Standardized Testing: A Necessary Evil

Today the Junior class just finished the second day of Prairie State Testing.  Let me tell ya', it was quite a test.  One of the most difficult parts was sitting for 8 hours in the same room, in the same desk even, performing the same repetitious task.  Read the passage.  Read the question.  Find the answer.  Fill in a circle with a number 2 soft-lead pencil.  (If you use any other writing utensil, you clearly have a hearing issue because the proctor had to say it about 10 times over the course of the test.)  I personally found the monotony almost mind numbing, and I took a nap as soon as I got home.  While I realize that taking this test (which includes a full ACT, with writing) is necessary for college admissions and maybe even graduation in the state of Illinois, I had to wonder why they needed this kind of test.

I looked on ACT's website to find out what the intended purpose of their test was.  A link can be found HERE.  One interesting fact that I found out was that ACT also makes tests to test the workforce of a company for competency.  I found that the purpose of the ACT was the following: "The ACT^® test assesses high school students' general educational development and their ability to complete college-level work."  Now, I have to wonder, is the ACT actually the best way to measure a student's total cumulation of education?  It seems as if it only tests certain subject areas.  It mostly tests one's ability to read and comprehend it, as well as basic grammatical skills and some math skills.  If that is all that one learns in high school, isn't school then a waste of time?  Those skills are important for college, but that's not all I have learned so far.  I have learned more than what was on the test, like how to think critically, analyze sections of text or actions, how to make movies, and how to interact socially with other students.  Are these things not important? (Ok, most colleges probably won't ask us to make movies.)


The Prairie State day two test was even more frustrating, because it asked us questions that would "test our readiness for the workforce."  It asked us things like how many people should be in a picture if you and your 6 friends wanted to have a picture taken.  I understand that in some parts of Illinois there may be a school where the student struggle with this, but I don't think that this kind of test is necessary to show that.  Why couldn't colleges be content with a copy of our transcript and a detailed report of what kinds of classes each student took, along with a school's reputation?  Why must students be reduced to numbers?

The Future is Now, but Why Weren't We Here Earlier?

This weekend I watched a fascinating documentary for the second time called Who Killed the Electric Car?  It traces the history of an all-electric car produced by General Motors in 1996 and literally destroyed by its makers  by 2005.  The film researches the causes of the death of the electric car at this time by interviewing many people involved in its sale, distribution, and production, as well as politicians and people who influenced the decisions of CARB, the air resources board in California.  It turns out that a mixture of forces, including Big Oil companies, Big car companies, and government organizations failing to keep the car manufacturers to a high standard killed the electric car.  One interesting thing is to see how other car companies killed their electric vehicle programs from the same era.  I found a lot of information about that here.

However, each of these groups has a very strong reason to kill the electric car: profits.  But there is one factor that was completely unexpected to me.  Hydrogen power.  For years, car companies have been researching hydrogen power as a source of clean energy to power their vehicles.  For over 15 years, researchers have said that the technology to produce such a car is about 15-20 years away.  The issues with this technology are that it is not very durable, uses more energy than battery powered cars, and lacks infrastructure to support it.  However, the technology for battery powered electric vehicles exists now.

The problem is, we should already have battery powered cars on the road!  It is only because the car companies and oil companies killed the program that we don't already have access to the technology that we should.  As Chelsea Sexton said in the movie, "This is the technology of the future, but it shouldn't have to be. It should be the technology of now."

Working on Writing

In the process of writing my Junior Theme, I have thoroughly enjoyed researching electric cars.  I love to find out new information and to understand just what happened when, and all the chemsitry of why each battery works even better than the previous.  However, that is not the point of this.  While I love to gather information, it will be nothing unless I can express what I learned in a way my audience will understand.  Frequently I have a hard time coming up with the right words to explain everything that is in my head, which is why I see Junior Theme as so daunting.  But its time to bite the proverbial bullet and just do it.  So here is a sample intro I'm working on.  Please comment and tell me what you think.

