In her recent blog post titled "Standardized Testing Today," Katherine Vasicek points out some major flaws in the standardized testing system we use in Texas schools. Specifically, Katherine attacks the STAAR (State of Texas Assessments of Academic Readiness) exam, which is the current standardized test that the state gives to all students to make sure they are learning all the skills they need.
One major problem with standardized tests, as Katherine points out, is that they are expensive. Not only do they cost a lot of money, but they don't produce a profit, and they don't increase students' knowledge. In other words, they are a waste of money. I agree with Katherine, and I would add that these standardized tests show that our state is not focused on the real issue, which is that we provide our kids with one of the worst educations in the nation. Instead of spending our money on checking the progress of our failing education system, we should go ahead and spend the money on the education itself. What we're doing now makes as much sense as a football team paying for a really nice scoreboard instead of a good coach that would give them a satisfactory score to put on their scoreboard.
Katherine also mentions that these tests put a lot of pressure on students and teachers to make sure everyone passes the tests. This is a problem because high school is supposed to prepare students for college, not the STAAR test. Unfortunately, more emphasis is put on passing this one test than actually learning the material. I agree that this is a major problem, and would also like to add, that I've personally seen some great teachers get laid off because they wanted to make sure their students learned things that would be useful in college, even if those skills weren't needed to pass the state's standardized test. Now that I'm in college, I realize just how little those standardized tests cover compared to what I'm expected to know now, and I'm very grateful to have had those teachers that truly cared about my education.
The bottom line is, there's no way a simple standardized test can tell how much knowledge a student has on a subject. Even if it could, all it would show is that Texas is very far behind other states when it comes to education, which we already know. I completely agree with Katherine on this subject, and I also believe getting rid of the STAAR exam and spending our money more wisely would result in an improvement of our education.
Wednesday, August 15, 2012
Friday, August 10, 2012
Metro Fail
Now is not a good time for Austin to expand its Metro rail system. Someday? Sure, it'd be great to provide people with a better, more environmentally friendly transportation option. However, there are many reasons why we should hold off on the expansion.
First, transit rails are a very expensive form of transportation. Texas' projected budget shortfall for 2012-2013 is $27 billion. Right now, we should be focused on cutting spending, and raising revenue, not expanding a transit system that relies on state funding. Although the transit would charge relatively high fees to use, it will not even come close to paying for itself.
These hard economic times are also felt by the people of Austin, which means they are less likely to use the transit system because driving is a cheaper option for most. According to this article by examiner.com, the transit only averages 450-500 riders per day, and numbers aren't expected to increase anytime soon. The Metro rail system should first have to prove that it's useful before we even think about expanding it.
I understand that with our growing population, some changes must be made to make transportation easier. I just don't see what's wrong with building more good old fashion roads, at least until our economy gets back on its feet. This would be a cheaper option, and right now, driving on roads is the preferred mode of transportation for our citizens.
First, transit rails are a very expensive form of transportation. Texas' projected budget shortfall for 2012-2013 is $27 billion. Right now, we should be focused on cutting spending, and raising revenue, not expanding a transit system that relies on state funding. Although the transit would charge relatively high fees to use, it will not even come close to paying for itself.
These hard economic times are also felt by the people of Austin, which means they are less likely to use the transit system because driving is a cheaper option for most. According to this article by examiner.com, the transit only averages 450-500 riders per day, and numbers aren't expected to increase anytime soon. The Metro rail system should first have to prove that it's useful before we even think about expanding it.
I understand that with our growing population, some changes must be made to make transportation easier. I just don't see what's wrong with building more good old fashion roads, at least until our economy gets back on its feet. This would be a cheaper option, and right now, driving on roads is the preferred mode of transportation for our citizens.
Friday, August 3, 2012
Bag Ban Part II: Reloaded
I hate to keep harping on the bag ban issue, but after reading this blog post by Megan, one of my classmates, I got fired up about it all over again. In her post, Megan makes a strong case against the ban by outlining four reasons why she doesn't think it's a good idea.
The first reason she gives is that $2 million will be used on educating the public about the ban. Of course all of that $2 million will come out of tax-payers' pockets, and there will be additional costs for the retailer to put up signs reminding customers to bring their reusable bags. She argues that, one way or another, those additional costs will likely end up coming from the tax-payers as well. To add to her point, many stores have already payed for programs that make it easier for customers to recycle their plastic bags. Now that that money will go to waste, stores will likely be looking to charge more for their products in order to break even.
