No PolitiFact Texas, The Texas GOP IS Calling For Schools to Stop Teaching Critical Thinking Skills

As readers of this blog know, I am a frequent defender of independent fact checking operations such as PolitiFact, FactCheck, and The Fact Checker. These operations are necessary to promote critical thinking and reality based political discourse. However, the people who run these operations are human and do occasionally make mistakes (although quite a bit fewer than some would have you believe). I believe a recent PolitiFact Texas article is indeed guilty of one of these mistakes. The article examined a claim by New York Times columnist Gail Collins in which she claims "The current Republican state [Texas] platform calls for an end to the teaching of ‘critical thinking’ in public schools." PolitiFact Texas argues this was taken out of context and assigns a rating of "Half True" to the claim. But did PolitiFact do a satisfactory job justifying this rating?

As PolitiFact notes, Outcome Based Education is not a concrete idea.

"So what the heck is it? The news stories we read indicate outcome-based education takes different forms nearly everywhere it's applied. The Fort Worth Star-Telegram gave a description in an Oct. 30, 1996, news story about opposition to OBE-like elements in the state's planned education overhaul:

Under outcome-based education, academic and personal goals are set for students before they can graduate. The program stresses that children are not allowed to fail, so they might be given the same test or report over and over until they do the work satisfactorily. It also may eliminate traditional grades, competitive student assessments and distinct subjects and grade levels.

Methods of implementing outcome-based education include awarding group grades instead of individual grades and eliminating honors programs.

The "founding father" of OBE, education reformer William Spady, gave an example in an interview for the December 1992/January 1993 issue of Educational Leadership magazine, published by ASCD (formerly the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development). Asked whether an outcome might be "The student will be able to list the five causes of the Civil War," Spady replied: "No, sorry; that is not an exit outcome. But, 'Identify and explain the fundamental causes and consequences of the Civil War' would be an enabling outcome worth pursuing en route to some larger exit outcome.""

That is interesting, but could that be what the Texas GOP is actually referring to? PolitiFact takes a look at their 2010 platform:

""The primary purpose of public schools is to teach critical thinking skills, reading, writing, arithmetic, phonics, history, science, and character . We oppose Outcome-Based Education (OBE) and similar programs.""

Based on what PolitiFact has found as a description of OBE, nothing in the Texas 2010 platform seems to apply here. In fact, the earlier Civil War example sounds like an attempt to actually understand the civil war instead of just memorizing a few facts. It is the difference between telling a student to "list" and "explain." The former is mere memorization. The latter includes thinking critically about the causes and outcomes. So why again does the GOP not support OBE? Let us look again at their 2012 platform:

"We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) (values clarification), critical thinking skills and similar programs that are simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based Education (OBE) (mastery learning) which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority." (emphasis mine)

Humans are not natural critical thinkers, so behavior modification is necessary for critical thinking. And critical thinking necessarily also involves challenging fixed beliefs and authority. So it sounds as if the reason the Texas GOP wants to ban OBE is actually because of qualities necessary for critical thinking. If they want to ban qualities necessary for critical thinking, does it not follow that they must therefore want to effectively ban critical thinking all together? Donald Prothero of SkepticBlog explains:

And the last phrase is almost too bizarre for belief: they explicitly don’t want their kids to think critically because their ideas might challenge “the student’s fixed beliefs and undermine parental authority.” That’s it in a nutshell—the classic dogma of fundamentalist churches and authoritarian states. Don’t think for yourself, don’t ask questions, don’t rock the boat, because the Church, the GOP and your parents are the ultimate repository of truth, and we don’t want to have the lies we told you as children undermined by anything like education.

So PolitiFact is correct that critics have failed to take note of the OBE part of the GOP platform. But given how they describe OBE, it is clear they are talking about what essentially boils down to critical thinking. So the distinction should have made this article score a "Mostly True" at worst.

In addition it is striking is that PolitiFact falls for the GOP's weasel word use of the term "critical thinking":

"Both [2010 and 2012] platforms support critical thinking when it comes to "controversial theories" such as evolution, which "should be taught as challengeable scientific theories ... Teachers and students should be able to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of these theories openly and without fear of retribution or discrimination of any kind.""

