THE UPSHOT OF HIGHER STANDARDS! Those higher state standards could help some kids. But they can badly harm others: // link // print // previous // next //
FRIDAY, MARCH 13, 2009
Smarmiest mind in the world: Well postpone our full report till tomorrow so we can finish our earmark review. But what an embarrassing, smutty small mind our biggest progressive star has! One of last nights teasers:
Fasten your seat belts! Youre watching Countdown! As if we couldnt tell.
No, Gingrichs solution doesnt involve teen prostitution. But Olbermanns childish, smutty smut factor has been set on high this whole week. And the smarm spreads apace. On Wednesday, we found ourselves watching his progressive protege as she staged a dramatic reading of Kwame Kilpatricks smutty text messages. (I am easily embarrassed as a person, and I thus cannot give you the salacious low-lights, the Full Kwame as it were. But I can just give you the cleaned-up Rachel Maddow Show staff-approved version of 6,000 text messages of courtship.) This followed an hour in which her mentor had reveled in all manner of such amusement, including repeated examination of Bristol Palins failed love life. (And the shocker from Star magazine: Sarah Palin`s daughter splits from her fiancee! She is now officially an unwed mother!)
Cute. But then, this fellow enjoys discussing prostitution and hookers in much the way an underfed bear enjoys a large slab of free meat.
Till tomorrow, we ask only this, and we speak to the gods as we do so: What did we humans ever do to deserve having leaders like this?
Bakers coven: Along with his gruesome wife (former Post hack Susan Glasser), Peter Baker lives inside the clan. Yesterday morning, he took control of the New York Times reporting on the omnibus spending bill. And sure enough! Right there in his opening paragraph, those earmarks were the big stars again. And of course, he was dripping with snark:
Perfect work from inside the coven! The bill was jammed with pet projects, he said, doing his best Shailagh Murray impression. And Baker knew that reporters must lead with implied claims of hypocrisy!
Eventually, Baker would give us some idea how jammed that bill really was. But first, he had to paint a picture of Very Rude Acts By A Dem:
Never mind what Obey had said. The key focus was the angry way he stalked off and slammed that door! By now, wed reached paragraph 12 of Bakers piece. And he still hadnt tried to explain how jammed that spending bill actually was.
In paragraph 14, he finally did so. According to Baker, the spending bill was so jammed with earmarks (sorrypet projects) that they amounted to one percent of its total spending. (Or three percenthis report isnt clear.) But you dont get that fact until paragraph 14. In graf one, you got the novel.
The report came straight from Bakers coven, where he and his gruesome helpmate dwell. To his credit, he mentioned no hookers. No smarmy e-mail got in the way of the story the lad had to tell.
THE UPSHOT OF HIGHER STANDARDS: Obama said some intriguing things in Tuesdays education speech. Consider what he said about early childhood initiatives, which he called the first pillar in reforming our schools.
As we already knew, Obama is high on preschool. (Good!) Studies show that children in these programs are more likely to score higher in reading and math, more likely to graduate from high school and attend college, more likely to hold a job, and more likely to earn more in that job, he said. But even as he pledged more funding for Head Start and Early Head Start, he offered an excellent warning. Some such programs are no darn good, the gentleman wisely noted:
Music to observant ears! Anyone who has spent time in low-income schools has probably seen deserving kids who may be wasting away their years. Its good to see someone say this directly. Some early programs are good, he said. Therefore, he issued a challenge:
Its refreshing to see someone say that some early childhood programs may not be good enough. But is the presidents education staff up to the challenge of judging such matters? We wondered about that as we looked through the second chunk of Obamas speechthe part in which Obama called for higher, world-class standards.
As we noted yesterday, Obama wants the states to adopt higher, world-class standards. Well only say this: If you want to see low-income kids wasting years away, well suggest that some of Obamas prescriptions tilt us in that direction. In the passage which follows, Obama issued a highly familiar challenge. But does this really make sense?
If your state gets low test scores, you need tougher [state] standards! Your state standards are too low. Of course, this idea became standard decades ago, at the dawn of the ballyhooed standards revolution. But, in many ways (not all), this familiar idea makes no earthly sense. In many ways, this familiar idea is bad news for low-income kids.
Does Obamas framework really make sense? Lets return to Mississippi, a state with low reading scoreson average, that is.
Should Mississippi, with its low reading scores, adopt a set of tougher standards? That might be good for some kids in the state; for others, it could prove harmful. It sounds good to talk about higher standards. But in the real world (of fifth-graders, lets say), how would such high standards work?
The real world of real fifth-graders: It always sounds good to talk about setting higher, world-class standards. But think about the world of fifth-graders right here in our own state of Maryland. Uh-oh! Heres a very basic fact: Theres a wide array of achievement levels among this states fifth-grade students. No matter where you set your standards, they will inevitably be irrelevant to a wide range of these kids.
