WHY RUBEN CANT READ! A bit of Magical Thinking in Maryland leads to a timely epilogue: // link // print // previous // next //
FRIDAY, MARCH 31, 2006
NOWHERE TO RUN TO: Yesterday, we said we might have theories from readers about the logic of Bushs proposed paint job (see THE DAILY HOWLER, 3/30/06). But in the end, we dont really feel that weve seen any theories which would explain how this job would have worked. Whats the story behind this incident? We dont know—well only say this:
The New York Times—and many other papers—reported a truly remarkable story. According to an authoritative memo, President Bush suggested faking an incident to provoke a confrontation with Iraq. That is truly a startling claim—and as we say, it comes from an authoritative source. But no one seems to be making any effort to figure out what this might mean, or to ask if it actually happened. This puzzling but truly remarkable report has disappeared like a stone down a well.
Did George Bush really suggest faking an incident to provoke a confrontation—start a war—with Iraq? The claim is remarkable—but its been treated as mundane. So it oddly continues to go in the bizarre time Peter Daou has described.
THE ACTIVIST WEBS DOWNWARD SPIRAL: Over the past year or so, weve been surprised and disappointed by the downward spiral of parts of the activist liberal web. Yesterday, a good example of this process was provided by Digby. The Digster was battering Hardballs Chris Matthews for his recent immigration discussions. After giving a mildly selective account of Matthews presentations, Digby proceeded to say the following, quoting a statement Matthews made Monday night:
DIGBY (3/30/06): I think it is EXTREMELY important, for this as well as many other reasons, that we make it very, very clear that Chris Matthews is not a Democrat. Hes a Republican:According to Digby, these (vacuous) statements show that Matthews is a Republican. He says its EXTREMELY important that we make that very, very clear—hitting Caps Lock as he does. But what does Matthews actually say in that passage? In his second paragraph, he says what he has said before—that he voted for Bush in 2000, then voted for Kerry four years later. (Note: Kerry was the Democrat.) Meanwhile, in the first of these paragraphs, he says that he frequently (or always) voted for Representative Connie Morella, who was just about the most moderate Republican in the House. (She was constantly re-elected from a Dem-heavy district. According to the Washington Post, no Republican-represented district in the country gave Al Gore a higher vote percentage.) He also says that he voted against Morella at some point—or that he would have voted against her—if I knew somebody running against her personally. (He may be saying, in these unclear remarks, that he voted for Democrat Chris Van Hollen when he ousted Morella in 2002, after the district was made even more Democratic.) In this passage, Matthews is saying that he votes for Republicans and for Democrats. But Digby—leaning on Caps Lock—cant even repeat whats been said.
This is a minor point, but it neatly captures the decline of the activist web. The intellectual dysfunction on display here has long typified pseudo-conservative work, a point we Dems continue to laugh at. But now this dysfunction is also spreading through the activist liberal web. Up is down; sometimes is always—and pseudo-liberal apes pseudo-conservative. It feels very good to lean on that key and thereby present EVERY LETTER in caps. But this practice corrupts the liberal interest—and it continues to spread through some major sites which help drive the activist web.
We wish that we could be more kind to a guy who has done a lot of good work. But work like this insults liberal interests—and it insults the liberal intelligence. Are we liberals really this dumb? Are we pleased to be dumb just like them?
SMILE-A-WHILE/NUMBERS ARE HARD: Good God! Kaplan and Kaplan spent some time writing a book on adventures in probability. For their trouble, they get to read this, from William Grimes review in the Times:
GRIMES (3/31/06): Before scoffing, chew on the now famous Monty Hall problem, named after the host of ''Let's Make a Deal.'' A contestant knows that concealed behind three doors there are two goats and one new car. The contestant chooses Door No. 1. The beaming host opens Door No. 3 to reveal a goat, and then asks the contestant if he would like to change his choice to Door No. 2. Two doors add up to a 50-50 proposition, obviously. So why bother? Because the odds have actually shifted. The chances are now two out of three that changing to Door No. 2 will obtain the car.Say what? We dont know what the Kaplans wrote to provoke that highlighted sentence. But for the record: If the contestant changes to Door No. 2, hell obtain the car half the time—and half the time is not two out of three. For what its worth, Grimes (or his editor) may have a future on the activist web, where voting for Bush one time out of two PROVES YOURE A FULL-TIME REPUBLICAN.
