Standardized tests for ALL government positions (especially elected ones)

I have seen so many people in seats of power who I wouldn't trust to mow my lawn, yet they are supposed to decide on gun control and other legal issues? Really? Is there a joke here I'm not seeing?" Is all of this some kind of mass Truman show where the producers are waiting for us to rise up, rip these dumb asses out of office and demand competence?

First of all I think ALL teachers in any school that gets ANY form of government $$ should have to pass standardized tests, and these should be moderately difficult and comprehensive. Private teachers should have the option to take the test as well. I'm not talking about tests or degrees from universities b/c they lost credibility about 40+ years ago and have basically been diploma mills since then with a small number of students there to actually learn (though they may get lower grades than people who cheated the whole way through and learned basically nothing). These tests would be constructed to they can no be 'cheated" on and I think essay is best or writing answers in sentences. Sure it would take time to grade them, but if it keeps Numbskull-Know-Nothing-Neil out of a teaching job and gives it to Studious Steve, then it is worth a years salary just for that test alone! I think this also needs to be done for professors.

We also need to review how test are written, given and taken for professionals. Test should not EVER be re-used but the test can be similar but change up the way the question is asked, the numbers, sequences of how the data is presented, etc. If the test taker can't understand the question then that in itself is a test in comprehension and a major test right there!

If a person is going to hold an elected position, there needs to be some base line level of knowledge. If you are dealing with a town, being the mayor let's say, then the town should come up with questions that should be asked to all candidates that are relevant to the town and would be important to running the town - anything from knowing the demographics, religions, industries present in town, history, ethnic history (who makes up the town - was it founded by italians or irish or germans, or Caribbean blacks, etc), are there any financial concerns (is it in debt) and how did it get there and what is being done, etc. Then questions about general municipal management, civil administration questions, procedural questions, emergency preparedness, planning for the future, etc. these questions would be generated by either a large committee and also submitted by those within the community (individuals, businesses, churches, schools, etc). The questions would not be shown ahead of time to any contestant. The testing committee would get the answers and score the results based upon the answers (originally provided by the submitter of the question). The scores would be made public and they would get a rating (1-10) in various areas on how they did. The political hopefuls would be given a study guide or outline of possible testing topics so that they have an idea of what may be asked and it would be up to them to study a broad range of information and REALLY know it, thus knowing the town, and this would weed out people who were there for power, the paycheck and allow those that actually care to remain. It would be obvious those who tried to learn about the town by the answers and even if not 100% correct wouldn't mean they are unqualified as they could learn the proper answer and from there on it wouldn't be a "game" to keep out the con-men.

This need to be done on a larger level like house and senate members for each state government as well as congressmen ad senators on the federal level..... I'm sure there are other gov jobs which need better qualified members and testing should be implemented there as well.

If we CAN get people who are qualified and can do GOOD for the local, state or fed gov, then I think they should be paid much more than they are now - maybe tie pay to performance somehow - based upon voter approval rating maybe? The small amount of money paid in salary to gov officials is nothing compared to the money lost due to incompetency and plain stupidity (and greed most likely). If the officials were in the top 5% in their relative field, had integrity and were honest (but knew when they had to stretch truth, tell white lies, etc in negotiations with other countries or dealing with media in sensitive topics - NOT malevolent or self-serving lies or stretches of truth) it would be worth paying them much more than current salaries as it would pay off in the positive results in all areas in which they work. One man earning $200,000/year (senator) hands out a $500,000,000 no bid contract for a small military base where an honest representative (verified through new testing procedures and undercover sting solicitation tests) determines the same base can be built for just over $100,000,000 and puts it up for bid and it goes to 40 different contractors - mostly small biz's instead of a mega company where less than 1% of that half billion makes it to the workers. The saved $400,000,000 can be used for other projects which are also not over-priced and maybe there will be money for things like public health care, national infrastructure, investment in GOOD schools and universities, etc.

I'm just saying WE NEED THE IDIOTS/MORONS/CON-People (yes there are fraudster women) OUT OF THE GOVERNMENT and ESPECIALLY out of education and the media!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I also think there should be constant under-cover stings to find out if government officials (especially judges and police officers) are corrupt.

The problem is, politics is the "art of bull#ting" and absolutely not test is required. In other words, people only elect a dictator to lead them, good or bad, that person is still a dictator. And that has always been that way, even in the politics of religion.

nice post by the way

a reply to: DigginFoTroof

Dream on. The only test they'll take will be one that's satisfactory according to the mental health institute. And I think we both know that's never going to happen.