There is strong evidence to suggest "critical thinking" in this context has little to do with actual critical thinking skills. It is essentially used as a weasel word for unsubstantiated challenges to the theory of evolution and climate change. The fact that the Texas GOP called the theory of evolution "controversial" speaks volumes as to what they are saying. The theory of evolution is accepted by nearly all biologists and scientists all over the world. It is far from controversial outside the minds of a generally scientifically illiterate public. Any kind of actual controversy within the theory of evolution is far above the level of any high school student. The "controversies" they speak of are actually a large number of widely debunked creationist arguments unfit for science education. This is not critical thinking. Just because the Texas GOP calls it critical thinking doesn't mean they support critical thinking skills. This is an obvious fallacy. For example, I could say I support a good diet but claim people should eat at McDonalds every day. Do I really support a good diet? Would someone not be justified in claiming I do not actually support a good diet.

So it sounds as if PolitiFact has missed the point. But this is to be expected every once in a while. Although PolitiFact is a great source of information in a world filled with disinformation, they are not always right. Should you dismiss them because they are not always right? Of course not! You would have to dismiss all information because the people that produce that information are all imperfect. PolitiFact has an excellent track record. So chances are their analysis is correct. All this post does is reinforce what fact checkers such as PolitiFact (as well as skeptics in general) have tried to say. Think critically and don't take anything for granted. Do not pick and chose what you are skeptical of based on pre-existing biases, and know when to reasonably accept a claim. Do not be a denier.

GOP Sacrificing Economy To Oust Obama

David Frum recently took note of a recent letter from the GOP to the Fed:

"We have serious concerns that further intervention by the Federal Reserve could exacerbate current problems or further harm the U.S. economy. Such steps may erode the already weakened U.S. dollar or promote more borrowing by overleveraged consumers."

As Frum points out:

"We are living through the most rapid deleveraging of the American consumer since the 1930s... The markets see deflation and depression, not inflation. Yet ironically this non-existent and much dreaded inflation is exactly the remedy we need to lighten the load of consumer debt."

He later asks:

"As is, we’re looking at a continued economic slump, more unemployment, and more deleveraging via continuing catastrophic consumer default on mortgages, car loans, credit cards, and student aid. And now the GOP leadership is urging that the Federal Reserve make the catastrophe worse? To what end?"

Could it be that Republicans are against such measures? In another article, Frum points out Republicans had exactly the opposite conclusion during early 90s:

"if conservative journalists could write so feelingly about the need to inject credit during the downturn of 1990-1991, how is that they have arrived at exactly the opposite policy conclusions during the much more severe downturn and deleveraging of 2009-2011? The need for monetary ease seems even greater this time than last – and yet the policy recommendation has been utterly reversed. What’s changed?"

As Joe Nocera of the New York Times explains:

"if the great conservative economist [Milton Friedman] were alive today, he would be leading the charge for quantitative easing."(emphasis mine)

There a a few possibilities for the answer to this question. One of the the most probable seems to be that Republicans have undergone a massive chance in ideology. However, when one of the most prominent leaders in the GOP say their number one priority is to make Obama a one-term president, it is hard to conclude this is not a major factor behind any otherwise crazy-sounding position. Nothing can sink an incumbent worse than a recession.

Tea Party Debate Fact Fail

Politifact has rated a few of the comments on the CNN / Tea Party Express GOP debate from 9-12-11:

Mitt Romney led the attacks on the Republican frontrunner, Texas Gov. Rick Perry, by saying that Perry didn't support the retirement program. "In writing his book, Gov. Perry pointed out that … by any measure Social Security has been a failure," Romney said. We checked Perry's book and found Romney was right. We rated the claim True.

Romney found much of his ammunition from Fed Up!, the book Perry published last year. Romney said that Perry said in the book that Social Security "is unconstitutional." We found that while Perry never exactly used those words, he came pretty close. We rated Romney's claim Mostly True.

Perry, asked about his comment likening Social Security to a Ponzi scheme, replied, "It has been called a Ponzi scheme by many people before me."

But when we asked experts about the structure of a Ponzi scheme and the funding of Social Security, the analogy does not hold up. So we rated Perry's claim False.

... 

When the conversation turned to jobs, Perry repeated a claim of many critics that the economic stimulus has created "zero jobs." We rated that Pants on Fire. The stimulus may not have created enough jobs to offset other losses, but most economists say it did add some jobs. (We even interviewed a man who attributed his new job to the stimulus.)
...

