On Wednesday, September 23, the Baltimore Sun reported the results of the recent Maryland High School Assessment Tests that are now required for graduation. It turns out that out of a graduating class of 62,000 students only 11 students were denied graduation because of the High School Assessments. In Baltimore City where everyone feared large numbers of students would fail to graduate, not a single student was denied graduation due to these tests. A few thousand students across the state completed special graduation projects in lieu of the tests, and some were given waivers or special certificates rather than actual diplomas. Still, it is clear that students in the state of Maryland were impressively successful in negotiating Maryland's High School Assesssments (HSA's)
Maryland introduced these HSA's several years ago. Passing rates were quite low with Baltimore City in particular having huge failure rates. The State of Maryland wanted to require these tests for graduation, but the requirement was delayed for a number of years because of fears that large numbers of students would fail to graduate and parents would be outraged. There was also concern about what it would mean if large numbers of students lacking high school diplomas were dumped on society.
So it seems that everyone would now be happy. Students have been successful in passing the tests, and parents have been able to enjoy seeing their beaming children walk across the stage. Apparently that is not the case. The high pass rate has generated a huge controversy throughout the state. The test must be too easy. The tests must be made more rigorous. Even the Baltimore Sun is already opining that more difficult questions need to be included on the exam.
The HSA's test minimum skills in English, Algebra, Government, and Biology. They are not college entrance exams. They attempt to prevent the awarding of a diploma to students who lack the most basic skills that society believes students should have to be considered a high school graduate. By and large the idea is to assure local employers that if they hire one of our graduates, they are hiring a young person who has the basic english and math skills an employer would expect of a new hire.
The history of such tests illustrates some of the problems that are inherent in this kind of endeavor. Baltimore City was a leader in the development of minimal requirements which began with proficiency tests in the early 1970's. The state of Maryland copied and subsumed Baltimore's tests into functional reding and math tests some years later. In every case history has repeated itself. Initially large numbers failed the tests and over time it became a routine activity that students negotiated successfully in one way or another. This is an extremely important point, but no one seems interested in focusing on it. The pattern keeps repeating itself, but what does it mean.
Are teachers teaching to the test? Are students over time getting used to the expectations of a particular test? Is there actually improved instruction and learning going on? What have we really learned and gained by introducing such a requirement?
The answer to the first two questions is a qualified yes. Teachers are not teaching the questions and answers that students will see on the actual tests themselves. They are however, pursuing a curriculum that focuses heavily on the kinds of information that will be covered on these tests. In many cases their jobs or their tenure depends on making sure that their students are successful. Repetition is also a significant aid to improvement on such exams. We even recommend that students take the college entrance exams several times as a way of improving their scores. So the fact that scores and pass rates improve over time should not be a surprise to anyone.
Are students really learning more? There is not a lot of evidence that this is the case. The problem with focusing so heavily on the content of the tests is that other areas of instruction are likely neglected. If the goal is to ensure that students know the material that is included on a particular exam then perhaps this may be a good way of achieving that goal. The real test may be how students perform in other circumstances apart from the HSA. Do they know the information on the exams only to successfully answer exam questions, or can they use this information in other settings?
Ome of the major difficulties is that everyone has their own expectations for these tests. It may be a good idea to be able to certify that students exiting our secondary schools have attained basic specific knowledge in certain high school subjects. The problem is that school officials, politicians, and the community want so much more. An urban school superintendent wants to demonstrate that his program is creating dramatic improvements in student learning. Politicians want voters to believe they have found a way to fix ongoing problems with our schools. We want to be able to point to a marker that shows how much better our schools have become. Parents want to be able to see and say that their child is developing well.
As with Garrison Keillor's Lake Wobegon we want all our children to be above average. Neither this exam nor any other is able to provide such information or all the other kinds of results we seek. We have forgotten the reality of what tests are designed to do, and the reality that different tests measure different aspects of the educational process. Perhaps if we could feel good about the fact that across the state are students are mastering important basic concepts, and if we continue to tweak the tests as needed to insure students know those things we feel are most important, we will then be able to move on to effectively confront other educational challenges not met by HSA's.
