KRUGMAN EATS OKRENT FOR LUNCH! Krugman toyed with his foppish tormenter—and told an important tale: // link // print // previous // next //
SATURDAY, JUNE 11, 2005
LETS PLAY KISS-BALL: Luckily, there are no serious problems in the world to discuss. If you didnt understand the dynamics involved, youd think this was a joke. Rom todays Post, heres the synopsis of tomorrows Chris Matthews Show:
The Chris Matthews Show. Topics are Howard Dean and presidential college grades; with NBC's Andrea Mitchell, Vogue's Julia Reed and Time's Joe Klein and Andrew Sullivan (Channel 4 at 10 a.m.). Presidential college grades! This refers, of course, to the past weeks revelation—John Kerrys grades at Yale were about the same as Bushs.Luckily, there are no serious problems in the world to discuss, so Matthews can afford to clown with this topic. By the way, cant you hear the talkers secret message to Bush? We think we can hear what the talker is saying: Kiss kiss kiss kiss kiss kiss kiss.
KRUGMAN EATS OKRENT FOR LUNCH: In yesterdays seminal column, Paul Krugman had some innocent fun with Manhattan high foppist Daniel Okrent:
KRUGMAN (6/10/05): Since 1980 in particular, U.S. government policies have consistently favored the wealthy at the expense of working families—and under the current administration, that favoritism has become extreme and relentless...In the highlighted passage, Krugman mocks Okrent, who wrote the following in his final column as New York Times public editor: Op-Ed columnist Paul Krugman has the disturbing habit of shaping, slicing and selectively citing numbers in a fashion that pleases his acolytes but leaves him open to substantive assaults. Yep—Daniel Okrent was talkin real tough. But uh-oh! When Okrent was challenged about this by Krugman, the hapless fellow collapsed in a pile. Yesterday, Krugman had some fun with his accuser, poking at him as a six-year-old boy might probe a jelly fish on a beach.
But Krugmans column contained more than fun. In it, he discusses an eternal story—the endless efforts of powerful interests to gain more power over the weak. In the present context, Krugman explains that wealthy interests have spent the past several decades obliterating an earlier, middle-class America. Here is the start of his column:
KRUGMAN (6/10/05): Baby boomers like me grew up in a relatively equal society. In the 1960's America was a place in which very few people were extremely wealthy, many blue-collar workers earned wages that placed them comfortably in the middle class, and working families could expect steadily rising living standards and a reasonable degree of economic security.This is a very important story—the most significant story Krugman has told. His fuller version of this story appeared in the Times magazine in October 2002. To read its full text, just click here.
Powerful interests have always tried to extend their wealth and power. This is a statement about human nature, which—surprise!— hasnt been repealed since the time of the Gilded Age. And yes—as Krugman notes in the first passaged quoted above, tribunes of the wealthy classes will always come after those who oppose them. In Krugmans formulation, right-wing partisans try hard to discredit anyone who tries to explain to the public what's going on. But sometimes the tribunes arent right-wing partisans—sometimes theyre simply angry high foppists, people whose peculiar anger has been stoked inside mahogany-paneled clubs. Daniel Okrent has wasted his life inventing utterly pointless games; eating the freshest of octopus hearts; writing reports about Walt Dropos drop-off; and becoming angry at productive people like Krugman. Men like this are a dime a dozen, but they often emerge from the innard circles of the powerful classes that breed them. Daniel Okrent—peerless inventor of rotisserie baseball—revealed himself as such a wasted man in the bizarre column Paul Krugman now mocks.
Theres nothing wrong with having a couple of bucks. But there is something wrong with having a press corps whose opinion leaders are all millionaires. You end up with fops like Okrent in power—and with tools like Chris Matthews staging discussions about presidential college grades. Cant you hear their sloppy wet kisses to power? Thank God there are no serious problems for such tribunes and tools to discuss.
SPEAKING OF SERIOUS PROBLEMS: A few weeks ago, the New York Times Sam Dillon reported on alleged affects of No Child Left Behind. We thought Dillons piece was weak—typical of the way big papers gloss the real issues of urban education. For that reason, we were struck when Matt Yglesias praised Dillons excellent report at Tapped:
YGLESIAS (5/27/05):From reading that, you might think that Dillons piece shows that No Child Left Behind is actually working—that its actually producing educational gains on the part of minority kids. In fact, that may not be what Ygelsias meant—it isnt what he literally said—although we had to read his piece several times to puzzle that out. But what did Dillon say in the Times? As a sequel to this weeks reports on public school test scores, lets see what Dillon actually showed—and lets examine a couple of things Yglesias said in his brief comment.
Quick overview: Dillon reported on one part of NCLB—the part of the law which requires school systems to report test scores of various minority groups. According to Dillon, this provision has lit a fire under the nations school systems. Heres how he began:
DILLON (5/27/05): Spurred by President Bush's No Child Left Behind law, educators across the nation are putting extraordinary effort into improving the achievement of minority students, who lag so sharply that by 12th grade, the average black or Hispanic student can read and do arithmetic only as well as the average eighth-grade white student.But is it true? Are educators making new, extraordinary efforts to help minority kids succeed? It may be true, but Dillons piece doesnt prove it; you can always find experts who are making such statements, and you can always find chest-thumping principals who are willing to brag about their own brilliance. But are such efforts being made as a general matter? We dont know—and its a hard thing to measure. Dillon offers a cursory survey; his report hardly settles the case.
