CSAP tests: Longer than the bar exam
Anybody who is convinced that the costs of the Colorado Student Assessment Program outweigh the benefits should look carefully at the testing schedule for their child. My daughter is in third grade, and the principal just sent home the testing schedule. She will be taking the CSAP on Feb. 15-16 and March 6-7 and 20-21. The fourth-graders will be taking tests on March 8-10, 13-17 and 20. The fifth-graders will be taking tests on March 6-10, 13-17 and 20-21.
I’ve taken the bar exam in three states and none of them lasted as long as the third-grade CSAP. The medical exam for doctors is not as long as the fifth-grade CSAP. If you take the amount of time the kids are taking the tests and the amount of time they spend learning something, you’ll find the tests are way out of proportion to the time they spend actually learning things.
Besides that, this test will tell me nothing about my school I don’t already know. I walk in to the school, I see what my daughter brings home as homework, and I make a judgment about how she’s doing. I don’t judge my school on whether it’s “excellent” or “high.” I judge it on how she’s doing when she reads me a book or tries to add up figures in her head. I judge the teacher by how he or she interacts with my child, and whether my child is successfully doing what she should do.
I don’t need some standardized test to make that decision for me; I can do it just by spending a few minutes a day talking to my child, and walking to the school occasionally.
Angelique Layton, Louisville
Gay marriage and domestic partnerships
Re: “Push to create domestic partnerships in Colorado,” Jan. 19 Open Forum.
Letter-writer Heather Clark claims she is not a bigot for opposing a bill creating legal domestic partnerships in Colorado, but she claims that such recognition would be “an attack on traditional family values.” She attempts to support this assertion by saying, “I depend on the social and political recognition of my marriage to protect me … .” She then goes on to say that extending such protections to other couples and families would somehow trivialize her marriage. Putting aside the complete illogic of this argument, the fact that she would deny legal and social protections to certain members of society can be characterized as nothing other than discrimination and bigotry.
Michelle Haefele, Longmont
…
Heather Clark says she is not a religious, bigoted zealot for opposing the proposed Colorado Domestic Partnership Act. A mother, she stays home while she depends on her husband’s benefits to protect her financially and otherwise. For several years, I also depended on my husband’s benefits while starting our “traditional” family. It is so unfair that my committed same-sex partner friends do not have this safety net as they are raising their own families. Clark comes across as an unreasonable, selfish person. She has her little “perfect” world and does not care whether others could use the same protection.
Barbara B. Bond, Dillon
…
I am a woman who has been legally married to the man I love since 1969, and my marriage is not at all threatened, minimized or trivialized by the extension of legal marriage or domestic partnership rights to same-sex couples. On the other hand, it is trivializing and insulting to equate the loving, romantic relationship of two men or two women with pedophilia or bestiality. It appears that some opponents of equal rights for same-sex couples are thinking only of sex when they contemplate these relationships. Actually, the issue is about love, not only the love between two adults (of any gender) who want to commit to each other for life, but also the love of humanity that prompts us to desire equality and justice for all human beings.
Cheryl Kasson, Denver
Japan’s most recent rejection of U.S. beef
Congresswoman Marilyn Musgrave’s comments on the Japanese veal import incident and Japan’s reaction to it were, to use her words, “knee-jerk reactions.” The Japanese government responded no differently than our government did to similar import threats from Canada, for example.
Remember, this beef was supposed to have been boneless from the factory, inspected by a factory inspector, and certified by U.S. government inspectors. Billions of dollars in trade rests in the hands of these people. The Japanese government sees the safety of their food supply also resting in the hands of not only their own but American inspectors as well. If we can’t get a boneless package right, what else are we getting wrong?
The U.S. does have a very safe food supply, as Musgrave stated. However, it is not the necessarily the safest in the world in all areas. Additionally, her jingoistic comments are not going to help resolve these issues with a proud people like the Japanese very quickly.
Roger W. MacDonald-Evoy, Cheyenne
…
Kudos to Japan. The U.S. screwed up, in “an unacceptable failure,” according to U.S. Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns, to meet the terms the U.S agreed to with the Japanese when they reopened their borders to American beef. How dare Rep. Marilyn Musgrave threaten economic sanctions against a country that is taking steps to protect its citizens? U.S politicians should start respecting other nations and their sovereignty instead of trying to bully them into submission to suit our needs.
Kevin Zegan, Idaho Springs
Spying on Americans
Re: “Review NSA spying program,” Jan. 18 editorial.
Thank you for your recent editorial regarding the National Security Agency spying program. I don’t think most Americans understand how easy it is to receive a search warrant, yet President Bush has decided that he is above the law and doesn’t need anyone else’s permission. With the administration mistakes regarding the Iraq war intelligence, Hurricane Katrina, torture and paying journalists to write favorable columns, I wonder if The Post is upset yet about its endorsement of Bush in the 2004 election. Please be careful who you endorse for governor, as our state can’t handle any more politicos who don’t know how to govern.
Christine Sweetland, Centennial
Spying on Americans
Re: “Review NSA spying program,” Jan. 18 editorial.
Thank you for your timely and compelling editorial calling for a congressional inquiry into the domestic spying program. I would add one critical element to your proposed review. When the information about the domestic spying program first came to light, the president and vice president loudly trumpeted an assertion that several terrorist attacks were aborted and thousands of lives were saved as a result of this program, yet did not offer any reasonable or logical evidence or explanation why getting warrants would have jeopardized national security.
Nearly simultaneously, the administration sent a warning, announcing that it was launching a criminal investigation to determine who had leaked information about the program to the media. The administration has entered the realm of intimidating whistleblowers who acted in good faith to alert the nation and legislative branch about alleged gross and illegal breeches of authority.
This intimidation of witnesses must end, and any review should include a probe of this emerging harassment. If threats to whistleblowers do not subside, government workers will continue to have to choose between their careers or their patriotic duty to expose grand-scale federal malfeasance.
Louis Clark, President, Government Accountability Project, Washington, D.C.
TO REACH OPINION EDITORS
Phone: 303-820-1331
Fax: 303-820-1502
E-mail: openforum@denverpost.com
Mail: The Open Forum, The Denver Post, 1560 Broadway, Denver, 80202
Letters guidelines: The Post welcomes letters up to 200 words on topics of general interest. Letters must include full name, home address and day and evening phone numbers. Letters may be edited for length, grammar and accuracy.