Monday, September 28, 2009
Sunday, September 20, 2009
Liturgical Reform
The on-line edition of the National Catholic Reporter highlights reports of impending liturgical changes coming from the Vatican. Officials in Rome deny changes are coming and note that this is not the time for change considering that a new Missal is in process at this point. These denials seem to support the notion that changes are probably coming, but perhaps not for awhile. Some of the changes mentioned include an elimination of communion in the hand and having the priest turning around to face the wall. I wonder if Jesus turned his back to his apostles during the last supper.
Change that we know is definitely coming is a new missal which will go back to using more stilted English. Probably the most jarring for the people in the pews will be a return to the response of 'And with your spirit', when the priest says 'the Lord be with you'. Let me say here and now that I will continue to respond 'and with you' as I have been. Yes you heard it here. My big rebellion against the Church is in place. I can see the Vatican quaking in its boots already. Mind you, I won't be saying it loudly or holding up any signs, but let it be known that this is one Catholic who stands up for his beliefs.
Herein lies the problem with what are essentially ongoing reforms of the reform of the liturgy. None of the changes in themselves represent a big deal. To complain vociferously about any of these changes make one appear small and overly concerned about trivial issues when there are so many more important issues to contemplate. Such a reality makes it easy for the Vatican to little by little reverse the reforms that were put in place by the Second Vatican Council.
The truth is it really doesn't make much difference. When the new reforms were instituted in the 60's there was great optimism that the power of the liturgy would transform all of us into much better Catholics and Christians. There is little evidence of that. Traditionalists believe that making the liturgy more 'sacred' will instill greater reverence and thus holiness in the people of God. They too are wrong. I can assure you that I served many private Latin Masses for priests during my years in the seminary. Many of these Masses were completed in about 10 minutes. Prayers like the Gloria and the Creed were recited in seconds. It was precisely this kind of rote recitation of prayers not understood that led to the liturgical reforms in the first place.
The truth is, though we believe in "ex opere operato" (the power of the liturgy to be effective in itself) it actually has limited impact on parishoners regardless of its format. People in the pews do not easily connect with the Sunday worship so it is difficult to understand how separating them even more from what's going on will improve the situation. The only liturgies that I ever felt had a significant impact on the participants were very small group liturgies such as a family mass around the dining room table with a beloved priest presiding. Of course, such services would now be considered totally out of bounds.
As much as I hate to admit it though, I believe traditionalists are correct. In the forseeable future we will likely be returning to a eucharistic celebration much closer to the pre-Vatican II Tridentine Mass. Where I believe the traditionalists are mistaken, however, is in the belief that this return to something akin to the old Latin Mass will be any more permanent than the Vatican II changes. No doubt the reform of the reforms will stay in place for perhaps 50 to 100 years, but at some point people are going to insist on being more a part of their Sunday worship. Lectors, Eucharistic Ministers, altar girls and the like will be reinstituted.
The point that is being missed, just as it was during Vatican II, is that one size does not fit all. Just as some people love contemporary Masses and others find them terribly jarring, more variety needs to be provided. Our job as Church is to provide the kinds of worship that people can relate too. The availability of the Tridentine Mass in the Baltimore Archdiocese is a part of that. It might be instructive to note, however, that there has been no real clamor from the people to expand the latin mass offerings.
Finally, if people want more traditional devotions such as forty hours or perpetual adoration they should be available. I always loved 40 hour devotions growing up, even though it now seems to me to be pretty suspect from a theological perspective. There is no evidence Jesus instituted the Eucharist so that we could gaze at a jewel laden monstrance. But if people find meaning in such services there is no reason they shouldn't be available. More progressive forms of worship also need to be available. Again, as Church we need to provide for the worship needs of the entire community. At some point, I believe we will learn the importance of providing modalities by which all of us can best meet God and connect with our spiritual dimension. Clearly the robotic and perfunctory universal performance of poorly understood ritual cannot possibly meet the spiritual needs of all of today's Catholics.
