Against the Regents Exam in History

Who was Mansa Musa? I can already imagine the puzzled look on the reader's face, followed by the mental voice asking, "who cares?" And who cares, indeed? The answer to that is some obscure academics and 10th grade students in New York State during brief three hour periods in January, June, and August, when Regents Exams are held.

Past Regents exams can be viewed here. I did not pick Mansa Musa because he is obscure; I picked him because he is obscure and always appears on the Global Regents test. The June 2011 test is not up yet, but he made an appearance there as well. All students in New York State must pass this test in order to graduate; this test is the single greatest barrier to graduating in terms of Regents tests. The state passing rate in 2009-2010 was a mere 69%.

I believe history Regents exams need to be abandoned. As I don't teach other subjects, I will not pretend to be qualified to judge whether they are valuable or not; in more objective fields like Math and Science, perhaps they are of value. In History, however, these tests fail to be useful, largely because they lack a purpose outside of quantifying results for the bureaucracy of New York. Unfortunately, the centralization of education into the hands of the state (and increasingly Federal) government requires a simple measurement to gauge assessment. Large bureaucracies are too unwieldy to allow for proper assessment of a school's performance, much less that of an individual student. Rather than increasing the bureaucratization, quantification, and alienation of education, our state would benefit by increasing local autonomy and standards.

Under our current educational regime, "The Test" dominates the classroom. Teachers are not yet reduced to automatons, but the difficulty of this exam, combined with the severe consequences of not passing it (namely, going throughout life without graduating high school), forces the teacher to make educational decisions based largely on the Regents. Mansa Musa is a good example. As he invariable appears on the test, teachers must spend time on him. It is, in effect, a gimme, a question students should get right. But do you remember your puzzlement at the name Mansa Musa when you read the first line of this post? Obviously, Mansa Musa isn't remembered, mostly because he serves no real use to us now. A teacher with autonomy could make the decision not to cover this otherwise obscure 14th Century West African monarch, but under the Regents the situation is different. Material is presented in the name of the Test, not in the name of Usefulness. Students are not stupid and pick up on this.

So why does New York put Mansa Musa, the Gupta Empire, the Neolithic Revolution, and Toussaint L'Ouverture on the multiple choice section? Mostly because they appeared on past exams and it provides teachers with some sort of expectations as to what will appear on upcoming tests. 10,000 years of civilization is a very long period of time to cover, even in two years of instruction. To then create 50 multiple choice questions from all of the events in human history and expect 15 and 16 year olds to know the answers is beyond absurd. To create some sort of quantifiable test, the State creates some regularity in which individuals and time periods are questioned. The determining factor is not education or enlightenment, but quantification.

History, and indeed all social science, is a difficult field to teach. Science and math are intuitive; once the skill is learned, students can apply the skill to problems never presented in class. For a really easy example, consider addition. Once one figures out what addition is, one can add 476 and 38, even if they never encountered the exact problem 476+38=? during school. History is different. A vast multitude of people, places, nations, philosophies, religions, conflicts, resources, and other variables weave an immensely complex story. Those variables are not interchangeable. One may ask a math student to solve a brand new equation once that student has mastered the principle. There is no such principle in history. Julius Caesar ruled in Rome in the late first century B.C. and no other period. Once that is understood, I cannot then expect a student to know Augustus, though he too ruled in Rome during the late first century B.C. No two people who have ever lived have faced identical situations; each important person, time, and event must be learned on its own. Once this is done, comparisons can be made between people, places, and times.

History is not the mere memorization of facts anymore than friendship is knowing the birthday and address of another human being. To truly understand an event in history, one must know who the people were, what they wanted, how they went about obtaining those desires, who they had to contend with, when these events occurred, how the past impacted the present moment being discussed and how that in turn lead to events following it. When one has a narrative, the details fit together like a puzzle, which is infinitely more memorable than a collection of facts that is analogous to a heap of puzzle pieces.

Many teachers are capable of presenting history in this narrative and the Regents does not preclude it. However, the question we need to answer is whether or not students can create this narrative on their own. I have not seen anyone actually conduct this study, but I would wager good money that many high school graduates could no longer pass this exam. Material is presented, retained until the test, and for the most part forgotten, save by those who have a natural interest in history and who likely knew 90% of the material prior to entering the Global class. The month long preparation to memorize facts for the test may increase passing rates, but it does nothing to increase long term recall. I informally polled Seniors about information presented in Global Studies two years prior; I believe many would not pass if required to take the exam again.

