EASY TO BELIEVE! Its easy to believein miracleswhen pundits discuss public schools: // link // print // previous // next //
WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 26, 2008
Postponements: Many top issues are being postponed as we head off for Thanksgiving. We hope to see tape of Mark Halperins comments about the past years election coverage; in the meantime, look in on Digby. (We still plan to record a few comments from Harold Evans panel on this same topic.) While youre at it, you ought to check Digbys post about a ludicrous op-ed piece which ran in Sundays Post. Digbys tougher on Sally Quinn than we are; we think Quinns November 1998 report on the mood-of-the-Village concerning impeachment was one of the most important pieces of journalism in the whole 1990s. (We see it principally as a piece of reportingand as reporting, its sensationally revealing.) But Sundays piece was astonishing nonsense. Let Digby be your guide.
That said, we were truly astounded by this post by one of our nominal allies. The question: Is the Sarah Palin turkey thing a real controversy or a fake one? We had to read the post twice to convince ourselves that our ally was coming down rather strongly for real. No, reallywe had to read it twice. We thought we must have misread it.
Within the press corps, the culture of ridicule may have started with Candidate Dukakis, who looked so silly in that helmet and wouldnt punch Bernie Shaw in the mouth. But this culture was directed aggressively against Dan Quayleand then, a few years later, against Candidate Gore. In a fairly obvious way, our side has lost this game quite badly. Were amazed when our nominal allies want to keep this silly culture alive. (As a general rule, our side wins when the discussion stays smart.)
On Monday night. Olbermann gave the turkey incident a full segment, offering one of the phoniest presentations weve seen on cable yet. At one point, he even asked the following question, with high acerbity. No, we arent making this up:
Keith was making America dumber. And again: Our side has lost very badly during the reign of this silly culture. In effect, they traded us Quayle for Gore. Its like what happens when a teams worst player is told to get in a fight with a star. Both players get booted out of the game. They lost Quayleand we lost Gore. And we all got eight years of George Bush.
Barring massive improvement in her game, Palin will be a marginal player in the years ahead. Its sad to see progressive leaders so in love with the culture of ridicule that they extend it to such a lightweight. This culture makes America massively dumberand it has mainly harmed us.
Part 3Easy to believe: Its easy to believein miracleswhen pundits discuss public schools. Example: In late October, Jay Mathews gushed over the educational insurgency of Michelle Rhee, the still-new chancellor of DCs public schools. Indeed, he gushed over a entire new generation of administrators, including Rhee, who have s[een] how teacher focus and energy could improve students' lives, and at the same time [have] learned how rare those traits were in low-income neighborhood schools.
In Mathews piece, this is an heroic generation. To give you a fuller idea, here is Jays fuller description of this new generation of educators. This passage follows Jays account of a disappointing experience from Rhees brief (three-year) teaching career. There are heroes and villains in this portrait. It aint hard to see who they are:
Of course, its mainly good to get rid of unproductive teachers, and improvisations like money-for-grades may have positive effects in some low-income schoolsthough no one who actually cares about outcomes will simply assume such a thing. For ourselves, were glad that Rhee has an aggressive leadership stylealthough we arent at all sure that her basic vision about low-income schooling is sound. But thats a truly gushing portrait of Rhee and her insurgent Brat Pack. Its author seems remarkably sure of where the heroes are found.
That said, what makes Mathews feel so sure that the Brat Pack are the heroes? That their vision and their resultant approach are fundamentally sound? Heres your answer: Rhee has seen improvisation work, Jay says. On that rock he builds his church. But is that foundation sound?
This brings us back to the foundational myth of the cult of Chancellor Rhee. As he starts his piece, Mathews recalls the disappointing moment whichas the story is endlessly toldfired Rhees unquenchable desire to change the system. Many pundits find it easy to believe in Rhees visionand their apparent sense of certainty almost always turns on this tale. For ourselves, we were surprised to see Jay act as if this tale is established history. We were also surprised by the outright absurdity of some of what he describes:
Jesus rose from the dead in three daysand under Rhee, test scores soared. This taleof Rhees miracle cureis told wherever her cult is sold. Plainly, Jay believes its true. At THE HOWLER, we pretty much dont. (For the record: Rhee got her Harvard masters degree after her three years of teaching.)
To understand Rhee, you have to know what happened when she taught at Baltimore's Harlem Park Elementary, Jay says. But what did happen in those three years; did miracles really occur? In our view, no one who actually cares about low-income schools will leap to such conclusionsor assume that the Brat Pack is on the right path because they have (allegedly) seen similar outcomes. As weve explained in the past, it isnt clearit isnt clear at allthat Rhee produced the miracle cure she has boasted about all through her career (links below). And good God! Who but an adept could believe that miracles occur in the way Jay describes? Did no one but Rhee ever think of having her kids sit in a big U-pattern with her in the middle? Did no one else ma[ke] quick marks on the blackboard for good and bad behavior without ever stopping the lesson? Even assuming, as we do, that Rhee was a highly diligent teacher, the story Jay tells is the stuff of legend. This type of story is perfectly finein books written for eight-year-old kids. But its dangerous when we find it so easy to believe that we start revamping our low-income schools on the basis of such absurd tales.