Change that we know is definitely coming is a new missal which will go back to using more stilted English. Probably the most jarring for the people in the pews will be a return to the response of 'And with your spirit', when the priest says 'the Lord be with you'. Let me say here and now that I will continue to respond 'and with you' as I have been. Yes you heard it here. My big rebellion against the Church is in place. I can see the Vatican quaking in its boots already. Mind you, I won't be saying it loudly or holding up any signs, but let it be known that this is one Catholic who stands up for his beliefs.
Herein lies the problem with what are essentially ongoing reforms of the reform of the liturgy. None of the changes in themselves represent a big deal. To complain vociferously about any of these changes make one appear small and overly concerned about trivial issues when there are so many more important issues to contemplate. Such a reality makes it easy for the Vatican to little by little reverse the reforms that were put in place by the Second Vatican Council.
The truth is it really doesn't make much difference. When the new reforms were instituted in the 60's there was great optimism that the power of the liturgy would transform all of us into much better Catholics and Christians. There is little evidence of that. Traditionalists believe that making the liturgy more 'sacred' will instill greater reverence and thus holiness in the people of God. They too are wrong. I can assure you that I served many private Latin Masses for priests during my years in the seminary. Many of these Masses were completed in about 10 minutes. Prayers like the Gloria and the Creed were recited in seconds. It was precisely this kind of rote recitation of prayers not understood that led to the liturgical reforms in the first place.
The truth is, though we believe in "ex opere operato" (the power of the liturgy to be effective in itself) it actually has limited impact on parishoners regardless of its format. People in the pews do not easily connect with the Sunday worship so it is difficult to understand how separating them even more from what's going on will improve the situation. The only liturgies that I ever felt had a significant impact on the participants were very small group liturgies such as a family mass around the dining room table with a beloved priest presiding. Of course, such services would now be considered totally out of bounds.
As much as I hate to admit it though, I believe traditionalists are correct. In the forseeable future we will likely be returning to a eucharistic celebration much closer to the pre-Vatican II Tridentine Mass. Where I believe the traditionalists are mistaken, however, is in the belief that this return to something akin to the old Latin Mass will be any more permanent than the Vatican II changes. No doubt the reform of the reforms will stay in place for perhaps 50 to 100 years, but at some point people are going to insist on being more a part of their Sunday worship. Lectors, Eucharistic Ministers, altar girls and the like will be reinstituted.
The point that is being missed, just as it was during Vatican II, is that one size does not fit all. Just as some people love contemporary Masses and others find them terribly jarring, more variety needs to be provided. Our job as Church is to provide the kinds of worship that people can relate too. The availability of the Tridentine Mass in the Baltimore Archdiocese is a part of that. It might be instructive to note, however, that there has been no real clamor from the people to expand the latin mass offerings.
Finally, if people want more traditional devotions such as forty hours or perpetual adoration they should be available. I always loved 40 hour devotions growing up, even though it now seems to me to be pretty suspect from a theological perspective. There is no evidence Jesus instituted the Eucharist so that we could gaze at a jewel laden monstrance. But if people find meaning in such services there is no reason they shouldn't be available. More progressive forms of worship also need to be available. Again, as Church we need to provide for the worship needs of the entire community. At some point, I believe we will learn the importance of providing modalities by which all of us can best meet God and connect with our spiritual dimension. Clearly the robotic and perfunctory universal performance of poorly understood ritual cannot possibly meet the spiritual needs of all of today's Catholics.
Monday, September 14, 2009
Losing an Election
I know what it means to lose an election. I have a great deal of experience in that regard. My first vote for president was in 1964. I voted for Barry Goldwater. If you don't know who he is it may be because there never was a President Goldwater. In the ensuing years I voted for such household names as Hubert Humphrey, George McGovern, Walter Mondale, and my favorite, John Anderson. If you need to look him up check out the election of 1980. In fact in a total of 12 presidential contests I voted for exactly 3 successful presidential candidates.
For most people this is probably not a major catastrophe. Most of us fulfill our democratic duty and vote in presidential elections. We pay enough attention to choose the person we believe is the best candidate. If that candidate wins we are happy and if he loses we may be sad for a day or two. As my faithful Republican Dad always said, "No matter who wins, I will have to get up tomorrow and go to work". For a vocal and perhaps growing minority however, elections have begun to affect us at the very core of our existence.
