An Educational Contrarian

One of the most effective—and unsettling (because it was so manipulative)—advocacy efforts I’ve ever witnessed took place during the 1994 midterm elections. A year or so earlier, Newt Gingrich and his political action committee distributed a memo to Republican candidates across the country. It contained two simple lists: one of words that tested positively in focus groups, and one of words that tested negatively. Gingrich urged Republican candidates to use the positive terms when describing themselves and their policies, and to use the negative terms when describing Democrats, regardless of the underlying realities. The candidates followed the advice with remarkable discipline. The result? Over time, values like “family,” “responsibility,” and “strength” became synonymous with the Republican brand, no matter who invoked them. I recall Democratic leaders who had long championed those same ideals suddenly finding themselves on the defensive—as if the words no longer belonged to them. On ...

I’m genuinely relieved that the through-year testing bill failed in Texas. And just to be clear—that’s not because I’m a fan of STAAR, or because I subscribe to the tired claim that we can’t understand how schools are doing without standardized testing. Nor is it only because the Senate’s version of the bill handed even more power to an unelected commissioner already running roughshod over public education (though that’s certainly part of it). The real issue runs deeper. This was a debate about which standardized test is best for accountability, without asking the most fundamental question: Can any standardized test—regardless of how often it’s given—accurately determine the quality of a school? The answer is unequivocally no. When we argue that one version of this sort of testing is better than another, we trap ourselves in a false choice. Well-intentioned folks may feel they’re pushing for progress, but they’re really just reinforcing the same flawed structure with different packagin...