Romney and Rep. Michele Bachmann took aim at the health care law passed last year, claiming it took $500 billion out of Medicare. Bachmann said that President Barack Obama "stole over $500 billion out of Medicare to switch it to Obamacare." She has a point that cost-savings from Medicare were used to offset the cost of the rest of the law, but she misleads when she says the money was stolen. We rated her statement Mostly False.

Notice the return of a few doozies from their success in 2010:
They are still trying to pin Obama as a man who wants to rob Medicare of its funding. Of course nobody doubts this is a winning strategy. No truth needed.
Update 9-14-11: The Washington Post Fact Cheker pointed out something else about this claim:

In fact, in the House Republican budget this year, lawmakers repealed the Obama health-care law but retained all but $10 billion of the nearly $500 billion in Medicare savings, suggesting the actual policies enacted to achieve these spending reductions were not that objectionable to GOP lawmakers. (emphasis mine)

Republicans have decided to skip any conversation about the details of the stimulus and its effects on the economy. Instead they just repeat the demonstrably false claim that it didn't create a single job. Republicans have gone beyond the point of just calling it a failure. Now they feel they must continue to lie. Only problem, these lies are gunna take the market down with them.
Update 9-14-11: In the Fact Checker article mentioned above, Glen Kessler noted "A recent review of nine different studies on the stimulus bill found that six studies concluded the stimulus had “a significant, positive effect on employment and growth,” and three said the effect was “either quite small or impossible to detect.” "(emphasis mine)

One great point of the night was that Mitt Romney seemed to be constructing Obama's campaign for him. When you attack a program loved by 75% of the population, you may just as well plan on keeping your job in Texas.


Update 9-14-11: Fackcheck also checked the debate:

• "Bachmann said an executive order signed by Perry would have "forced" young girls to take a "potentially dangerous drug." But federal government regulators declared the drug a "safe and effective vaccine" to prevent a sexually transmitted disease that could lead to cervical cancer. Also, the order allowed parents to opt-out.
• Romney falsely accused Perry of misquoting him on Social Security. Perry correctly characterized a section of Romney's book in which Romney compared the federal government's management of Social Security to a banker who steals from his client's trust fund.
• Huntsman falsely claimed that Romney's book labeled Social Security "a fraud." Romney wrote that Americans have been "defrauded" because of the way the program has been managed, but he did not call it a "fraud."
• Santorum claimed Pennsylvania voters in 1994 rewarded his "courage to tell them the truth" about Social Security. But, as Santorum himself acknowledged at the time, he nearly lost that election after his opponent unearthed a video tape of the Republican discussing the need to raise the eligibility age for Social Security.
• Cain claimed county government retirees in Galveston, Texas, make "at least 50 percent more than they would ever get out of Social Security" because the county opted out of Social Security. But that's only for initial benefits, and those retirees do not get annual cost-of-living adjustments. Also, not all retirees get such a high initial benefit. 
• Perry cherry-picked job creation numbers when he boasted of creating 1 million jobs as governor "while the current resident of the White House is overseeing the loss of 2.5 million jobs." Texas has increased jobs by 1 million during Perry's tenure, but only 95,600 have come since Obama has been president."

Update 9-14-11: The GOP is becoming the party of the anti-corporate anti-vaxers.

Weely Roundup - Eyewitness Testimony, Strong Currency Problems, Fair Taxes, and Portal-Mario (4/4/11-9/10/11)

Welcome to another edition of my Weekly Roundup, a collection of some of my favorite Facebook posts from this last week. I understand I post a lot of things Facebook and, for anyone who is interested but doesn't have the time to read them all, this will give them a chance to see what I consider to be the most important. I will also get a chance to elaborate a bit more on certain posts. I will try to do this on a weekly basis but we will see if it works out. I am busy with school so I may not get a chance to do this every week.

Eyewitness testimony is UNreliable

NPR: "Reliability Of Eyewitness Testimony Under Scrutiny":
Yet more evidence of the unreliability of eyewitness testimony. It turns out that, contrary to the opinion of the Supreme Court, witness certainty can be a very good indicator of the unreliability of an individuals eyewitness testimony.
Just how aware are you?
More on the unreliability of eyewitness testimony


Damn that economy!
What seems to be the biggest issue of the day? First Switzerland showed us that having a strong currency can actually make you quite weak. Paul Krugman complained about the changing political discussion in Washington. David Brooks challenged some uses government spending meant to "fix the economy." Finally, I took a look at a few articles dealing with the economic plans of both Obama and Romney.

