Monday, May 31, 2004
Spirit – Stallion of the Cimarron (2002)
by Nicholas Stix
Spirit claims to tell its story from the horse's ("Spirit's") point of view. Instead,
it tells a story from an all-too-familiar, all-too-human perspective: That of a cross between radical multiculturalism and animal rights fanaticism. And so, we have morally superior horses, and evil humans who seek to break the horses' spirits. But not all humans are evil: The Indian is one with nature, loves horses, and frolics with Spirit, as if he too were a horse. It is the Evil White Male, who hates horses, imprisons them, and is a danger to nature. (And yet, Spirit's voice is done by Evil White Male, Matt Damon!) The movie makers' desire to impugn white men (or their flat-out ignorance) goes so far as to depict a cowboy roping Spirit's leg. Wranglers don't try to rope a horse's leg. If a wrangler even COULD rope a horse's leg without the rope slipping to the ground, it would break the horse's leg, requiring that the horse be shot.
And the animation is as one-dimensional as the storytelling. Look at the water, when Spirit is in the river. Blank. Compare that to the water in Walt Disney's 1940 Pinocchio; it's full of reflected images. Note too the crude animation when the horses are running together. This ain't Pixar. This is just racist, propagandistic dreck, that didn't fool my three-year-old for a second! Whereas, he wanted to see Pinocchio again and again, he never asked to see this a second time. In the days of the original Pinocchio, many children's movies were characterized by intelligence, moral weight, and yes, spirit. Today, we get this.
Kill the Messenger:The War on Standardized Testing
by Richard Phelps
by Nicholas Stix
A week doesn’t go by, without a mainstream media story on the “horrors”
of standardized testing, in which reporters tell of widespread testing error, of how testing is causing students to drop out of school, or of how testing is causing an epidemic of cheating.
The story behind the stories is that the relative prevalence of testing error is infinitesimal, that columnists stressing the dropout factor are mindlessly parroting a myth invented by radical Boston College teacher education professor Walter Haney, and that cheating is more easily prevented on standardized tests than with their alternatives.
For years, the American public has been force-fed a diet of test-bashing by the establishment media, the teachers’ unions, professors of teacher education and well-financed anti-testing organizations, in which test-bashers have twisted existing data, ignored contrary data, and fabricated data outright. So reports Richard Phelps in his brilliant, new book, Kill the Messenger: The War on Standardized Testing.
As Phelps tells it, Kill the Messenger “is as much about censorship and professional arrogance as it is about testing.” The author contends that the teachers and administrators who control the public education monopoly, and the teacher education professors who monopolize teacher credentialing, oppose standardized testing in order to shield themselves from public scrutiny and accountability. “… it is disturbing, because school administrators and education professors represent a group of public servants who should serve as models to our children. We pay them high salaries and give them very secure jobs. Then, we give them our children. Is just a little bit of external, objective evaluation of what they do with our money and our children really asking so much?”
Influential test-bashers include Walter Haney, Linda McNeil of Rice University, Harvard’s Howard Gardner, University of California president Richard Atkinson, writers Alfie Kohn and Nicholas Lemann, the privately funded organization, Fair Test, and the taxpayer-funded organizations, CRESST at UCLA, and Boston College’s CSTEEP. (CRESST stands for “National Center for Research on Evaluations, Standards, and Student Testing”; CSTEEP stands for “the Center for the Study of Testing, Evaluation, and Educational Policy.”)
Phelps argues persuasively that objective, external, standardized, high-stakes testing is the best measure we have of how much students have learned, and how well teachers, curricula, and textbooks have done their respective jobs. The tests give us a tremendous amount of information on children’s academic strengths and weaknesses, so that we may help them improve. “Objective” is in contrast to classroom grades, which are increasingly subjective, politicized, and inflated. “External” means that school officials with a stake in the results do not control examination grading. “Standardized” means that a test “is given in identical form and at the same time to students in more than one school, and all the results are marked in the same way.” And “high stakes” means that test scores have consequences, so that the test serves as a powerful motivational tool. Alternatives such as classroom grades and “portfolios” of work lack the advantages of standardized testing, while being much more vulnerable to manipulation and cheating.
Phelps sets out test-bashers’ strategies and tactics; presents case studies of campaigns against the SAT, the Texas teachers’ literacy test, and the 2000 October Surprise attack on the “Texas Miracle” of educational progress under then-Gov. George W. Bush; media coverage; the “benefits of testing”; legitimate concerns about testing; and “alternatives to standardized testing.” Two appended glossaries translate test-bashers’ Orwellian jargon, and explain testing terms.