Rather than learning how to create Thematic and Document Based Question essays, students would be better served by learning how to do research and analysis. Granted, this could not be done under a statewide, quantitative system, as the research of tens of thousands of students would be far too varied for the state to keep track of and quantify reliably (i.e. identically). The problem there lies with the state, however, and not the usefulness of research. As things stand, most students graduating from high school are not prepared to perform college level academics. I have made the case elsewhere that society should not put such a high emphasis on college to begin with, but even those who could make use of such an education are not as prepared as they could be.

While the state may not be able to assess tens of thousands of research projects, teachers are able to assess and improve those skills for the hundred or so students they may have. There are significant benefits to having a decentralized, qualitative system, namely that those at the local level actually know the students beyond a number score sent in once at the end of the year. Take a quick look at the chart below:

This is known as Bloom's Taxonomy. As I mentioned before, history is far more than the memorization of facts. The largest aspect of the Regents Exam is, however, a 50 question multiple choice section that is nearly all mere recall. Another 13-14 questions are DBQ responses, in which a student reads a small passage and answers a question about it, usually by copying something directly from the text itself. That is comprehension, the second step up. As for the essays, so long as the student understands the directions and addresses each aspect of the task, even in very little detail that is a mere recitation of facts, the student can score a 2. Two essays at 2 each, plus the DBQs in which the student literally reads the answer and writes it back down, combined with a 60% correct on the rote memorization multiple choice questions, and the student passes.

A student need not show any sign of higher learning abilities than comprehension in order to pass this test. In order to create informed and responsible citizens, students need to be able to evaluate different economic and political philosophies. Students would be better served by learning about fewer issues throughout history but learning them more in depth, in which they will have the requisite knowledge and application and an opportunity to apply those lessons to, say, current events. As more current events are brought in, the more opportunities students will have to exercise the three highest levels of thinking. The details as to how to implement such a plan are best left to the teachers on the ground, rather than imposing blanket standards from above.

At this point, I am beginning to digress into how social studies should be instructed, a topic that deserves its own lengthy post in the near future. For now, I think it is safe to say that the Regents Exams in history (and particular Global) are actually counterproductive if our goal is to create citizens capable of independent thought. A better education can be provided by granting local teachers more autonomy and weakening the unrealistic belief that quantification somehow equates with an improvement in student understanding. New York may have a reputation for excellence in education due to our difficult testing requirements, but that does not mean we are actually producing more enlightened students. And that, after all, is the actual purpose of education.

Arizona Free Press Enterprise v. Bennett

The Supreme Court released its ruling today on Arizona Free Press Enterprise v. Bennett, a 1st Amendment case dealing with campaign financing. Under Arizona's law, once a candidate privately funding his own campaign hit a specific level of fundraising, all publicly funded candidates would receive a matching donation, dollar for dollar, paid by the taxpayers, to keep those publicly funded candidates matched with privately funded candidates. Arizona's law was struck down in a 5-4 decision, with the usual suspects on each side of the case and Kennedy joining the majority. The general idea is that candidates must not be required to fund opposing viewpoints. As each publicly funded candidate receives a dollar for every dollar raised above the limit set by the law on private funding, each dollar raised can lead to multiple dollars of spending against the candidate, paid for by the taxpayer.

For example: imagine there are four candidates, one privately raising money and three relying on public funding. The privately funded candidate hits the limit and now finds himself in a bind. If he raises another $1,000 to get his message out, his opponents receive a total of $2840 ($3000-6% to supposedly match the cost of private fundraising). Clearly, this freezes the privately funded candidates free speech, as any additional speech by him leads to a threefold increase for his competition paid for by the state.

There are two things I wish to point out about this case. The first is about campaign finance laws in general. Campaign ads may be annoying, but they are not evil. Democracy requires free speech, in particular during elections. Campaign fundraising is directed solely at propagating information for public consumption, i.e. free political speech. To limit how much people may say during an election is to limit their speech; there is no way around that.

Secondly, I wish to examine the dissent of Justice Kagan. The introduction to her dissent shows a lot about her understanding of the role of government and the role of judiciary within the government. She begins with an analogy between two states, both of which are supposedly corrupt because of campaign expenditures. I don't disagree with Justice Kagan that there is a strong tendency in democracies for candidates to buy support with government largess. I would recommend fighting this tendency by reducing the power of the government and hence the spoils they may kick back to favored voters. Justice Kagan takes a different view: remove (or at least seriously weaken) the ability of private citizens to speak and give that power to the government.