For me, elections really began to matter in 1980. Everyone loved Ronald Reagan and he had certainly been one of my favorite movie actors. I was really troubled, however, by the direction of his administration. I simply could not understand why he appointed a Secretary of Labor who was aginst labor. Why did he choose an environmental leader who was anti-environment? Also, why was the Secretary of Health Education and Welfare seeking to abolish the office he led? President Reagan's policies seemed designed to hurt poor people and increase the gap in our country between rich and poor.
My point is that losing elections began to have an impact on who I was. I became disillusioned, depressed, began to question myself, and yes, became angry. I won't even begin to get into the Bush/Gore debacle of 2000. I might add that even though I voted for President Obama I was also disappointed for some time that my preferred candidate Hillary Clinton was defeated. What is important here is that I believe what is going on among the opponents of Barack Obama today is that they are having difficulty with losing the election.
Some of the almost bizarre actions and accusations coming from the anti-Obama forces reflect this inability to accept the election results. The absurdly contradictory cries of socialist, communist, and Nazi are relevant examples. The questions about Obama's birth certificate, as well as continued insistence on the existence of death panels in health care reform suggest such people are angry that their candidate lost. They have perhaps begun to believe that their candidate is entitled to victory and anything short of that is so unacceptable that it must be overturned.
We hear cries of secession and states refusing to accept any health care bill that may be enacted. Folks are buying guns and establishing new militias to protect themselves from 'something'. The incredulous outcry over the President speaking to school children suggests a refusal to accept the legitimacy of the Obama presidency. These erstwhile patriots seem to believe that allegiance to their country involves somehow destroying the President of that country. In the recent address to a joint session of congress we saw that these attitudes can emerge even from those who are supposed to be part of the government apparatus itself. The outburst from congressman Joe Wilson reflects this deep seated anger that could threaten even the veneer of civility needed to operate our government on a day to day basis.
I am not at all sure what solutions can be offered to end this stalemate. The fact that this group represents a rather small fraction of the electorate is not particularly helpful. In our modern technological society it is clear that a small fringe group can exercize inordinate power and dramatically impact the day's events. Yet I do believe it is time for the most extreme in this group to step back, reflect, and as patriots give some thought to the future of our country. As the President has said repeatedly, he will entertain thoughtful, serious proposals from anyone at any time. I recommend that we all dial back the rhetoric, force ourselves to put together cogent arguments for or against major issues, and attempt to influence the debate in ways that are appropriate to the democratic process. If it is not clear what might be appropriate, let me just say that bringing guns to rallies, and shouting down elected officials to prevent them from speaking are not appropriate.
Let me finally say as one who knows what it feels like to lose an election that really matters, it is helpful to take a longer perspective. This really is a great country and it has survived many crises. One administration follows another, and amazingly the country tends not to fall apart in 4 to 8 years. That's one reason this country has always had the good sense to change parties every eight years or so. Again my Dad used to say, "it's time to give the other guys a chance". That might be good advice for those who seem to be having so much trouble with the new guy. Despite my concerns, our country survived the Reagan years and even the last eight years of George W. Bush. This country will also survive the eight years of the Obama administration, so calm down.
My advice would be if you want to be back in power in eight years, demonstrate that you have something positive to offer to the policy debate. Forego the rancor, the wild and inaccurate statements, and personal animosity. We still are all Americans and while we will not always agree we all love our country. It was my son who insisted, when I began to have my doubts about George Bush, that he was not evil. President Bush was trying to do what he thought was right for our country. We should accept that fact as true for every president and administration before we begin to formulate our legitimate policy criticisms.
For most people this is probably not a major catastrophe. Most of us fulfill our democratic duty and vote in presidential elections. We pay enough attention to choose the person we believe is the best candidate. If that candidate wins we are happy and if he loses we may be sad for a day or two. As my faithful Republican Dad always said, "No matter who wins, I will have to get up tomorrow and go to work". For a vocal and perhaps growing minority however, elections have begun to affect us at the very core of our existence.