But lets turn to the more significant point—are such efforts actually working? Are minority kids really reading better because of these extraordinary efforts? Is that nagging achievement gap being closed between whites and minorities? At first, we thought Yglesias was making that claim—and Dillons piece doesnt show it. Heres the one place where Dillon attempts to present some serious evidence:
DILLON: In a National Public Radio interview last month, Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings was asked whether the [achievement] gap was closing.Of course, the Margaret Spellings of the world have been making since statements for decades—since the days when every state was supposedly scoring above the national norm, when even New York Citys kids were supposedly beating the nation. Here at THE HOWLER, we happen to know Dr. Grasmick (who can forget our hilarious performances at those Maryland Teacher of the Year banquets?), and we definitely wouldnt question her dedication or sincerity. (Well save that for the supes we dont know.) But the success story Spellings cited in Maryland is a fairly minor story. On June 8, the Washington Post reported the latest state-wide testing. [S]cores showed that some historic achievement gaps are narrowing, the paper reported. In 2003, 79 percent of non-Hispanic white third-graders scored at proficient or better in math; this year, 87 percent did. Black students are now 23 percentage points behind non-Hispanic white students, after being 32 points behind two years ago. Are such score gains real or illusory? We dont know, but if this is the strongest evidence Spellings can offer, the jury is out on the claim that NCLB is closing that historic gap. NCLB may lead to real gains. Were persistent skeptics about such claims, but we wont say yes or no.
For ourselves, we were struck by something Dillon reported from a Sacramento junior high—the junior high where low-achieving students are barred from orchestra and chorus to free up time for remedial English (see above). Dillon spokes with the schools principal, Samuel Harris. We were struck by what Harris said:
DILLON: Not all educators have found it easy to use the law to help low-performing students. At Martin Luther King Jr. Junior High in Sacramento, a high-poverty school labeled by the federal government as ''in need of improvement'' for several years, the principal, Samuel Harris, said he has found charting new strategies difficult.Dillon didnt say, but we checked it out—Harris has been at MLK for five years. He says that hes tried all the recommended approaches, but his kids are still doing so poorly that he may get bounced from his job. Well say one thing for Principal Harris; he hasnt tried one standard approach—he hasnt tried to gimmick his test scores. Around the U.S., many others have. And trust us—theyve done so for the past many years.
Harris statements reminded us of our experience in Baltimores city schools. It isnt easy to get those test scores up—and yes, many people end up cheating to produce those pleasing press conferences. Theyve been cheating their keisters off for years, and the press corps refuses to notice. (More below.)
Are teachers now making extraordinary efforts? In our experience, teachers have been trying hard for a long time to improve literacy in our urban schools. Will No Child Behind help out? We dont have any idea. But were puzzled by something Ygelsiasa said; were puzzled when he says that forcing school administrators to get serious about educating black kids, Hispanic kids, poor kids is a very laudable liberal goal. Sounds good, but trust us—liberals walked away from urban schools decades ago, and they show little plan to return. In fact, its conservatives—people like Bush—who have talked about the achievement gap in recent decades, and have said we have to address it. Weve never seen any real sign that conservatives have any real answers here. But why call this a liberal goal? In our experience, liberals quit on this is the early 70s—and mainstream press corps walked out the door with them. Today, the press corps accepts any claim about urban schools—as long as the claims are quite pleasing.
FINAL NOTE ON SEEING NO EVIL: Yes, your big urban papers will see no evil when it comes to those pleasing test scores. Yesterday, the Washington Post wrote its latest editorial trashing Andre Hornsby, the recently resigned Prince Georges supe. Heres part of what the outraged eds said:
WASHINGTON POST EDITORIAL (6/10/05): With each new squalid revelation, it becomes clearer why Andre J. Hornsby slipped out while he could. Mr. Hornsby, the former Prince George's County schools chief, resigned two weeks ago as an independent consultant hired by the schools to examine his shenanigans in office prepared to release its report. The report, by Huron Consulting Group Inc., makes clear that Mr. Hornsby, as chief executive of one of the nation's 20 biggest school systems, thought nothing of mingling money, contracts, friends and even his own on-the-side consulting business.You can read the whole editorial; basically, the Post called Hornsby a crook. (For ourselves, we have no views on these financial matters.) But nowhere did the editors say a word about Hornsbys history with Houstons phony testing—the history he shared with the sainted Rod Paige. Nowhere did they wonder if Hornsby played fast and loose with the truth when it came to testing, the way they say he did in these financial matters. In fact, the Post has never breathed a word about the Houston fakery when they have reporting Hornsbys pleasing test scores in Maryland. Yep! Liberals and the mainstream press walked away from minority kids long ago. They specialize in pleasing tales—in sweeping minority kids under the rug. It makes their various readers feel good. Pleasing tales are good for their business.