matching tracksuits

fun in threes, sometimes fours

the boy

More Testing

“Isn’t that test in a couple of weeks the state test?” Mrs. G asked this morning.

“No, no,” clarified Mrs. H. “In a couple of weeks it’s the state pilot TDA test. The actual state test won’t be until May.”

“Remember Mrs. J was telling us about the test the state is making our school take and how Mr. F[, the school principal,] was trying to convince the district to count the state test in lieu of the second [district-mandated] test?”

“Oh, yes, I remember that.” The discussion continued along the lines of how frustrating it is to be testing so much but how we can get our kids more prepared for these district- and state-mandated tests.

That three English teachers were having trouble figuring out just how many major, schedule-impacting writing tests there were to be this year says a lot about the testing load the district and state put on teachers and students.

Our district mandates quarterly benchmark tests in English and math through the third quarter, and each of these impact the schedule and learning environment in a major way. Plus, the district requires us to give two major writing tests in preparation for the state writing test. Each of these take half the school day.  So that’s eight days of testing right there — testing days that affect all classes and shorten all periods by approximately half. Naturally, it’s hard to get kids to engage in meaningful learning when they’ve just spent two hours analyzing some awful short story that’s at least 70 years old because the testing companies want to save money (i.e., boost revenue) by using texts that are in the public domain and hence don’t require licensing fees. (We English teachers hear all the time about how important it is to choose texts about things young readers can relate to, and the the  state farms out its test development to a company that completely disregards that.) So the day is in essence a wash. Eight days down the drain — almost two full school weeks.

And that’s just what the district mandates.

It’s bad enough that the district puts middle and high school students through this; it’s also rammed through the elementary schools. The Boy had his district-mandated third-quarter math benchmark test today. It was almost sixty questions. For a fourth grader.

I’ve been saying that eventually, the US has to realize this obsession with testing is doing nothing but harm to our students, and the powers that be eventually have to change this, but I’ve been saying it for nearly twenty years now, and instead of getting better, it’s getting worse.

What’s worse is, I don’t know of a single teacher that takes these benchmarks all that seriously. “They’re designed to show for which topics students need remediation,” the six-figure-salaried district big-shots explain to us. If as a teacher who’s now spent nearly 150 days working with these kids I can’t tell you off the top of my head who needs remediation with what topic, I probably am not putting enough thought into my teaching.

What’s frustrating is, I don’t know of a single classroom teacher that had any input into the discussion about whether these obsessive, intrusive tests would have any value to the teacher at all.  These decisions were made by individuals making two to three times what teachers make while spending absolutely no time in the classroom. They haven’t been in a classroom for over a decade at best, I’d venture.

I sometimes wonder what would happen if a whole school — everyone from administrators on down — simply refused to spend the time administering these tests. Everyone. Simple refusal. “We’ve decided as a school that this is not the best way to spend our students’ time.” What if some schools did it? What if all schools did it? What if teachers were vocal about their opposition to all this testing (well, they are, to be honest)?

I imagine what I’d do if I were a student. All the students of course hate these tests. They’re completely meaningless to them. I think I’d be tempted just to choose random answers and apologize to my teacher if it ended up making him look bad in the eyes of the powers that be.

Random Pictures from the Walk I Took during the Boy's Soccer Practice

Early Spring Saturday

We started out with back-to-back games with the Boy. They won the first game 2-0 (I think -- maybe it was only 1), but lost the second game 1-2. They scored first, but on the very next possession, the opposing team equalized. They scored one more in the second half to pull ahead. We had one shot that hit the goal uprights but didn't go in, and we had about 4 more close shots on goal, but none of them went in.

In the afternoon, it was yardwork.

Putting Him to Bed

“Will you come check on me?”

For a few years now, that’s been one of the last things E has said to me or K. We put him in bed; we snuggle with him; we grow sleepy; we realize we can’t fall asleep; we get up and leave. He hears us.

“Will you come check on me?”

Gradually, it’s become a little different: “Will someone come check on me?”

The answer has gradually changed, too.

“Sure.” And then we wait for a while, doing something in the kitchen or reading at the dining room table. “Will someone come and check on me?” comes a voice from upstairs.

Eventually, “sure” because “probably.” The response initially is, “No, I need you to check on me!”

Eventually, he comes to accept that, and usually, someone goes to check on him. Usually. But not always.

“Probably” becomes “maybe.” “Maybe” eventually becomes “I hope so.” And “I hope so” remains for a while with an occasional, “No. I have too much to do tonight.”

This process has taken a couple of years. And now he’s nearly ten years old. And I come to realize that putting him to bed is almost done. For good. It was about this age that L began putting herself to bed, and the Boy already does it occasionally. So the end is near. And so the answers start backing up. “No” disappears, as does “I hope so.” “Probably” appears occasionally, but simple “yes” makes its return. For a while.