Within fifteen miles of our sprawling campus, you could find plenty of fifth-grade kids who are working well above traditional grade level in reading and/or math. And you could find a lot of fifth-graders who are years below grade level.
Sorry. Theres no single place you can set your state standards such that those standards will be relevant to all. Example:
Lets say some state has set its fifth-grade standards at a traditional fifth-grade level. To pass the states math test in the spring, a fifth-grader has to show she can do pretty well with traditional fifth-grade math.
For some fifth-graders, that standard would be much too easy to serve as any sort of goad. They would be working beyond that level on the very first day of the school year!
But, for many struggling fifth-graders, that standard would essentially be unattainable within that fifth-grade year. Our question: How would this second group of kids be served by raising the states fifth-grade standardsto traditional sixth-grade level, lets say? Presumably, the state of Mississippi has lots of fifth-graders who are working at such lower levels. How would these kids interests be served if Mississippi adopted tougher, world-class fifth-grade standards?
People who havent spent time in low-income schools often have a mistaken notion: They imagine that all kids in a certain grade are more or less alike. But they arentnot even close! Some fifth-graders are light-years ahead of others; those higher-achieving kids should be taught at the highest level they can manage. But its crazy to think that kids who may be years behind them should be taught the same materialshould be held to the same world-class standard.
You can make them try to do it. But theyll crytheir tears will be real tears. And they, and your dreams, will all fail.
Could raising standards ever help? Presumably. Lets consider something Obama said in that part of his speech.
In the passage which follows, Obama begins describing the need for those world-class standards. The intentions here are notably lofty. But again, were forced to say it: As with almost all major pols, it sounds like Obama has spent little time inside low-income schools:
Our curriculum for eighth-graders is two full years behind top-performing countries, Obama said. But this suggests a strange idea; it suggests that just one curriculum is being taught in all our eighth-grade classrooms! In fact, some eighth-graders are taking advanced mathAlgebra 1 or beyond. And some eighth-graders are working on third-grade level, and struggling hard with that. Do you really want those two groups of kids to take the same eighth-grade curriculum? Obama speaks as if all eighth-grade kids are the same. Sorry, rubes: Theyre not!
What did Obama mean when he said our curriculum for eighth-graders is two full years behind top-performing countries? Presumably, this means that successful eighth-graders in some countries (presumably, in the Asian tigers) are being taught much harder material than our own top eighth-graders typically are. If thats true, this suggests we could probably move our own top kids along faster. But if Obama wants to bump our curriculum up by two years, what do we do with the good, decent kids who cant handle the curriculum we already have? Those kids arent falling behind to get your goat; to make you mad; to rain on your very lofty parade. They are good decent kids who are doing their bestalthough theyre caught up in the (ongoing) tragedy of our brutal history.
You cant make that tragedy stop because you dont want to observe its effects.
Sorry, people. We cant simply snap our fingers and command all kids to meet our high standards. Because we come up with some lofty ideas, we cant simply invent a world in which all our eighth-grade kids can be asked to succeed with some single, lofty curriculum. And if you force your standards upon these kids, you can do many kids a great deal of harm. Imaginably, some of our highest-achieving kids could be helped by a tougher curriculum. But many kids can be badly harmed. Lets recall what happened to Gabriela Ocampo when her cityThe City of Angelsacted on lofty ideas.
Farewell, Gabriela: Huzzah! A gang of know-nothings in a far city had acted on some lofty ideas! They fell in line with the standards revolution, adopting city-wide higher standards. They did this because they lacked the first clue about the lives of low-income kids. During Jim Crow, our elites ignored the lives of these children. The standards revolution has given us ways to ignore them all over again.
In the Los Angeles Times, Duke Helfand did a remarkable piece of education reporting, describing what happened to struggling kids when that citys lofty elites adopted those higher standards. His piece centered on Ocampo, who had recently become a high school drop-out. Incredibly, Ocampo had dropped out midway through twelfth gradebecause she couldnt pass her high schools first-year algebra course. And theres no doubt she couldnt pass this course. By the time she finally quit, she had takenand failedthe course six times! In this passage, you get a sense of the kind of gong-show Obama has now recommended. You get a sense of the decent kidsd who get steam-rolled by such high ideals:
We did a six-part report on Helfands superlative piece; see THE DAILY HOWLER, 3/2/06. Liberals, who quit on such kids long ago, predictably stared into air. (Question: How much discussion of Obamas speech have you seen at our liberal journals?)
Imaginably, those higher standards can help some kidsbut they can badly harm many others. Who wouldnt have known that LAs higher standards would damage decent, good kids like Ocampo? Duh! Our lofty elites wouldnt know! These lofty elites have little idea about the real lives of these crummy children. This week, Obama was pimping one of this groups lofty, know-nothing cries.
Coming Monday: David Brooks doesnt know several things. (Click here.) He does say some things which are useful.