The year is 2100.  What will it look like?  Will the world be a green utopia with flying cars and happy people, or will we languish on a destroyed planet filled with our own waste?  Largely, the answer to that question lies with our choices of energy.  Out of all the energy that humans use, about 30 percent of that energy is used for transportation, so it is imperative that transportation pollutes the least amount possible. (eia) One alternative to gasoline is an electric car that runs off of battery power.  While there are many benefits and advocates of using this type of transportation, it has been stopped from having clear successes every time it was introduced to the market.  Even today, when citizens of nearly every country agree that global warming is a serious problem, electric cars were still denied access to the roads.  The electric car didn't succeed in the United States because of unrealistic consumer expectations, lack of infrastructure, shortsighted companies, and poor government decisions.

Any thoughts?  Maybe a clear plastic binder will help... ?

The Research Process: Up, then Down Some More.

So far, my research has been semi-fruitful.  I read my whole book over break, and I have a bunch of great articles, but I realized today that most of what I've been reading towards will not answer my why question.  So now I am doing a speed-research.  I've found about 7 more sources, in addition to the others, which I have converted to my goal.  But I still don't really have a person to interview, nor have I looked at questions yet.  This is becoming a little stressful.  However, I do have some interesting information concerning my theme.

Ford came out with a small electric delivery van around the same time that GM came out with it's EV1.  Only 100 of these vans were built.  They were not produced because the sodium sulfur battery sometimes burst into flame during charging.  That seems like a bit of a problem.

Ford then stopped looking into batteries and started investing in hydrogen powered vehicles.  The problem is that hydrogen fuel cells are fragile, and the alternatives to them are much easier to continue in.

Basically, we are nearing the end of our ability to make gasoline more efficient.  But Europe has changed their cars to diesel, which is more efficient.  While diesel does produce some pretty nasty gases, there is technology available to sequester them, even use them to help power the vehicle!  That wouldn't take any additional infrastructure; we already have gas stations that offer diesel.  Also, bio-fuels are greener and can be blended in with gasoline to help improve greenness, performance, and doesn't take additional infrastructure.

Basically, the car companies don't want to produce an electric car until the infrastructure to support the car and fuel it are in place, and there is a significant demand for them.  The infrastructure won't get there until there are actually cars on the road that need that service.  It's a vicious cycle.  And while hydrogen seems like the greenest and most helpful, it requires different kinds of filling stations, new technology and new mindsets of consumers.  And that just isn't viable right now.  But we can take steps, like using hybrid technology.  Would you be willing to buy an electric car, knowing that the infrastructure to support your car would pretty much just be in a plug in your house?

Why Can't We Be Color Blind?

I was on vacation and listened to a song called Color Blind, by Michael W. Smith.  The lyrics really made me think about what we teach about race.  So here is a link to where I got them, and here they are.

(Michael W. Smith / Wayne Kirkpatrick)

There's not a world of difference
Out in the world tonight
Between this world of people
Red, Yellow, Black and White
But instead of riding a rainbow of love
We still are fighting with prejudice gloves
Of anger
With something to claim
But nothing to gain so
Chorus:
Why can't we be color blind
You know we should
Be living together
And we'd find a reason and rhyme
I know we would
'Cause we could see better
If we could be color blind

Somebody's just assuming
He's up to nothing good
'Cause he's not like the others
There goes the neighborhood
What kind of world are we living in
When we judge a man by the tone of his skin
It's crazy
'Cause he has a heart
Like you have a heart and

Chorus

Bridge:
It'd be so fine
To be color blind
To open our eyes
And see color blind

I know this world would be a better place
The only race would be the human race
All of those barriers would be erased
Why can't we be color blind

Chorus


What Smith brings up here is a very interesting concept.  That instead of looking at people as different, we see them as the same.  This seems to go against the normal educational pattern.  Most teachers teach that we should celebrate differences.  But what if we just treated each other like fellow human beings?  What would the world be like?  Also, the idea that becoming blind to one thing actually opens up our eyes and allows us to see seems like a contradiction, but after a little thought, it seems true.  We would see people as equals, without the visual barrier of color, and the best part?  We wouldn't even know the difference, and would treat every person equally.


But what would others think?  Would they like having their cultural heritage and differences from others ignored or not noticed?  Would that be a big deal in comparison to the positive treatment that all people would receive?