Another Conestee Walk

Orlando Day 3: Heading to St. Augustine

Universal Day 2

Universal Day 1

Orlando Arrival

We made it to Orlando about nine hours after we left the house. With three breaks along the way, I consider that pretty good time to go a little over 500 miles.

When the kids saw the pool from our hotel room, they immediately decided that all else had to wait until they had time to swim. Only in Florida — swimming in an outdoor pool in March. When texting with K, she expressed some concern about the temperature, but we assured her that while it’s windy and thus cold out of the water, the pool itself is warm — a heated saltwater pool.

Then the Boy saw the arcade, and the next destination was set — no question about it.

“Daddy, can we please go to the arcade?” What was I to do?

A good way to start our short spring break vacation.

Another Conestee Walk

Hard Sayings and Sunday Conestee Walk

I'm still working my way through Trent Horn's Hard Sayings: A Catholic Approach to Answering Bible Difficulties. I encountered two passages this evening that just left me shaking my head.

The first was about Lot's behavior in Genesis 19:

The two angels arrived at Sodom in the evening, and Lot was sitting in the gateway of the city. When he saw them, he got up to meet them and bowed down with his face to the ground. 2 “My lords,” he said, “please turn aside to your servant’s house. You can wash your feet and spend the night and then go on your way early in the morning.”

“No,” they answered, “we will spend the night in the square.”

But he insisted so strongly that they did go with him and entered his house. He prepared a meal for them, baking bread without yeast, and they ate. 4 Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom—both young and old—surrounded the house. They called to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them.”

Lot went outside to meet them and shut the door behind him and said, “No, my friends. Don’t do this wicked thing. Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them. But don’t do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof.”

“Get out of our way,” they replied. “This fellow came here as a foreigner, and now he wants to play the judge! We’ll treat you worse than them.” They kept bringing pressure on Lot and moved forward to break down the door.

But the men inside reached out and pulled Lot back into the house and shut the door. Then they struck the men who were at the door of the house, young and old, with blindness so that they could not find the door.

How can Lot be considered righteous when he offered his daughters up to be raped?

Ice from last night's freeze

Trent explained it, in part, thusly:

Lot's righteousness is also seen in his hospitality toward strangers, which was a sacred duty in ancient Mesopotamia. In a time when you couldn't go to a department store for clothes or check in at a motel when you needed shelter, the kindness of strangers could mean the difference between life and death. Lot understood that anyone who slept outside in Sodom was in grave danger of being attacked. Therefore, he offered the city's visitor's shelter and wouldn't take no for an answer.

That, I admit, is at least somewhat reasonable. It seems to be the bare minimum as far as morality goes, but it's at least a step in a good direction.

But what about Lot's offer to give the crowd his daughters to be raped? How can that be justified? Surely it can't.

But that doesn't stop Horn from trying. The very next sentence:

Even Lot's misguided decision to offer his daughters to the mob can be seen as an act of hospitality meant to protect the guests dwelling under his roof.

Go back and reread that sentence.

It's unlikely you've ever read apologetics so preposterous. It's hard to take this book seriously after reading that.

Yet the second passage that floored me this evening makes it clear that the book is not even meant for me, however seriously (or not) I take it.

Crumbling pot

Horn closes one chapter with a quote from Karl Keating:

The Bible appears to be full of contradictions only if you approach it in the wrong way. If you think it is supposed to be a listing of theological propositions, you won't make heads or tails of it. If you think it is written in literary forms you're familiar with, you'll go astray in interpreting it. Your only safe bet is to read it with the mind of the Church, which affirms the Bible's inerrancy. If you do that, you'll see that it contains no fundamental contradictions because, being God's word inspired, it's wholly true and can't be anything else.

I have so many issues with this that I don't know where to begin.

Making new friends

First, I take umbrage with the assertion that there are only three options to approaching the Bible:

  1. reading it as "a listing of theological propositions"
  2. reading it assuming "it is written in literary forms you're familiar with"
  3. "read[ing] it with the mind of the Church"

None of these approaches accurately describe how I'm reading it. I'm reading it with the claim that it is the word of a god firmly in my mind and then seeing what kind of god appears in its pages.

What Keating (and by quoting him, Horn) is suggesting is that we first assume that the Bible is the word of the Christian god, read and interpret the Bible as the Catholic church instructs, and that will clear up all our difficulties. I've never seen such an obvious, almost-celebrated example of begging the question in my life.

And it's that notion that makes it clear that I am not the intended audience of this book. This book is not intended to respond to skeptics' concerns; this book is for Catholics who've discovered those skeptics and are starting to have doubts. Thus Horn is leaning heavily on his shared assumptions with his audience. He knows that they, at one point or another, at least gave lip service to the proposition that the Bible is inerrant. He's just calling them back to that notion. He even once admitted that he's not trying to answer these objections but simply to show that there are possible answers out there. Well, sure, there are possible answers out there, but they're not terribly convincing -- unless you're a believer starting to feel pulled under by doubt, then they're a lifeline.