WHY IS (SOME) TEST CHEATING WRONG, BUT “MIRACLE” SCHOOL LIES ARE OK?
Of course, this all began with a bombshell announcement from the Reagan administration: A Nation at Risk.
So it started with a lie.
As governor of Texas, George W. Bush, and superintendent of education, Rod Paige, the Texas “miracle” led to the presidency of the U.S. and Secretary of Education.
But it was all a lie.
While Secretary of Education following Paige, Margaret Spellings proclaimed the federal legislation, NCLB, modeled on the Texas “miracle” a success.
But that too was a lie.
As the founder of the Harlem Children’s Zone, Geoffrey Canada was lionized as “Superman.”
But it was at best half-truth, if not a lie.
Creating a culture of fear herself, Michelle Rhee turned her role as Chancellor of DC public schools into a glorifyingTime cover and story.
But it was all a lie, built on cheating no less.
Arne Duncan, credited with the Chicago “miracle”—see the Paige path above—was appointed Secretary of Education.
But, another lie.
Maybe some will find the word “lie” too harsh because most of the examples above (except for the Rhee tenure that did appear to be built on test cheating) and most of the “miracle” claims are misrepresenting data, manipulating data, or presenting partial data.
The media is eager to cover these claims, but nearly silent in covering the debunking—and there has always been debunking.
So I am now baffled about a truly important question: Why is (some) cheating wrong (for example, Atlanta), but “miracle” school lies (and SOE misrepresentations) are OK? No only OK, but those lies appear to be very lucrative for Why Is (Some) Test Cheating Wrong, But “Miracle” School Lies Are OK? | the becoming radical:
