SPELLINGS TESTS! Margaret Spellings makes three key claims in today's "Dear Arne" letter: // link // print // previous // next //
TUESDAY, JANUARY 13, 2009
Spellings tests: In this mornings Washington Post, education secretary Margaret Spellings pens a Dear Arne letter to her presumptive successor, Obama nominee Arne Duncan. She makes at least three important claims in her column. In the current climate, we often hear people making such claims. We seldom see them checked.
Before we evaluate Spellings claims, we have to get clear on what they are. Lets describe them in turn:
No Child Left Behind: First, Spellings sings the praises of achievement gains she attributes to No Child Left Behind. Here is the passage in question:
Spellings says NCLB is working. You can tell the program is working, she says, because of those record-high test scores. According to Spellings, these academic gains are being driven by minority and low-income kidsthe kids who were once left behind.
Duncans big shoulders: Along the way, Spellings praises Duncans record as superintendent of schools in Chicago. (He became head of all windy city schools in June 2001.) To wit:
According to Spellings, Duncan achieve[d] results for Chicagos schoolchildren, despite the criticism he took from those who were less enlightened.
Taught to [sic] grade level: Those first two claims are easy to understand; tomorrow, well look at test scores from the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) to see how accurate they may be. But Spellings third claim is a bit hard to parse. The claim appears in the following passage. At best, the ladys prose is murky here. At worst, her claims incoherent:
Why does NCLB work so well? Spellings seems to attribute the programs alleged success to one of its basic ideasthe idea that every student be taught to [sic] grade level in reading and math. Most parents would agree with this idea, she says. But well go ahead and admit it. Here at THE HOWLER, we dont really know what that passage means.
Does it mean that every fifth-grader should be taught traditional, fifth-grade math? The kind of math that has always been taught in standard, fifth-grade math textbooks? If so, that raises an obvious question: Should this be done even if the child in question is floundering with traditional third-grade math? Spellings language is murky herebut her statement strikes us as very significant. It seems to flow from the following passage, in which she bows low to a cult:
When we raise expectations, we achieve results, Spellings says. This murky motto is endlessly invoked in the age of No Child Left Behind (as it was in the years before that act passed). But readers! If that claim is true, perhaps we should make fifth-graders take eighth-grade math! Wouldnt that show we had raised expectations? Come to think of it, why not raise expectations even more? Why not do fifth-graders the favor of teaching them tenth-grade math? Why are we holding them back?
Spellings makes some significant claimsthe kinds of claims that are seldom fact-checked. Quick reaction: Wed say that some of her claims are factually accuratebut at the same time, wed have to say that some of these claims are rather misleading. But her third claim, about those high expectations, may deserve the most attention of all. In his column in Sundays Post, Marc Fisher also sang the praise of those high expectations/higher standards. We hear such cultish talk all the time. But what do such claims really mean?
TOMORROW: A look at the record.