Numbers, dear friends, are hard work.
TOMORROW: Media Matters nails OReilly. And then, check out Kinsley and Robinson.
UPDATE: Omigod! We're flooded with e-mails insisting Grimes is right. So far, we're denying everything.
RUMINATIONS ON RUBEN: Why is Ruben a below-level reader? Read each part of our series:
Part 1: Ruben takes reading class three times a day! See THE DAILY HOWLER, 3/27/06.Today, an epilogue.
EPILOGUE—MARYLAND MAGIC: Why cant Ruben Jiminez read (very well)? For an epilogue, lets depart the Golden State and take in some Maryland Magic.
In yesterdays Washington Post, Nick Anderson reports a major move by the Maryland Board of Education. It may represent a wave of the future. Here it is, in Andersons words:
ANDERSON (3/30/06): The Maryland Board of Education voted Wednesday to place 11 Baltimore public schools under independent management in a shake-up of this city's school system that could be a harbinger for struggling schools in Prince George's County, the District and elsewhere.In Baltimore, eleven schools with low test scores will be placed under independent management. This could be the wave of the future—and not just in Maryland, Anderson notes. He quotes Jack Jennings of the Center on Education Policy: What Maryland is doing will be a precursor to what a number of other states will do. Maryland has been ahead of the curve on these matters. Other states will likely follow.
Low-scoring schools—the kind Ruben attends—may increasingly be run by independent entities. Were not saying thats a bad thing; for ourselves, wed err on the side of reasonable experimentation in matters like this. But lets note a bit of Magical Thinking as state boards proceed in this manner. Note this: In Maryland, the Board itself isnt proposing solutions for these low-scoring schools. The Board is doing something different; the Board is saying, Well let Entity X run these schools, and well let them come up with solutions. As we say, we dont necessarily oppose that approach. But its good work if you can get it.
The Board isnt planning to fix these schools. Theyre letting Some Other Guy do it.
It isnt wrong when boards do this. But wed prefer to see school boards come up with solutions all by themselves. So how about it? How about the California schools which young Ruben Jiminez has attended? If we were sitting on a board which wanted to analyze their performance, we would ask these basic questions about the way those schools run:
Question 1: What happens to these schools low-income kids starting on Day One of kindergarten? If they arrive lacking readiness skills (see below), are they met a by a program geared to their profile? Or are they perhaps pushed ahead too fast, producing ongoing confusion?Why doesnt Ruben read very well? We dont have the slightest idea. But if we were charged with supervising his schools, wed start by exploring those basic questions. By contrast, Marylands Board is going to let Some Other Guy do that. Entity X will solve these problems. Its great work—if you can get it.
THAT PROFILE OF CHILDREN LIKE RUBEN: Again, well post that profile from that latest new study—that profile of children like Ruben:
THE CENTER FOR AMERICAN PROGRESS: Young low-income and minority children are more likely to start school without having gained important school readiness skills, such as recognizing letters and counting...By the fourth grade, low-income students read about three grade levels behind non-poor students.Likely to start school without basic skills! Three grade levels behind by fourth grade! Kids like that need unique, well-crafted programs. It doesnt take an Independent Concern to find out if Rubens schools have them.
KOZOLS CORRESPONDING PROFILE: In The Shame of the Nation, Jonathan Kozol offers a similar profile of low-income children on Day One of kindergarten:
KOZOL (page 52): More commonly in urban neighborhoods, large numbers of children have received no preschool education and they come into their kindergarten year without the minimal social skills that children need in order to participate in class activities and without even such very modest early-learning skills as knowing how to hold a pencil, identify perhaps a couple of shapes or colors, or recognize that printed pages go from left to right.Kid who are far behind at the start must have carefully-crafted programs. If theyre years behind when theyre in the fourth grade, the same admonition obtains. Do such programs exist in Rubens schools? Boards of Ed can ask that themselves. They dont need to name Independents.