I have to say though. That's a good one for marriage. Like a prenup but more explanatory.

There is already a test. Elections.... and in America it's a tough test to pass.
I find the idea of testing along the lines you are suggesting to be dangerous. Those tests would have to be managed - corrupt that system and you have a built-in method for just a few people deciding who can be elected. Very bad idea.

I would guess that such a notion was debated when the constitution was written?

That would be unconstitutional for elected positions. You can't just add new requirements for running for office without adding amendments to the State Constitutions and/or US Constitution. This is a representative democracy not a meritocracy, although many govt jobs and promotions do indeed require specific tests, security clearances, etc.

For example, here are the measly requirements listed in the US Constitution for presidential eligibility:

Article II Section 1 Clause 5: No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

www.constitution.org...

That's it. If you meet those requirements, you're constitutionally eligible to run for President of the US. State requirements for specific elected offices are usually just as tame. For example, here's Alaska's constitutional requirements to be eligible to run of Governor (from Article III, Section 2):

The governor shall be at least thirty years of age and a qualified voter of the State. He shall have been a resident of Alaska at least seven years immediately preceding his filing for office, and he shall have been a citizen of the United States for at least seven years.

That's it. If you meet those requirements, you're eligible to run for Governor of Alaska. Remember, this is a form of democracy, not a meritocracy. If people want to elect "idiots" that appoint seemingly unqualified people to other positions of power, then that's on the voters for voting in that specific representative. And if you think you can do a better job, then feel free to run for office.

If they get themselves elected they have already passed the “test”.

Bad idea bordering on stupid.

a reply to: DigginFoTroof

You have two issues here .

One teachers being required to pass tests on (as I take what your saying) tests to show they know what they are teaching to get government money.

I can get behind that and that (outside of teachers unions fighting it tooth and nail, along with bribes...opps political contributions) could be done.
Especially in constitutional classes.

But your other issue of requiring it for politicians while in theory sounds good in practicality wont work.

One is you would have to change the whole constitution....the framers gave very minimal and easy to understand requirements. Because being a representative was NOT supposed to be a career but a civil duty
In short a citizen representative.

Two the cold hard fact is a "educated and knowledgeable person " can be just as corrupt, incompetent , selfish , and in short as big an idiot as we have under our current system.

In short as politicians go we need to keep the requirements just as minimalist as the framers set out.
Because anyone from a rich millionaire, to joe the plumber , to my grandfather an 8th grade educated self taught man could be a good leader.
In fact alot of the founding fathers that wrote and approved the constitution were just farmers, preachers, and sucessful businessmen, not politicians.

If you want better leaders you IMO need two things.
One only compensation while there at the same level they require for everyone else with NO RETIREMENT OR LIFETIME MEDICAL .

TWO TERM LIMITS so the old adage "power corrupts, ultimate power corrupts ultimately" CANNOT HAPPEN.

scrounger

a reply to: UKTruth

Here's how I used to put it when someone would suggest tests for specific positions, to be able to vote, etc: I'll go along with their suggestion of tests but only if my team gets to write the tests. The second it's put like that, people seem to understand the potential for abuse.

a reply to: DigginFoTroof

I'm assuming you did 0 research for this poorly put together rant. Teachers already have to pass tests. Requiring tests for office is a bad idea.

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
a reply to: UKTruth

Here's how I used to put it when someone would suggest tests for specific positions, to be able to vote, etc: I'll go along with their suggestion of tests but only if my team gets to write the tests. The second it's put like that, people seem to understand the potential for abuse.

Very good way of framing the issue.

originally posted by: DigginFoTroof
These tests would be constructed to they can no be 'cheated" on and I think essay is best or writing answers in sentences.
If a person is going to hold an elected position, there needs to be some base line level of knowledge.

Your tests would be tests of knowledge, but proof of knowledge does not quarantee the qualifications you need.
For a teacher, knowing something is not the same thing as being able to teach it. That is why trainee teachers are given teaching practice in real schools.
Similiarly for politicians, having knowledge is not the same thing as having skills of organised administration, and it is not the same thing as having honesty and integrity.

Knowledge may be a minimum requirement in these things, but there is more to it than that.

Standardized jail sentences for those who do not do as the people ask....accountability and REDUNDANCY in all government decisions so there are no back-doors.

