“Will this be on the test?” As you might imagine, in four decades of teaching I heard this question numerous times. Of course, I tested students and provided little quizzes to help prepare them for tests. In my recording techniques class, I administered one-on-one tests, so my students could show me they knew their way around a digital audio workstation. Tests helped me verify that my students could demonstrate competency. I’m probably old-fashioned, but I still think tests are an acceptable way to hold students accountable as well as prod the instructor to help students learn.
That said, when people criticize high-stakes testing, I’m with them. School boards and state legislatures have turned what should be a diagnostic tool into a way to reward or punish schools. Instead of helping students and teachers improve learning and instruction, these tests have provided a way for politicians and pundits to attack teachers for not “producing” a higher quality “product.” Some countries have done away with standardized tests, and it seems teachers and students do better without the necessity of “teaching to the test,” or the stress that everyone is under to “perform,” or else.
“All of life is a test,” some say. In a way, that’s right. We are all part of a learning situation in which our prosperity, our very survival, depends on passing the test. Some call this “adulting.” We go to school, learn a trade, become proficient in something, so we can get a job, pay our bills, and generally-speaking, demonstrate our competency. Yet, we are all part of a larger community. Our passing or failing is not just an individual matter. We have other people to work with. Some who help us when we falter, and others we help in turn. School tends to be an artificial environment, unless the teacher understands that collaboration and do-overs are part of the process.
The main thing I remember about my doctoral qualifying exams was writing until my hand ached. Nevertheless, I suppose these “comprehensive” exams somehow showed my committee I was worthy of a doctorate. I think the experience showed me once and for all how little I knew. If the object of the test was humility, I’d say it was a resounding success. Maybe any test, rightly understood, is an opportunity to build character.
In the Gospel of Luke, the devil tested Jesus’ character. “If you are the Son of God,” he said, “throw yourself down from here, for it is written, ‘He will command his angels concerning you, to protect you… And Jesus answered him, “It is said, ‘You shall not put the Lord your God to the test.’”
We often test each other. We want to know who is loyal, who is on “our side,” or who we can trust. But not every test is fair, or even valid. We shouldn’t be compelled to do something dangerous just to see if God will show himself. And we shouldn’t compel others to do things that go against their conscience just to “prove” they are with us. The old fallacy comes to mind: “You’re either with us, or you’re with the enemy.” One can be critical of their country and still be patriotic, while another can talk like a patriot and still be an enemy.
The US Constitution states, “…no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.” However, around 90% of Congress identify as Christians, about 6% are Jewish, and the rest are from other religions. While there is no official “test,” clearly the public prefers one religion over all others, and the chances of an avowed atheist being elected to Congress are slim. Many people will vote for just about anyone, regardless of their background, rather than a person who does not at least claim to be a Christian. It seems a religious test is in fact required, although it is based mainly on public opinion.
Recently, a friend of mine, a retired professor who spent his career teaching courses about the Bible and doing mission work abroad, was attacked on social media for not supporting a particular presidential candidate. Several people asserted he was not a Christian, or could not be, because he did not support this person. Yet, until he expressed his political conscience, no one questioned his Christian beliefs. My reaction: If allegiance to any person other than Jesus Christ has become the test for whether someone can be considered a Christian, I will not give that person my allegiance. Christianity requires devotion to Christ, period. No king, queen, president, or presidential candidate is worthy of such reverence. If this means I’ve failed the test, so be it.
MurrayWorks 