Richard Phelps drives through the armies of test-bashers like Patton’s Third Army cutting through France in the summer of ’44, cataloguing and refuting the misrepresentations they have spread.
For instance, test-bashers have for years insisted that American students are tested more than students in any other country, and that high-stakes, standardized testing causes dropout rates to increase, and educators to “teach to the test.” And liberal reporters eat this stuff up!
Phelps scolds the test-bashers for being too lazy to make a couple of calls abroad, to determine that their assumption is false. “Virtually every other industrialized country in the world tests its students more, and with greater consequences riding on the results, than we do.” He shows how education professor Walter Haney inflates dropout figures by stealthily employing a highly irregular definition, whereby he counts anyone who fails to graduate on time with his age group as a “dropout,” and then leaps to the baseless conclusion that the fictional dropouts were caused by standardized testing. Noting that it would be irresponsible not to teach to the test, Phelps responds to that charge, “So, they should instead teach material that the test will not cover? They should ‘teach away from the test’?”
Kill the Messenger could have been called “Coloring Education News,” since it does for education reporting what William McGowan’s Coloring the News did for journalism in general. Phelps’ analyses of media bias, including statistical breakdowns showing how the media let test-bashers dominate the testing debate, provide a quantitative model for media criticism. He also reports on the undisguised hostility some reporters and producers show scholars who fail to tow the party line. (Full disclosure: Phelps praises my education reporting.)
Phelps suggests that the most insidious test-bashers of all, are those who claim to support testing – just not any existing test. For such people, “more research” is always required. “Given all the variety and all the experience, anyone who cannot be satisfied by any current testing program can never be satisfied with any testing program.”
Ultimately, Phelps writes, “Most of the attacks on student testing, indeed, are attacks on measurement – of any kind – or, more specifically, any measurement made by groups ‘external’ to the group being measured.” Phelps cautions the reader, however, that any test is only as good as the curriculum and instructional theory it is tied to.
Written largely in a conversational style, notwithstanding its staggering scholarship, Kill the Messenger casts much needed light on a public policy issue that affects us all, but which those holding the public’s trust have kept shrouded in darkness. As Phelps argues, “the debate on testing … is part of a war for the control of our country’s schools … The booty is our children’s futures. The stakes are enormous.”
Saturday, May 29, 2004
The Lion King 1 ½ (2004)
By Nicholas Stix
I'm going to sound like the Grinch, but I watch TV and feature-length DVD cartoons every day. I can tolerate most of what I see, or I'd have blown my brains out years ago. Some stuff I love (the original Disney Pinocchio, Sleeping Beauty, Finding Nemo, etc.). On the other hand, my son, who just turned four, is pretty easy to please. As long as there's no live action, he's happy. (The exception was the pathetic Spirit: Stallion of the Cimarron, which could not hold his attention for even one viewing.)
But my son isn't writing this review. To Nathan Lane, I say, "I knew Zero Mostel, he was a friend of mine, and Mr. Lane, you're no Zero Mostel!" Indeed, Nathan Lane embodies the creative mediocrity of the age. When he was about 89, I saw the late Bob Hope (who was far from my favorite comic) for what I believe was the last time he was a late night talk show guest. When Hope, Mr. Timing, missed his mark on his one-liners, I knew it was over for him. For Nathan Lane, it never began.
Then there's the original music - oops, excepting one instantly forgettable opener, there isn't any. Some songs are recycled from the original, and others are ripped off from every source imaginable, including spaghetti westerns, though the producers didn't give proper attribution. Now, some folks will say, I'm using a sledgehammer to kill a flea; after all, it's straight-to-video. But the price is premium. I paid $25 for this dreck, and it lists at $30! If we're not supposed to expect full quality, then charge only $10 or $12, for cryin' out loud. For a premium price, you must deliver premium quality, not leftovers.
What about the story?, you ask. Don't. There is no story to speak of, just recycled characters from the original. But I really shoulda known - just check out the "screenwriter." Tom Rogers should rename himself either "Tom Ripoff" or "Tom II." Look at his credits: Lady and the Tramp II; Cinderella II; The Jungle Book II ... He has never been associated with a quality, original children's movie. Not only is the man a grave robber, but after robbing the dead, he desecrates the corpses! Doesn't Nemo's Law provide special punishments and registries to govern such dastardly, repeat offenders? Where do I go to press charges for the aesthetic abuse of my son? And what about victims' services?!
But it gets worse. Fortunately, I bought this at a store. It turns out that Disc II - which contains featurettes and games – doesn’t function on all DVD players. And so, if you absolutely must see this, wait until you can rent it.