For me, elections really began to matter in 1980. Everyone loved Ronald Reagan and he had certainly been one of my favorite movie actors. I was really troubled, however, by the direction of his administration. I simply could not understand why he appointed a Secretary of Labor who was aginst labor. Why did he choose an environmental leader who was anti-environment? Also, why was the Secretary of Health Education and Welfare seeking to abolish the office he led? President Reagan's policies seemed designed to hurt poor people and increase the gap in our country between rich and poor.
My point is that losing elections began to have an impact on who I was. I became disillusioned, depressed, began to question myself, and yes, became angry. I won't even begin to get into the Bush/Gore debacle of 2000. I might add that even though I voted for President Obama I was also disappointed for some time that my preferred candidate Hillary Clinton was defeated. What is important here is that I believe what is going on among the opponents of Barack Obama today is that they are having difficulty with losing the election.
Some of the almost bizarre actions and accusations coming from the anti-Obama forces reflect this inability to accept the election results. The absurdly contradictory cries of socialist, communist, and Nazi are relevant examples. The questions about Obama's birth certificate, as well as continued insistence on the existence of death panels in health care reform suggest such people are angry that their candidate lost. They have perhaps begun to believe that their candidate is entitled to victory and anything short of that is so unacceptable that it must be overturned.
We hear cries of secession and states refusing to accept any health care bill that may be enacted. Folks are buying guns and establishing new militias to protect themselves from 'something'. The incredulous outcry over the President speaking to school children suggests a refusal to accept the legitimacy of the Obama presidency. These erstwhile patriots seem to believe that allegiance to their country involves somehow destroying the President of that country. In the recent address to a joint session of congress we saw that these attitudes can emerge even from those who are supposed to be part of the government apparatus itself. The outburst from congressman Joe Wilson reflects this deep seated anger that could threaten even the veneer of civility needed to operate our government on a day to day basis.
I am not at all sure what solutions can be offered to end this stalemate. The fact that this group represents a rather small fraction of the electorate is not particularly helpful. In our modern technological society it is clear that a small fringe group can exercize inordinate power and dramatically impact the day's events. Yet I do believe it is time for the most extreme in this group to step back, reflect, and as patriots give some thought to the future of our country. As the President has said repeatedly, he will entertain thoughtful, serious proposals from anyone at any time. I recommend that we all dial back the rhetoric, force ourselves to put together cogent arguments for or against major issues, and attempt to influence the debate in ways that are appropriate to the democratic process. If it is not clear what might be appropriate, let me just say that bringing guns to rallies, and shouting down elected officials to prevent them from speaking are not appropriate.
Let me finally say as one who knows what it feels like to lose an election that really matters, it is helpful to take a longer perspective. This really is a great country and it has survived many crises. One administration follows another, and amazingly the country tends not to fall apart in 4 to 8 years. That's one reason this country has always had the good sense to change parties every eight years or so. Again my Dad used to say, "it's time to give the other guys a chance". That might be good advice for those who seem to be having so much trouble with the new guy. Despite my concerns, our country survived the Reagan years and even the last eight years of George W. Bush. This country will also survive the eight years of the Obama administration, so calm down.
My advice would be if you want to be back in power in eight years, demonstrate that you have something positive to offer to the policy debate. Forego the rancor, the wild and inaccurate statements, and personal animosity. We still are all Americans and while we will not always agree we all love our country. It was my son who insisted, when I began to have my doubts about George Bush, that he was not evil. President Bush was trying to do what he thought was right for our country. We should accept that fact as true for every president and administration before we begin to formulate our legitimate policy criticisms.
Sunday, September 6, 2009
Living Gospel Values
The Funeral Mass of Senator Edward Moore Kennedy offers another opportunity to explore what it means to be Catholic and/or Christian in 2009. I intend no defense or elucidation of the life of Senator Kennedy. Those who know him well have been expounding on every conceivable aspect of his life. I do, however, wonder about some comments I have heard. One priest commented that he had prayed for Senator Kennedy at Mass the day after he died and was excoriated by a member of his flock for the sacrilegious act of praying for such a man. I would like to believe that this does not represent an acceptable attitude of a Catholic/and or Christian in our country today.