I’m sure Clinton would get a pass.

a reply to: DigginFoTroof

D: "Really? Is there a joke here I'm not seeing?"

Yes, basically they are not there to serve you. They are here to herd you, and you are the cattle.

Visible government is there to make you just happy enough that you don't revolt. Invisible gov't is there to serve the owners.

No passes only passing on.

HC was the trigger-finger in Waco....which will never be forgotten....those Women and CHILDREN who were murdered by agents of the Military and Government will NEVER be forgotten...nor will the 2 Secret Service Agents Hillary re-assigned to the task force so they and their knowledge of Bills affairs would die tgether on the rooftops by helicopter sniper fire.

NO WOMEN___NO CHILDREN......NWNC....full stop.

a reply to: DigginFoTroof
Standardized tests really don't identify if someone will perform well on the job. I was recruited to teach CAD in our local high school. I already had a degree in advertising and management and an associates degree from a local technical school in the area of mechanical CAD, I also had 10 years working in the field as a Technical Illustrator. In my state, to teach in a vocational area we're required to have a four hour hands-on skill test to prove our knowledge and skill in the area we would be teaching. We also have to take additional teaching courses to be certified as a teacher. So the testing is already there for teachers.

However, even though academic and even vocational teachers pass these tests, doesn't mean they possess the creativity, patience, people skill, classroom management skill, and a genuine interest to create teaching methods that children and teenagers will enjoy and engage themselves during the learning process. If someone is a good teacher, you can definitely identify them by the type of projects their students engage in and the interactions the students have with their teacher. A majority of students can readily identify a good teacher from a bad teacher. This is not to say some students will say they "like" a teacher based upon a "do nothing" easy class.

There's a lot of political influence in the classroom today. I had to laugh just the other day when the MSM reported that high school graduation rates have increased. The reason they've increased is because of the political pressure to lower standards to improve the graduation rates! Our ingenious political representatives have tied school funding to school performance. So of course inner-city schools which have a much higher enrollment percentage of learning support children, poverty level families and youth gangs will have a lower graduation rate. So how do these inner-city schools fix that, they lower standards to increase their perceived improvement on graduation rates! It's really depressing and it's only hurting this country. American education is now comparable to 3rd world countries. We recruit better educated foreigners to this country for technical and medical fields.

Our political system is filled with multi-millionaires. It seems like they're elected into office and come out millionaires! Why else would they want to become career politicians working beyond their retirement age? They know they have it good, and the American public continues to vote these career politicians into office year-after-year. It's ridiculous that we give this political body the power to vote for their own salary increases and limiting their time in office! Voting themselves term limits?? It will never happen.

The longer these people stay in office the more influence and power they gain. Get rid of their high paying salaries and put their salaries in-line with middle class Americans, remove their political party affiliations, remove corporate lobbyists and establish campaign finance reform. Not until than, will we continue to have a grid-lock government, representatives influenced by the corporate sector, legislation that doesn't benefit the majority of hard-working Americans, and the voice of the people falling on deaf ears.

The main tests I think our governments need to have are drug tests and some sort of truth test and possibly a moral values test. I'm sure if we weed out the users, the liars and the immoral candidates, things will improve immensely.

You have no idea how much I agree with your general sentiment. I work In gov. Quite literally half of my office is qualified, with relevant degrees and work exp. The other half is not qualified and hired based one of three things: powerful family or personal political connections, or because they worked on election campaigns and are rewarded with these positions. It's straight up cronyism. It gets worse. Many of the crony hires treat actually qualified people pretty bad and don't empower them. We literally have 24 year olds who worked on the Hillary or senate campaigns being put in charge of programs that affect thousands of low income locals. And, they are often promoted over much more experience and qualified people. It's a racket and we need to address it. Public servants running impactful programs on taxpayer dollars need to be actually qualified. Im addressing some of this with directors on Monday, which is a risk. Wish me luck. a reply to: DigginFoTroof

originally posted by: CthulhuMythos
The main tests I think our governments need to have are drug tests and some sort of truth test and possibly a moral values test. I'm sure if we weed out the users, the liars and the immoral candidates, things will improve immensely.

That's not enough though. They will still find a way to inject in seemingly moral or drug free people who just happen to be highly politically connected, often who are less qualified than others. This issue is endemic. I see it every day.

Its their psychology that troubles me most... coupled with if they have agendas whether they be teachers or politicians.