Testing Skills Do Not Define Knowledge

Testing a students intelligence will always be a losing battle, because most students do not retain information or test the same. I honestly believe there is no RIGHT way to test a students intelligence or knowledge of a subject. With that being said, I do not believe that standardized tests are the ideal way. 

As a teacher to be it breaks my heart that we decide how knowledgeable and intelligent students are by a standardized test. No teacher wants to teach to a test. Me, personally, I want to teach to impact lives and see my students grow in their own individual ways through education. Education is not a one size fits all kind of thing. Not all students learn the same, not all students are ideal testers. Every student is an individual, that holds their own individual strengths and weaknesses. 

The standardized tests we use are one size fits all and clearly do not rightfully test students of their knowledge or intelligence. They rather test a student on memorization and testing skills. I'm sorry, but testing skills and memorization do not measure how smart a child is. Which many students lack due to testing anxiety, or learning disabilities. So this post is like you said a nice move in the right direction, and I look forward to even more nice moves in the right direction to change the standardized test or give alternatives to the standardized tests.

Privacy...what's that?

In the article Protect Cell Phone Privacy on the Daily Texan Lisa Kinzer speaks about HB1608 which would set stronger restrictions and boundaries on authorities ability to gain access to one's cell phone. After 9/11 it has been as simple as a couple of pressed buttons to have access to hand held devices which American's worlds revolve around. The reasons behind 'hacking' into our cell phones were justifiable, then, with the situation we were in, but authorities took a bit of an advantage of being in a bad place. Authorities could and can even  11 years later have access to the deepest of our conversations, e-mails, facebooks, texts, where we are in relation to a cell tower, anything that can be held in our devices can be held in their hands whenever they would like without any justification or consent from any one including ourselves. This is our Free America? I think that is a bit past violating our right to privacy.

There is a fine line that needs to be drawn and hopefully this bill will draw it. If there are previous allocations against someone, or probable cause then I agree that it is completely appropriate to gain access to any device, but with someone's consent or a warrant. This bill will assure that cell phone providers are not being bribed by money, which has previously been done, to release cell phone records, and will document exactly what is being accessed when, and exactly how many tax dollars will  be spent on warrants to gain access to cell phone records. This bill is a much needed step back toward the privacy we deserve as Americans that we had before 9/11.

Bag Bans: Positive or negative?

I completely disagree with  Through The Eyes of a Texan 's post to repeal the Bag Ban. The intentions of the bag ban is not work on being a step closer to bettering the environment, not one's pocket. If one is financially responsible enough to be able to purchase groceries, one should be able to purchase one or two dollar  reusable bag that holds double if not triple what a plastic bag holds. 

I'm 20 and I live in Pflugerville and have previous experience working at a grocery store, the bag ban has not even been enforced here and 8 out of the 10 people that walk out the door have groceries in a reusable bag. I have my own reusable bags, and there are so many different kinds that make it difficult to forget, like the ones that are compact enough to fit in a woman's purse, or the ones that fold up. 

It's difficult to come up with an excuse to not bring a reusable bag when the positives outweigh the negatives. The plastic bags that the few heartbroken are so desperate to use are the same plastic bags that are not biodegradable, they trap wild life, and if thrown away instead of recycling they end up in our waste composites and create harmful toxins when burned. 

As far as the reusable bags being unsanitary, that is one's own prerogative. If one would like a clean place to put their groceries then there are ways to sanitize one's bags. 

I think it's safe to say spending an extra dollar for something one can reuse at any store as they please is worth saving hundreds of thousands of animals, not unintentionally polluting our air and  creating a less harmful place to live in.

Legalize for Rights, Not Morals

Texas is for the most part an extremely conservative state. Many of our opinions and perspectives are based off of religion and not logic. Is it logical for us, as Texans, to strip someone of these rights: the right to certain benefits related to work and social security, the right to make medical decisions when a loved one cannot make their own, the right to assume owning joint property, the right to parent and make decisions for a child one considers their own? Is that LOGICAL? No.

Texas needs to set their conservative views aside, use some logic and realize regardless of these people's sexual orientation, they are still human. They still breathe the same air as us, eat from the same ground, and contribute to our economy and society the same way they do. Texas should either legalize these rights for same sex partners or legalize same sex marriage. It is not about the bible, and what their "God" thinks is right. It is about human rights, and human equality.

This argument is so frustrating the reason being, these people have nothing against those who do not support them except for the fact that they do not support them. They just want equal rights. They just want those who do not recognize to recognize they are just as much functional people in this society: who work, pay taxes, have kids who are in public schools, who suffer from illness. Just as we all do, yet because they are attracted to the same sex they do not deserve equal rights. This is our America right? This is the gracious place of the "American Dream" where  we are made of freedom, and equality? This is freedom and equality?

We Want Your Pee

Austin's Chronicle, Michael King blesses us with his overly opinionated article called "We Want Your Urine" about Governor Rick Perry and Governor David Dewhurts' bright idea to mandate urine drug tests to anyone receiving a welfare check, or filing for unemployment. Perry and Dewhursts intentions are to cut the government spending on welfare and create jobs for those who would be running the mandatory drug tests. At first glance this may sound like a good idea, who wants to give money to those who are wasting it on drugs, but after King's argument one's mind is quickly changed. King illustrates many validating points that prove not only is this unnecessary but it is overstepping a boundary, and if we are going to test participants who are working , or looking for work then there are a whole pool of people that should also have be mandated on cue to have their urine tested. His two main points being, one that the urine tests costs just as much if not more money than the welfare checks the people would be receiving, and two many of the people in higher positions such as Harold Simmons who makes tenfold the amount of money any of these people receiving welfare checks  a year would ever make are not drug tested on demand to receive their salary. Those in higher positions are just as if not more likely to abuse narcotics and they are potentially funded by the government just as welfare is. King's intentions are to make Perry's bright idea look ridiculous like many of his do. King says how Perry has earned us an unofficial motto of "Bad Ideas Tried Here First and Proven Not to Work". King points out not only is this a ridiculous idea, but it is violating a person's fourth amendment of unreasonable search and seizure. Other states that have tried to put mandate urine tests in effect have suffered a huge amount of law suits once again defeating the whole purpose of financial benefit. Michael King did a great job at making his point and in a humorous way I'm sure his audience was more than satisfied with his argument against Perry and Dewhursts "bright idea". 

Who Wouldn't Want to be Here?

On February 11 2013 Ross Ramsey published a story on Texas Tribune about the battle for business in California between Texas Governor Rick Perry and Californian Governor Jerry Brown. Rick Perry took a four day trip to California and spent nearly $24,000 on ads to convince businesses to move their business to Texas because business is so "much easier" in Texas than business in California. Brown and Perry duke it out to convince Californians where business would be better. The truth is, neither Perry or Brown care where business will be easier for the businesses Perry just wants to steal the businesses from California to grow economically, and Brown wants to keep it to maintain growing rates in the economy in California. Perry used nothing factual to persuade these businesses other than it is Texas, it is beautiful who wouldn't want to be here? Who does that? Texas being a great place is not going to convince me I want to move my business there. Perry claims his tactics were just to get the idea out there, but that is not something that I feel is going to capture the business's attention. This article is pure entertainment.