Here's a thought: What if "A Nation at Risk" was wrong?
That's the premise behind an article in this month's issue of Edutopia (my new favorite education magazine). Author Tamim Ansary suggests that much of this landmark report was actually "misquoted, misinterpreted and often dead wrong." He goes on to track the origins of this Reagan-era document, suggesting that Cold War rhetoric and the need for better support from women voters led to the creation of what could arguably be the origins of the WASL and NCLB.
While Ansary does his homework to support his hypothesis, it left me wondering where we 'd be without "A Nation at Risk"? Would something else have come along to incite a similar reform in the K-12 world? With many subgroups of children still in need of remediation and support, it's tough to argue that we didn't need a catalyst for reform. Whether this was the right catalyst is another matter.
What do you think?