The central core of the funeral mass was the Gospel taken from Matthew 25. I must confess this passage has always been at the center of what I believed being Catholic and Christian was all about. Jesus describes the final judgement at the end of the world. He gathers to himself those who saw him hungry and fed him, thirsty and gave him drink, without clothes and clothed him etc. Those who did not do these things for the least among us were denied heaven. We tend to gloss over such biblical passages because we know that we all fall short in this realm. I know I certainly do. We learn that being Christian is really hard. Maybe that's why we concentrate on following rules and adopting a rigid orthodoxy of belief rather than focusing on how we live our lives and treat others each day.
We know that the greatest commandment is love of God and the second is love of neighbor. We also know that we have been told to judge not, lest we be judged. We need to be very careful about condemning others. I saw nowhere in Jesus words that in order to gain heaven you had to adhere to a prescribed set of dicta. In fact Jesus argument with the pharisees was all about keeping the finer points of the Mosaic Law but failing in the more important area of living good and upright lives.
These Gospel values provide the impetus for the social teachings of the Church which were also much in evidence in the recent Kennedy rituals. Pope Benedict XVI just finished a great encyclical focusing on these social teachings. Earlier he penned encyclicals on the virtues of love and on hope. He understands the Church and every Christian has a mission to reach out to those around us in need with meaningful responses to make things better. He also demonstrated these gospel values by responding with compassion and charity to Senator Kennedy's letter to him requesting his prayers. In doing so he again provides a great example of how we need to treat one another.
Another theme on display at the funeral mass was the Church's attitude towards redemption. Again Jesus said he came to save sinners. The prodigal son story reminds us of God's love for each of us and his desire to bring us into his care. We have become too caught up in castigating all those who may see things differently. As difficult as it may be for some of us to accept, forgiveness and reconciliation are things that all of us need, not just those who disagree with us. Again in Matthew 7Jesus asks how can I see to remove the speck from my brother's eye if I cannot see to remove the beam in my own eye? The truth is we need to be reconciled to one another. To do that we must first truly listen to the other, then force ourselves to understand his/her point of view, and finally be able to see how the image of God is present in each of those around us, even those we find difficult to love.
The central core of the funeral mass was the Gospel taken from Matthew 25. I must confess this passage has always been at the center of what I believed being Catholic and Christian was all about. Jesus describes the final judgement at the end of the world. He gathers to himself those who saw him hungry and fed him, thirsty and gave him drink, without clothes and clothed him etc. Those who did not do these things for the least among us were denied heaven. We tend to gloss over such biblical passages because we know that we all fall short in this realm. I know I certainly do. We learn that being Christian is really hard. Maybe that's why we concentrate on following rules and adopting a rigid orthodoxy of belief rather than focusing on how we live our lives and treat others each day.
We know that the greatest commandment is love of God and the second is love of neighbor. We also know that we have been told to judge not, lest we be judged. We need to be very careful about condemning others. I saw nowhere in Jesus words that in order to gain heaven you had to adhere to a prescribed set of dicta. In fact Jesus argument with the pharisees was all about keeping the finer points of the Mosaic Law but failing in the more important area of living good and upright lives.
These Gospel values provide the impetus for the social teachings of the Church which were also much in evidence in the recent Kennedy rituals. Pope Benedict XVI just finished a great encyclical focusing on these social teachings. Earlier he penned encyclicals on the virtues of love and on hope. He understands the Church and every Christian has a mission to reach out to those around us in need with meaningful responses to make things better. He also demonstrated these gospel values by responding with compassion and charity to Senator Kennedy's letter to him requesting his prayers. In doing so he again provides a great example of how we need to treat one another.
Another theme on display at the funeral mass was the Church's attitude towards redemption. Again Jesus said he came to save sinners. The prodigal son story reminds us of God's love for each of us and his desire to bring us into his care. We have become too caught up in castigating all those who may see things differently. As difficult as it may be for some of us to accept, forgiveness and reconciliation are things that all of us need, not just those who disagree with us. Again in Matthew 7Jesus asks how can I see to remove the speck from my brother's eye if I cannot see to remove the beam in my own eye? The truth is we need to be reconciled to one another. To do that we must first truly listen to the other, then force ourselves to understand his/her point of view, and finally be able to see how the image of God is present in each of those around us, even those we find difficult to love.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