NPR: "Switzerland: Too Strong For Its Own Good":
Conservatives often speak of the evils of inflation, mainly accusing inflation of destroying people's savings. However, there is another side to inflation. Harvard Economist Ken Rogoff has previously pointed out that inflation can ease the burden of household debt, a major factor in our current recession/contraction. Now Switzerland is showing the world that a strong currency can also hurt a country by reducing demand for exports. In the US this would surely exacerbate our already large trade deficit as well as reduce demand for US products overseas, which is currently around one tenth of our GDP (exports are nearly half of Swiss GDP).

Skeptoid: "Wi-Fi, Smart Meters, and Other Radio Bogeymen":
Brian Dunning takes on the claim that radio waves can be harmful. As the World Health Organization classifies them, one should take an equal amount of precaution with coffee and the earth's gravitational field (good luck on that one!)

Paul Krugman: "The Fatal Distraction":
Krugman makes the case he's been making on his blog for quite some time, only now in a concise manner in an op-ed. The focus on Austerity (in the short term) is demonstrably crippling the economy. Conservative theories about regulation and tax fears are unfounded. Consumer demand is down and savings are up. How much more evidence to they need?
Krugman points out where he thinks the stimulus was inadequate, also noting the dramatic increase in consumer savings.
Krugman also shows that there is currently a de facto policy of austerity.

David Brooks "Where The Jobs Aren't":
David Brooks challenges the perceived efficiency of the government attempting to directly create private sector jobs. I do not agree with much of what he says. However it is an interesting read.
On the success of renewable energy
On the calculations of cost per job analysis of government spending on jobs
On The effectiveness of capital gains taxes
The overall effectiveness of government spending

Eric Levine: "Obama versus Romney on Jobs":

"Recently, both Obama and Romney have basically given what may turn out to be competing economic plans in 2012 (As of the date of this post, I have yet to see a serious economic plan from Rick Perry). Obama released his plan during a speech on Thursday night (9-8-11). Mitt Romney has already released his plan on his website. This post is a collection of a few articles on those plans."

Fodder for climate skeptics
Of course I cannot go a week without posting at least a few articles on climate change. NASA explained a dip in sea level rise that will surely show up on a few climate skeptic blogs. I summarized the ongoing controversy over the Spencer paper. Finally, Skeptical Science released a booklet detailing an often uncovered effect of climate change.

NASA: "NASA Satellites Detect Pothole on Road to Higher Seas":
NASA comments on the recent temporary decrease in global sea levels. It is due to La Nina, not due to the "end of global warming."

"while 2010 began with a sizable El Niño, by year's end, it was replaced by one of the strongest La Niñas in recent memory. This sudden shift in the Pacific changed rainfall patterns all across the globe... So where does all that extra water in Brazil and Australia come from? You guessed it--the ocean... [Sea] level drops such as this one cannot last, and over the long-run, the trend remains solidly up."

Skeptical science also explains the situation.

Eric Levine: "Climate Change "Skeptics" Climax Too Early... Again":

"Yet another story of climate change "skeptics" getting excited about something that turns out to be nothing. Here is a summary of the latest story in the ongoing novel of climate-change-skeptic-sensationalism..."

Skeptical Science: "OA not OK: Booklet available":
With all the media attention given to global warming, we often forget that more dangers exist from climate change other than just rising temperatures.

"In July and August 2011 we posted a long series to introduce the chemistry of ocean acidification. We have lightly edited and compiled the posts into a booklet."

Political differences abound
Politics! Dear Gawd when will it stop! Ezra Klein took a look at a possible case of Republican hypocrisy. Gregory Mankiw cleared up a liberal misconception about taxes and the rich. I reviewed Paul Krugman's answer to Barry Goldwater's book. Politifact took a look at tax loopholes for outsourcing. Finally, Jed Graham covered an "ingenious" plan to fix Social Security.

Ezra Klein: "Why did the GOP turn against stimulus? Ask a psychologist.":

"The bottom line is this: Until quite recently, both parties supported the idea that you combat bad economies with stimulus spending. Now, during an extremely bad economy, the Republican Party has completely abandoned that position."

