates Austin’s own personality.

         Walker cites the Statesman story he is responding to in the beginning of his editorial. Other types of evidence Walker incorporates into his piece include numbers, such as the reference to Mueller as a “700 acre city-wide asset,” quotations, as well as knowledge of community organizations/groups that are involved in the project and nation-wide information. For example, he shares that even though two-thirds of the Mueller development is not yet complete, it has received awards nationally and other recognition. He names lists of actual places that are linked together and benefit because of the nature of this development such as The Dell Children’s Hospital, Austin Film Studios, and UT academic health facilities. He also lists entities that the project helps, such as Austin ISD, Travis County and even ACC!

         As I mentioned previously, the logic used by walker to support his argument is professional and academic in style. His piece works up to his ultimate conclusion that the city of Austin will be debt free and have billions of dollars of taxable land in the future. What captivated my attention, is the emotional appeal to Austin citizens that he initially incorporates into his editorial. He claims that the city of Austin’s decision to develop the Mueller area in this way is an example of the “spirits of Austinites working together,” because it plans for future gain while holistically sustaining meeting community goals.

Should we stop teenagers from tanning?

Legislature tries to draw tan line for teenagers

State lawmaker is right to seek more restrictions on use of tanning salons by teens. 

- Editorial from 3/23 (statesman.com)

            Because this editorial is from the Austin American Statesman, citizens of Texas and specifically Austin residents are the author’s intended audience. The author assumes that the reader knows little about the subject, which he makes clear through his explanatory language and his use of evidence to give background information/support to his argument.

            The author uses several outside sources and scholarly studies to support his argument, such as the San Diego State University study in 2006 on the large amounts of tanning salons in the Austin area. This gives him a higher level of credibility. He also incorporates a counter argument into his piece and then explains why he is not in favor of it.

            The tone used in this article diminishes the credibility of the author. He dismisses the benefits that people feel they gain from having the freedom to use tanning salons under the age of 18. As a newspaper editor, the author seems to have never used a tanning salon. The writing hints at arrogance and seems to incredulously imply the message: Why would people even do this?

            The author is in favor of passing a bill that would prohibit youth under the age of 18 to use tanning salons without a doctor’s note and a parent present. Evidence used to persuade the reader include research studies, quotes from politicians and relevant individuals/groups, such as the doctor from The Dermatological Society. The author implicitly reveals that their claim/argument is more than passive support for the bill, but he or she feels that tanning is an unnecessary activity that has become too common in our society and that there are far too many tanning salons, as evidenced by the studies showing tanning beds outnumber McDonalds restaurants and Starbucks coffee shops. He backs these personal opinions with the logic that exposure to ultraviolet rays in tanning salons can be harmful and create a risk of cancer or melanoma in order to defend his argument.

            I agree with the author that teenagers should not be carelessly engaging in activities, such as frequenting tanning salons, that can cause devastating, unhealthy, long-term damage to their bodies. 

Sobriety Checkpoints Proposed Again

Republican State Senator John Carona has proposed a bill that will legalize sobriety checkpoints in Texas. In 1990, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled checkpoints constitutional, but in 1994 the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals ruled them illegal in Texas until the Legislature passed a law giving clear police guidelines at these checkpoints. Supporters of the bill, which include victims of drunk driving accidents, argue that it would make Texas safer because of the high number of deaths and injuries that are caused by drunk driving every year in Texas. The Statesman has the story here.

 

         “ ‘1,292 killed and about 30,000 injured last year in Texas traffic wrecks where alcohol use was a factor,’ Corona said.”

 

            Opponents of the bill point to the violations of civil liberties Texans would face if checkpoints were implemented.

            This article is important for people to read because it deals with a fundamental issue of government. How far can the government go to protect the public without violating the rights of its citizens? The issue of sobriety checkpoints is especially fascinating because drunk driving causes hundreds of deaths in Texas every year. Since checkpoint legislation has been proposed several times since 1994 and has yet to pass, the Texas legislature has till now favored the liberties of its citizens over the safety of the public in this area. The outcome of this years bill will be an indicator of government attitudes to the issue presently and how they may have changed over the last 15 years.