The problems here should be fairly obvious. Politicians do not just reward donors with paybacks; they tend to favor the lower class with free government programs and zero percent tax rates. Politicians are not elected by "special interests" but by the majority of all voters. I am appalled that anyone would believe silencing the voice of interests in America is the proper role of government! Massive amounts of money spent on campaigns is not a bad sign. I would have to imagine "elections" in Saddam's Iraq were fairly cheap affairs. There is no officeholder in this nation who holds that office due to "wealthy contributors." Every officeholder is elected by the majority of voters.

If you wish to reduce corruption, reduce the power of government to spend. The government has no proper role in either reducing the ability of some candidates to speak or of increasing the ability of others. I am not compelled to vote for the person with the most money, and if a candidate cannot raise funds, it is a good indicator that the candidate is not particularly favored by the electorate. The government has no compelling interest in holding some candidates down or raising others up; that is a power bound to be abused.

"By supplanting private cash in elections, public financing eliminates the source of political corruption."

Absolutely not. Increased government spending for favored groups can be promoted with public funding as well as private and will be more of an incentive for large numbers of lower and middle class supporters to vote for a candidate. This is still corruption. Public funding only eliminates the voice of private citizens from speaking their minds.

Kagan's focus on reducing political corruption and such via public funding shows a misplaced view for a member of the judiciary. The question at hand is not whether public funding increases or decreases corruption; the only question at hand is whether Arizona may pass such a law or not. Under the theory of incorporation, state governments are bound by the First Amendment, the sole role of which is to reduce the power of the government. It has been long established that government actions that do not outright ban speech but having a chilling effect upon it are illegal. Clearly, a law that threatens to pour cash into opponents coffers if a candidate raises money for political speech will cause a candidate not to raise money and hence not participate in speech. Kagan's emphasis is that of a legislator, not a judge. The law needs to be her sole guiding principle, not her idea of what our political society should look like.

Quick Reactions to the Legalization of Gay Marriage

I applaud New York State for allowing homosexual couples to marry. I further applaud their decision not to force religious groups opposed to such weddings to carry them out. The use of force should not be used upon consenting adults. If it makes people happy and harms no one else, then there is no justification for using force. Many religious individuals will be unhappy with this vote, but they need to understand that the state apparatus is not a vehicle for imposing their morality on other people. God calls on us to remove the logs from our own eyes prior to removing specks from that of other people; in short, until you are perfect, don't worry about what other people are doing, much less so use force on them to change their ways.

That said, many of my friends on the Left need to learn the same lesson. They applaud this decision, but then turn around and require higher taxes on tobacco, disgusting images on tobacco products, higher taxes on sugary foods, requiring people to purchase health care, etc. The whole point and purpose of opposing gay marriage bans is that the government has no point in telling people how to live their lives; what makes these other issues different? Live and let live, even when you don't like how other people choose to live.

There is a great deal of hypocrisy on both the Right and the Left. Neither side is truly committed to the ideal of not legislating morality; they merely have different moralities they wish to impose with the use of force. That is why I am a libertarian. I vote Republican because the Libertarian Party is a joke and the Republican is the lesser of the two evils, but hopefully the Tea Party movement will continue to swing the Republicans into the libertarian camp. The question we must ask every time a law is created is this: cui malo, or who is harmed? Laws regulate the interactions of man and man, not man and nature. Harm only exists when one person physically destroys, injures, or threatens to injure the property or person of another human being. If no one is harmed, then the government has no right to intervene. Gay marriage is a great example. Gay people are clearly not harmed by being allowed to marry each other. Other people may not like it, but that does not materially harm them. Furthermore, people may not like particular heterosexual marriages, but we recognize their right to choose regardless of society's collective opinion.

Politically, I am glad this went through the legislature rather than the courts. Other states have attempted to create this change through the judiciary, but it has often been countered with a state constitutional amendment that passes. Under such a situation, not only can the judges not change the laws, but even the legislature finds its hands tied. Having it passed through the legislature is more democratic, which is a better indicator that a constitutional amendment challenge will fail.

The Daily Snark 6/24

This Libya mission continues to be a muddled mess. The House of Representatives shoots down an authorization bill but also votes to not defund the mission. If nothing else, this shows the importance of gaining Congressional approval prior to launching attacks overseas. I have no idea what our goal is in Libya or whether we are following our own laws in being there (though I highly suspect not in that second case).

Not the way "Hope and Change" was supposed to be.

The Daily Snark 6/22

Ban Ki-Moon was reelected to his post as Secretary General of the United Nations.

This is such an important event that I found out about it via Wikipedia, as no other news source found it worth making a big deal about. This may have something to do with the fact that the United Nations is effectively an ineffective joke at this point. Ban's first target is climate change; not terrorism, not collapsing economies, not rising food prices, not energy, not drug wars, but an unproven theory with "remedies" usually requiring massive economic hits on developed nations.

I can't imagine why the United Nations isn't a more powerful moral force in this world.

The Daily Snark 6/21

Osama bin Laden is apparently more popular in Egypt than Barack Obama. I don't fault our President for this; it was likely true under Bush as well. The short of it is, just because Egypt tossed out their autocratic ruler doesn't mean any democracy that arises will either love us, the Israelis, or peace. And it is far from certain that this will actually end in democracy rather than some sort of military junta.

I think the mess that is the Muslim world is going to bite us again before too long. Frankly, it bothers me that roughly 1/6th of world belongs to this backwards culture. Islam may have been the bees knees in the Ninth Century, but it hasn't advanced much since then.

The Daily Snark 6/20

Today marks the 91st day since the United States began bombing Libya. This is important, since as of this day President Obama is required by law to have Congressional authorization in order to continue the attack.

He doesn't have that authorization. The attacks are continuing.

To begin with, this law was broken when the attack was initiated. The President may only introduce the use of military force when

1. there is an declaration of war
2. specific Congressional authorization
3. a national emergency in which the United States is being directly attacked.
   

Clearly, none of those situations existed when this conflict began. Critics of the Iraq War (and often Obama supporters) may not like that conflict, but at least it was signed off by the legislative branch.

To make matters worse, even if the attack began legitimately, the War Powers Resolution does require Congressional authorization within 90 days. We have passed that mark and the President continues his attack with Congressional authorization. Pretty clearly, this law is being broken by the executive branch.

The written excuse put out by the President is beyond contemptible. Basically, the argument is that this is a small conflict, so it doesn't count. Go back to the War Powers Resolution and you'll note that there is no exception made for small conflicts, or those involving low probability of casualties, or not having boots on the ground. If the President wishes to use military force against another nation, he must have Congressional approval. No exceptions are made in the law.

The War Powers Resolution fills a necessary hole in our division of power, as military action may be necessary before the slow gears of legislation can catch up to a national emergency in our modern age. Pretty clearly, Libya was no threat to our nation; if we wished to change their regime or stabilize the region, those are reasonable objects, but they require a national discussion followed by approval from the branch closest to the People. The President's action is nothing more than a naked power grab, which unfortunately will pay off for him. There is no real judicial recourse to end the campaign; no court writ will undo Libyan lives ended by American missiles.

I've pointed out elsewhere that the political and moral reasons for this Libyan intervention are pretty ridiculous as they could just as easily apply to Syria, which the Administration has shied away from. It looked like an easy opportunity to have a rally 'round the flag effect and show the United States supporting purported democracy lovers in the Middle East. Clearly, that has not been the case. That the President is so willing to break the rule of law is most distressing. Some modification to the War Powers Resolution is required in order to give it judicial teeth; if a law cannot be enforced, it is not a law.

The Daily Snark 6/18

Recently I posted a thing from Gallup about how little Americans know about current events. Just to let you know that our understanding of the past isn't much better, either, and isn't going to get better in the near future.

There will be an upcoming post on teaching history shortly enough, but for now I think it is safe to say democracy may not be the best of ideas when you put control of the most powerful government in the world into the hands of idiots.

The Daily Snark 6/17

Greece's two year bonds are now issued at 30% interest.

30 freaking percent on debt. My credit card is significantly lower than that. There is no situation that does not involve a Greek default save for the rest of Europe to take on nearly a half trillion dollars of debt into their own not so pretty balance sheets. And if they did that, they would have to do the same for Portugal (another half trillion dollars), Ireland, and likely Spain. That's not possible. Greece will go under, it will take the Euro with it, it will devastate the credit markets again, and it will happen soon, as in within the next two years but more likely the next six months.

It will be fun to see how this is spun to attack capitalism like the housing market was.

The Daily Snark 6/15

You know an economy is in bad shape when the best thing the President can do to ease financial hardships is sign autographs in his own handwriting.

Other signs include "reshuffling" your government to somehow help an economic crisis. Apparently the Greeks don't realize this isn't an game of actual cards. That's too bad, since their strategy up until this point seems to have been bluff everyone into believing Greece won't go bankrupt in the very short future.