Greg Mankiw: "Fair Taxes? Depends What You Mean by ‘Fair’ ": Harvard Economist Greg Mankiw points out that, although some billionaires like Warren Buffet can write their way out of a hefty dose of taxes, most millionaires still pay a larger percentage of their incomes in taxes (30%+) than do most Americans. Whether or not this is fair is mostly a philosophical question. Politifact also points out that the "Warren Buffet" phenomena only really applies to the "mega rich." The highest income earners still pay the lion's share of taxes. David Frum also points out that a much better "sacrifice" for the rich to make would be supporting inflation as a method to help the economy recover.

Eric Levine: "Book Review: Krugman's Rallying Cry to Liberals":

I just finished Paul Krugman's 2007 book, The Conscience of a Liberal. I actually liked this book much more than I initially expected. It is a very entertaining and mostly easy read (I actually listened to the audible audio book). Paul Krugman details America's transition from the "Long Gilded Age" (pre-New Deal) to the "Great Contraction" (post New Deal til 1980s) when America's income distribution became more egalitarian. He then details the switch back, starting in the late 1970s, when the top income earners saw large gains in real income while mid and lower income earners saw only modest gains, if any at all. This was due primarily to the growth of "Movement Conservatism." He then makes the case that it is now (back in 2007) possible to once again to work towards closing the income gap.

Politifact: "Did Republicans oppose closing corporate tax loopholes for outsourcing?":

"The SEIU is correct that Republicans did fight against Democratic plans to close tax loopholes on multinational corporations.... The link between the multinationals' tax status and their outsourcing of jobs is not direct, and that's an important distinction."

Jed Graham: "AARP Sees ‘A Better Way To Approach (Social Security) Benefit Changes’":
The AARP has long been thought of as the group that opposes practically every proposed solution to the problems of Social Security. This is mainly due to the fact that they do not want any changes to hit current retirees. It is also due to the fact that most of these plans also "cut the safety net where it needs to be strongest — in very old age." However, John Rother of the AARP has now embraced a plan that should help fix the problems with social security, as well as increase worker efficiency.


Can they really do that?!
So long as they don't sell it for money..

kottke: "A Super Mario Bros version of Portal?!":
Yes, this is an actual game being developed - it is not a mod of any existing one.

Minority data shows a grim future for the GOP

Brookings: "America Reaches Its Demographic Tipping Point":
This is an interesting article:

The latest wave of 2010 Census data, released this week, confirms what earlier surveys have strongly hinted: virtually half of recent births in the U.S. are minorities...
Minorities now comprise at least 40 percent of infants in more than half of all states, with the white share of infants declining in all of them, with the exception of the District of Columbia. Especially large minority gains occurred in New England states, Connecticut, Rhode Island and Massachusetts, as well as rapidly growing states like Florida, Nevada and Georgia...

Hispanics are a large part of this dispersion. They comprise more than half of all infants in California, Texas, and New Mexico and are the largest source of births in Nevada and Arizona. Among minority births, they contribute the most in 26 states, including Midwest states like Wisconsin, Minnesota, Kansas, Nebraska, and Iowa. Blacks represent the largest minority in 17 states– all in the South except for Michigan, Missouri, Ohio, and Pennsylvania...
As America’s younger population becomes more diverse and spreads to broader parts of the country, we need forward looking political and civic leaders to bridge race-generational divides that are already fuelling issues like immigration and our ongoing budget battles over revenue and government spending choices.

This needs to be a wake up call for Republicans. Although the GOP has been making gains among young white voters, their popularity among blacks has remained minuscule. It was 6% in 2008 and 8% in 2011. The black population is growing in southern states, the GOP stronghold. Merely presenting black candidates does not work. They need to actually figure out how to communicate and sell their ideas, something that might no go well when they protest the 1964 Civil Rights Movement (for whatever reason) or attempt to remove social programs minorities rely upon.
Although the GOP fares a bit better with Hispanics at 22% favorable ratings, their popularity is shrinking. It is down 6% since 2008. This likely due to the fact that Republicans focus more on restricting illegal immigration than they do to comprehensive immigration reform. This doesn't seem likely to change anytime soon within the GOP. In fact, the problem seems to be getting worse.

So far this hasn't translated into a growing share of Democratic voters. 2% fewer Americans call themselves Democrats since 1990, while 3% fewer consider themselves Republicans. Independent voters have seen a rise. However, these Independent voters have the ability to swing most elections.

What does this tell us? Unless the GOP is willing to fundamentally change a few of its sacred views, the party is in severe danger of losing support in the long term.