Next, Megan touches on the sanitation issue of the reusable bags. She argues that cross-contamination will become a problem with the store employees touching so many different bags. People who are for the bag ban might argue that this shouldn't be an issue because people can wash the bags. While that's a valid point, I still take Megan's side on this because, while those bags are washable, that doesn't mean everyone is going to wash them. I could wash my bag, but if someone else doesn't wash theirs, that would still pose a risk to me. I find it interesting that a lot of people who are pro bag ban make the argument that they shouldn't have to live with the consequences of other people's actions when they litter, but are perfectly fine with the possibility of having their bag cross contaminated by careless individuals.
Her third reason for being against the bag ban is that people will forget to bring their bag to the stores. This would not only be an inconvenience, but Megan argues that it could also lead to shoplifting since people would be forced to carry their items out of the store. To add to her point about inconvenience, for me personally, I don't always go straight to the store from my house. Being a college student, I usually wake up in the morning, go to class, and could spend all day on campus before returning home at night. I may not realize I need to go to the store until the middle of the day, and if I'm not at home, that means I would have to stop by my house to get my bag before going to the store. This may not seem like a big deal, but with gas prices so high, I want to do as little driving as possible.
Megan's final problem with the bag ban is that it prevents people from recycling them in their own useful ways. Growing up in a house that always used plastic grocery store bags as trash can liners, it's difficult for me to imagine life without them. I also like that Megan points out the irony in that many organizations use plastic bags to pick up litter around the state. It seems that plastic bags are doing their part to clean up after themselves, especially considering they're not even in the top ten most littered items in our state.
Overall, I thought that Megan made a very good argument, and I appreciate how organized it was. Like I said, even though I already agreed with her on this issue, her post got me excited to revisit the topic, and build off of the well thought out arguments she presents.
The first reason she gives is that $2 million will be used on educating the public about the ban. Of course all of that $2 million will come out of tax-payers' pockets, and there will be additional costs for the retailer to put up signs reminding customers to bring their reusable bags. She argues that, one way or another, those additional costs will likely end up coming from the tax-payers as well. To add to her point, many stores have already payed for programs that make it easier for customers to recycle their plastic bags. Now that that money will go to waste, stores will likely be looking to charge more for their products in order to break even.
Next, Megan touches on the sanitation issue of the reusable bags. She argues that cross-contamination will become a problem with the store employees touching so many different bags. People who are for the bag ban might argue that this shouldn't be an issue because people can wash the bags. While that's a valid point, I still take Megan's side on this because, while those bags are washable, that doesn't mean everyone is going to wash them. I could wash my bag, but if someone else doesn't wash theirs, that would still pose a risk to me. I find it interesting that a lot of people who are pro bag ban make the argument that they shouldn't have to live with the consequences of other people's actions when they litter, but are perfectly fine with the possibility of having their bag cross contaminated by careless individuals.
Her third reason for being against the bag ban is that people will forget to bring their bag to the stores. This would not only be an inconvenience, but Megan argues that it could also lead to shoplifting since people would be forced to carry their items out of the store. To add to her point about inconvenience, for me personally, I don't always go straight to the store from my house. Being a college student, I usually wake up in the morning, go to class, and could spend all day on campus before returning home at night. I may not realize I need to go to the store until the middle of the day, and if I'm not at home, that means I would have to stop by my house to get my bag before going to the store. This may not seem like a big deal, but with gas prices so high, I want to do as little driving as possible.
Megan's final problem with the bag ban is that it prevents people from recycling them in their own useful ways. Growing up in a house that always used plastic grocery store bags as trash can liners, it's difficult for me to imagine life without them. I also like that Megan points out the irony in that many organizations use plastic bags to pick up litter around the state. It seems that plastic bags are doing their part to clean up after themselves, especially considering they're not even in the top ten most littered items in our state.
Overall, I thought that Megan made a very good argument, and I appreciate how organized it was. Like I said, even though I already agreed with her on this issue, her post got me excited to revisit the topic, and build off of the well thought out arguments she presents.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)