In Praise of Ms. Rhee

Nicholas Kristoff uses his column to commend the work of D.C. school chancellor Michelle Rhee, and exhort ed policy makers to follow her lead.  To do so, he makes three assumptive errors, all completely understandable and all too commonly taken as given:

a. scores on standardized tests adequately measure learning

b. the gap in scores between high achievers and lower achievers can be bridged

c. merit pay will inspire teachers to make the necessary effort to teach well

In a much longer post I could break-down each of these points and their misconceptions.  Here, though, let me be way too brief:

a.  they can, but only by defining "learning" as that which is measurable in standardized tests

b. it can, but only by under-testing the ability of the high achievers and teaching the lower achievers how to succeed on these tests

c. insulting, and ironic: conceivably true only by admitting that teachers are underpaid in poor performing schools

The point here is not to dismiss Mr. Kristoff's plea, nor Ms. Rhee's effort.  Rather, by focusing on the assumptions and cognitive biases involving in rethinking schools, we can avoid policies and pedagogy that perpetuate easy empirical proof and ignore the complex and often ineffable social contexts of learning.  There is nothing to attempting radical or didactic approaches to shake out the best of our schools.  We just need to get over the idea that any of them are sustainable.