Margaret Spellings gets something right

I've been more than a little disappointed with the leadership of Margaret Spellings as President Bush's Secretary of Education. She has, up until now, been an almost unqualified cheerleader for the No Child Left Behind Act, which, no matter how much journalists like those at the Washington Post celebrate the consolidation of education policy in Washington, D.C., has, by the accounts of most teachers you will talk with who are required to implement this well-intentioned but counterproductive effort, been a miserable experience which has correlated, though not been caused by, higher assessment scores, but which has been simultaneously undermining the most critical functions of education, namely to develop independent, critical thinking for a liberal democratic society.

But, finally, Margaret Spellings got it right.

A National Test We Don't Need

Margaret's rebuttal to the poorly reasoned Washington Post lead editorial that assumes correlation of NCLB with higher assessment scores means the success of NCLB -post hoc ergo propter hoc or the fallacy of false cause is probably the most common fallacy that partisans engage in; they want to believe that their favored efforts work, so they look for evidence to make their case rather than engaging in a more rigorous questioning of whether or not their ideas are correct, the higher standard that social sciences aspire to meet - moves in the right direction.

Spelling argues, correctly, that one-size-fits-all and stiffer national standards create a scary universe of Washington-run education (George Orwell would piss his pants if he heard of partisans arguing that Big Brother should be in charge of a nation's education system) and that such authority should be devolved from federal control.

This is where conservatives can be much more genuine classical liberals than political liberals. Where liberals are constantly emboldened by their romance with FDR and his consolidation of everything good and correct in the Federal government, conservatives tend to be more skeptical, for good reason. It is exactly this kind of consolidation of power that more genuine liberals like Lord Acton warned the world against. Journalists like too many at the Washington Post - David Broder, especially - and too many politicians in Washington arrogantly disregard the persistent and wide-spread concerns by teachers about the tendency of NCLB to drive all curriculum, to encourage teaching to narrow tests rather than for a broader liberal education, to press teachers in directions that are counterproductive to the broader purposes of an education that both cares for students' individual goals and needs and which teaches independent, critical thinking.

And my most serious concern is the hubris by the less intellectually-inclined, like the editorial writers at the Washington Post and too many politicians in Washington (though, to the credit of many political representatives, the tide is turning against NCLB and has been for quite awhile), deciding for the rest of the country what should be required curriculum and instruction through assessment. It's an arrogant grab of power by a group of folks who, generally, have not demonstrated a propensity to engage in the most rigorous intellectual thought, at least not by the standards of academic scholarship.

I, personally, would be skeptical of even philosopher-kings in the academy deciding for the country what should and should not be studied. But I would listen to their ideas much more readily than I would to the editorial board of the Washington Post (no offense to the smart, but too clever by half members of that editorial board).

Margaret Spellings has not gotten much right in her tenure as Secretary of Education. She has persistently cheerleaded No Child Left Behind over the objections of teachers, administrators, superintendents, and critics all over the country. But she has figured out what the Washington Post has not figured out in its recent period of flexing its journalistic muscle: to listen to the people your laws impact.

Those who ignore people whom are impacted by their favored legislation engage one of the most persistent forms of abuse of power that democracies experience: the desire to will out over others rather than to listen to and engage them.

It is a tendency that a truer liberal, Bobby Kennedy, warned us about months before his death in 1968. The wielders of force seek to control their neighbors rather than live and work in common effort. And their hubris should be rebuffed and treated with the skepticism that Margaret Spellings offers it in this column.

The power of the press, as Alexis de Toqueville observed over 200 years ago, is one of the most serious powers in molding the morality of a nation of any in a democracy.

But it is a mistake for independent-minded people to cede the authority to decide such important matters to anyone but their own independent consciences and judgments.

It is time for liberals like the writers at the Post to take more seriously the independent, critical judgment that education is supposed to nurture.

Love,
Ben