There's an old West Wing episode which contains :a scene which is one of the most viewed on the entire internet. This is mostly due to the fact that in it, the mother of all smackdowns is delivered by Jed Bartlett to a thinly veiled stand in for Dr. Laura on the subject of the morality of homosexual relations and the advisability of judging that morality using a few lines from the Old Testament. While I like this clip because of that reason, I like it too, because it gives a dramatically powerful example of 'asking the next question', or, in this case, next 5 questions. What do I mean?
And, wait, is this diary about The West Wing? About powerful questions? About schools? Or about something else all together?? For answers you'll just have to digitally flip to below the fold
Prior to this clip, viewers learn that Bartlett is (for other reasons) fixated on a school board race in New Hampshire, his home state. One of the contestants in that race is a man whom Bartlett defeated in an election some years ago and who is a whack-job fundamentalist. Toby asks Bartlett how he had beaten him that last time. Bartlett says, that he can't remember.
At the end of the video, after he delivers the aforementioned smack down, Bartlett turns to Toby and says 'That's how I beat him'. He beat him by understanding the facts better than his opponent, He beat him by asking the next question. The Bible says that homosexuality is an abomination? What else does it say is an abomination? Shell fish? Mixed crops?
Asking the next question is especially important when being presented with numerical data. Benjamin Disraeli supposedly first said that there are lies, damned lies and statistics. If that was true when he said it, it's especially true now. What defense do we have? Try this: You can figure out how you're being lied to with numbers by asking the next question. For example, I've taught many introductory statistics courses. One of my goals as an instructor is to build the habit in my students of asking the next question. Four out of five dentists surveyed preferred Trident gum for their patients who choose gum? Ask: Were there just five? Who were these dentists? Did they all work at the Trident Gum Chewing Institute? Did they have any patients who chewed gum?
This article, posted by education writer Valerie Strauss on Friday's Washington Post blog introduces and reports on three months of research by the superintendent of Bristol Virginia schools (and others, including, myself) and of asking those next questions. High stakes testing, and the ranking and grading of schools which are determined by the results of that testing are, in educational assessment, the equivalent of Dr. Laura declaring that the Bible says homosexuality is an abomination. The conclusion of the article: The course grading system proposed by legislators in Richmond does a very good job of only one thing: identifying which divisions in the commonwealth are the poorest.
At the end of the article, the authors ask 'why'. Why have McDonnell and the VA legislators created this grading system? As one of the authors, I can assure you that the question we ask is rhetorical. A little digging, a few next questions, reveal that the company which McDonnell has said will come in to take over and run failing schools, was a major contributor to McDonnell(link.)
Anyway, I realize that, in a way, I'm using this diary to hawk my own work. To balance that, I ask you: What's your next question about the article, or, about assessment of quality in education? I may not be able to answer, but the dialog and the chances of actual, effective reform, increase when we - all of us - ask.
(Here's a link that, apparently, works for non-subscribers of the Post:alternative link