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.
Friday, July 27, 2012
Banning Plastic Bags Won't Solve Environment Problems
Before I say anything to defend my position on the plastic bag ban in Austin, let me first say that I believe it's important to take care of our planet. This is why I use a reusable cloth bag instead of plastic bags when I go to the store. I didn't need the government's permission to make that choice, and neither does anyone else. Anyone that wants to help the environment has always had the option not use plastic bags, and I don't think there is enough of an immediate danger involved with plastic bags to warrant government intervention. Many grocery stores have already spent money to limit the use of plastic bags, or provide people with ways of recycling the bags they use. Not to mention, there are many people who find other uses for the plastic bags they take from the store. In my family, my mom may use plastic bags to take groceries home, but my dad uses them to clean up after our dog on walks.
The motives for passing this bag ban are also very questionable. Apparently, the government felt the need to get involved because banning plastic bags will significantly reduce the litter we have in Austin, as well as keep more trash out of landfills. Although there is not much data in Austin to support or oppose their claim, all we have to do is look to the West and see how the bag ban has worked out for California. According to this article, a study on California's waste revealed that plastic bags only make up .5% of the state's waste stream, so it's not likely the ban will significantly help the environment. Not to mention, the people of San Jose are very upset about the ban, and are demanding to vote on this issue.
If we let the government ban plastic bags, who's to say they will stop there? Why not ban plastic bottles and make everyone drink out of glass? After all, the average plastic bottle weighs about a pound, and the average plastic bag weighs only an eighth of an ounce. Let's ban soda cups too because soda's bad for you and we don't want people drinking it. Actually, let's just ban soda. Honestly, child obesity is more of an immediate danger for our children than plastic bags.
If the government must get involved with this issue, they need to provide a better alternative than the reusable cloth bags. It costs stores more money to provide them, which trickles down and forces customers to not only pay for their groceries, but pay to transport them too. This is a big step backwards as far as the free market is concerned. Not to mention, according to a University of Arizona study, these cloth bags are prone to collect dangerous bacteria like E. coli. It's unacceptable for the government to force people to use these bags.
Don't get me wrong, I understand that littering and the overuse of landfills are problems that should be addressed, but banning plastic bags is not the way to go. The only thing this will accomplish is angering the people of Austin by making grocery shopping more expensive, and less convenient.
The motives for passing this bag ban are also very questionable. Apparently, the government felt the need to get involved because banning plastic bags will significantly reduce the litter we have in Austin, as well as keep more trash out of landfills. Although there is not much data in Austin to support or oppose their claim, all we have to do is look to the West and see how the bag ban has worked out for California. According to this article, a study on California's waste revealed that plastic bags only make up .5% of the state's waste stream, so it's not likely the ban will significantly help the environment. Not to mention, the people of San Jose are very upset about the ban, and are demanding to vote on this issue.
If we let the government ban plastic bags, who's to say they will stop there? Why not ban plastic bottles and make everyone drink out of glass? After all, the average plastic bottle weighs about a pound, and the average plastic bag weighs only an eighth of an ounce. Let's ban soda cups too because soda's bad for you and we don't want people drinking it. Actually, let's just ban soda. Honestly, child obesity is more of an immediate danger for our children than plastic bags.
If the government must get involved with this issue, they need to provide a better alternative than the reusable cloth bags. It costs stores more money to provide them, which trickles down and forces customers to not only pay for their groceries, but pay to transport them too. This is a big step backwards as far as the free market is concerned. Not to mention, according to a University of Arizona study, these cloth bags are prone to collect dangerous bacteria like E. coli. It's unacceptable for the government to force people to use these bags.
Don't get me wrong, I understand that littering and the overuse of landfills are problems that should be addressed, but banning plastic bags is not the way to go. The only thing this will accomplish is angering the people of Austin by making grocery shopping more expensive, and less convenient.
Tuesday, July 24, 2012
A Different Apporoach to Preventing Shooting Tragedies
On July 23rd, Ed Hubbard wrote a blog entry for Big Jolly Politics regarding the recent Colorado tragedy. While I believe this has been used enough as ammunition by politicians both for and against stricter gun laws, Hubbard took a different approach. He is a conservative activist, so he doesn't believe that more government regulation on guns will solve anything. However, he does acknowledge that something needs to be done to help prevent future incidents like this, an by doing so, he's able to appeal more to some liberal readers, as well as his faithful conservative ones. This is important because he didn't write this blog entry for only fellow conservatives to read; he wrote it for all Americans, because it's going to take a unified effort from all Americans to stop gun violence. In his entry, he blames the "Baby Boomers," for the recent shooting tragedies at Columbine, Virginia Tech, a citizens meeting in Tucson, and now a movie theater in Aurora. This is a bold statement, but he does provide the reader with compelling evidence to support this claim. According to him, the Baby Boomers' search for "truth" during the 60s and 70s led them to embrace autonomy, which they called "liberty." This generation caused a shift in society where people began to do whatever they pleased, with little regard to others, because they had the freedom to do so. The truth is, we've always had the freedom to pursue our own happiness, but doing so by putting our own needs above others' is an irresponsible use of that freedom. This "don't trust anybody but yourself" attitude leads to us, as a society, to not be neighborly towards one another, and then we're surprised when that guy from math class brings a gun to school with no warning. Maybe if we took some time to talk to the troubled young people in our generation, we could recognize danger long before a tragedy occurs. Unfortunately, too many people are caught up in their own lives, and aren't willing to put in the work to help others. Instead, many of us choose the quick fix, and call on the government to implement laws, which is only a sorry attempt to mask the real problem. Hubbard acknowledges that it would take a lot of work, but that's exactly why he wrote this entry. The more people that get on board with this idea, the sooner we will begin to see positive changes in our society. Helping others isn't exclusively liberal or conservative, so no matter who you identify with, it's something we all should try.
Friday, July 20, 2012
In a recent commentary published in the Austin American Statesman, Travis County Commissioner Karen Huber took a stand against the construction of Texas 45 Southwest. The purposed plan would connect the southern end of MoPac to FM 1626. Huber likely wrote this to get more Travis County residents to realize what they will be paying for, should this project get approved. While she has the residents of Travis County's best interest at heart, her knowledge of transportation is limited compared to the Texas Department of Transportation's.
Huber's main concern is that Texas 45 Southwest won't do enough to relieve the congestion in that area, and therefore would not be worth the millions of dollars the construction would cost. This is a valid concern, however, Extensive research by TxDOT has already been done prior to drawing up the Texas 45 Southwest plan. What they found was that many Hays County, Buda, and Kyle residents use a small street called Brodie Lane to get from FM 1626 to MoPac. This traffic, combined with the school traffic Huber mentions causes a lot of congestion, and people in both Hays and Travis County are demanding something be done. Like Huber says, Texas 45 Southwest won't do much to cut down on the school traffic, but the truth is, not much can be done since the schools on Brodie Lane can't be moved very easily. The good news is, some of the other traffic on Brodie Lane can be eliminated by building Texas 45 Southwest.
Not to mention, the new road will provide other advantages as well. Compare a map of Austin's roads to any other major city in the nation and you will notice a big difference. Austin, despite having nearly a million residents and one of the fastest growing rates, does not have an outer loop. This is something TxDOT has been pushing for for years. Building Texas 45 Southwest would be a step toward establishing that outer loop that would make driving in Austin much more efficient. Add this to the fact that Texas 45 Southwest would still significantly reduce the traffic on Brodie, and I believe it's clear that the benefits outweigh the costs.
Huber also expressed her concern on the environmental impact this road would have. The good news is, this is Austin we're talking about. The Texas Department of Transportation is well aware of the importance of the environment to us Austinites, and they are confident they have the technology needed to build and maintain this road with minimal impact on the environment. However, I agree that more research could be done to ensure this is the case.
The bottom line is, the congestion on Brodie Lane is a major concern, and even Huber can admit that. Building the road will help relieve some of that congestion as well as benefit the Austin road system in the long run. Yes it will be expensive, and yes, more research needs to be done before the construction process can begin, but people are demanding this road be built, and there's a lot of pressure on the Texas Department of Transportation to get this done. I just don't believe this project can be put off much longer. Our population is growing fast and more roads need to be built to accommodate for a larger population.
Huber's main concern is that Texas 45 Southwest won't do enough to relieve the congestion in that area, and therefore would not be worth the millions of dollars the construction would cost. This is a valid concern, however, Extensive research by TxDOT has already been done prior to drawing up the Texas 45 Southwest plan. What they found was that many Hays County, Buda, and Kyle residents use a small street called Brodie Lane to get from FM 1626 to MoPac. This traffic, combined with the school traffic Huber mentions causes a lot of congestion, and people in both Hays and Travis County are demanding something be done. Like Huber says, Texas 45 Southwest won't do much to cut down on the school traffic, but the truth is, not much can be done since the schools on Brodie Lane can't be moved very easily. The good news is, some of the other traffic on Brodie Lane can be eliminated by building Texas 45 Southwest.
Not to mention, the new road will provide other advantages as well. Compare a map of Austin's roads to any other major city in the nation and you will notice a big difference. Austin, despite having nearly a million residents and one of the fastest growing rates, does not have an outer loop. This is something TxDOT has been pushing for for years. Building Texas 45 Southwest would be a step toward establishing that outer loop that would make driving in Austin much more efficient. Add this to the fact that Texas 45 Southwest would still significantly reduce the traffic on Brodie, and I believe it's clear that the benefits outweigh the costs.
Huber also expressed her concern on the environmental impact this road would have. The good news is, this is Austin we're talking about. The Texas Department of Transportation is well aware of the importance of the environment to us Austinites, and they are confident they have the technology needed to build and maintain this road with minimal impact on the environment. However, I agree that more research could be done to ensure this is the case.
The bottom line is, the congestion on Brodie Lane is a major concern, and even Huber can admit that. Building the road will help relieve some of that congestion as well as benefit the Austin road system in the long run. Yes it will be expensive, and yes, more research needs to be done before the construction process can begin, but people are demanding this road be built, and there's a lot of pressure on the Texas Department of Transportation to get this done. I just don't believe this project can be put off much longer. Our population is growing fast and more roads need to be built to accommodate for a larger population.
Tuesday, July 17, 2012
Drama in the Runoff for US Senate Seat
People love hearing about drama every now and then, and the political world is full of juicy stories that we just can't seem to ignore. On July 6th, the Texas Tribune published an article about a heated exchange between Former state Solicitor General Ted Cruz, and a surrogate for Lt. Governor David Dewhurst. The conflict was quite childish, but unfortunately, this kind of thing is becoming the norm for political behavior. The exchange occurred after the two addressed a largely pro-Cruz crowd at candidate forum. It started innocent enough when Cruz walked up to the Dewhurst surrogate, Mike Richards, and thanked him for coming. However, things quickly heated up when Richards let his emotions get the better of him and told Cruz he did not respect him, or how he acted during the event. The two went back and forth for a while, until, like most childish arguments end, one man accused the other of twisting his words around. Richards later apologized for his behavior, and doesn't believe he will be asked to act as a surrogate for Dewhurst again.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)