In an e-mail, we asked Jay why he feels so sure that Rhee produced the astounding score gains she has boasted about through the years. In particular, we posed these questions about these alleged test scoresscores which couldnt be documented or confirmed by the Baltimore schools at the time of her ascension to chancellor:
Jays answers were helpful, though they leave some matters hanging. Heres what he told us:
Do the data from Rhees tenure still exist? We have no idea. At the time of Rhees ascension, the Washington Times seems to have pursued this matter a bit harder than the Post; in a paraphrased passage, reporter Gary Emerling said that Baltimores current testing director said retrieving data from a decade ago is hard because his office changed its information storage systems for the year 2000" (our emphasis). Is retrieving these test scores hardor impossible? We have no idea. (Emerling included some hard data about third-grade achievement at Harlem Park as a wholedata which made Rhees claims sound a bit improbable. An aggressive journalist could surely pursue this type of analysis harder.) Meanwhile, Rhee has long made detailed claims about her students success. As the Post reported, her official resume had long asserted this: "Over a two-year period, moved students scoring on average at the 13th percentile on national standardized tests to 90 percent of students scoring at the 90th percentile or higher. At best, its extremely irresponsible to make such detailed claims on the basis of informal chit-chat.
(For what its worth, it seems unlikely that central office people would have been the only ones who had the detailed, student-by-student data. Beyond that, we find it hard to believe that Rhee wouldnt have wanted to know how her individual students tested, even after shed left the school system.)
Jay is inclined to believe such claims, based on judgments he has made about other Teach for America teachers. Our inclination is vastly different, for reasons weve long described. But Jay is not the only scribe whos inclined to accept Rhees claims on their face. When Fred Hiatt penned the recent Post piece in which he fawned about Rhees vision (see THE DAILY HOWLER, 11/24/08), he too seemed to be accepting Rhees claims at face value:
Pundits seem to find it easy to believe these pleasing assertions. Jay cited Teach for America teachers, but as best we can tell, Teach for America has not been able to demonstrate outstanding systematic success. (See THE DAILY HOWLER, 7/14/08.) In our view, people who actually care about outcomes will be much more hard-headed about such claims. You see, it actually matters if these tales are true, because Rhees whole vision is built on notions derived from these uplifting stories. In Rhees world, teachers can produce miracle curesif they just get off their keisters start working harder. (If theyd only make students sit in a U, they too could see those test scores soar.) Her insurgency seems to be based on the idea that teachers are simply refusing to teach. If we threaten them, fire them, scare them and bribe them, theyll finally get off their lumps off lard and all will be well with the world.
Were sorrywe just dont believe that. We think that vision is vastly skewedand it seems to be Rhees master vision.
Can teachers produce those miracle cures? Pundits love to believe such things; theyve promoted such notions for decades. On that point, we also asked Jay why he included that frankly silly passage about having the students all sit in a U while making those marks on the blackboard. My fault for not making it clear that that was just a couple of the things she did, he replied. The obsessive lesson planning and the individual student goal keeping were likely much more important to the progress she made, also the frequent contact with parents and the loopingsticking with the same kids for two grades. But there too, many teachers (including us) have stuck with the same kids for two grades. This practice does not produce miracle cures unless the teachers a miracle worker.
Its always possible that Rhees students achieved the gains she has claimed, of coursebut we think its extremely unlikely. And lets be real: Even if some teacher can produce such cures, that doesnt mean anyone else can. Everybody cant be Babe Ruth. You cant assume that all your outfielders could hit 60 home runs if theyd just try a bit harder.
We dont know Jay, but we share the old school system tie. (In 1965, we graduated from Aragon High in San Mateo, California. Through absolutely no fault of his own, Jay had to go to Hillsdale.) Hes worked on public school issues for many years; were frankly biased in his favor. But for decades, journalists have found it easy to believe miracle claims about success in low-income schools. In the case of Rhee, a whole insurgency seems to be built on belief in such claims. For that reason, a more typical brand of journalistic skepticism would very much seem to be called for.
To understand [Rhee] and the educational insurgency she is part of, you have to know what happened when she taught at Baltimore's Harlem Park Elementary School in the early 1990s, Jay wrote. Strictly speaking, that isnt trueand it seems that we cant really know what happened.. But as Jay suggests, her vision is built on faith in the notion that remarkable cures are there for the taking. If we care about low-income schools, we wont rush to believe such ideas.
NextPart 4: From Nossiter back to Kristof.
Visit our incomparable archives: We discussed Rhees claims in some detail when she was named to the chancellor post. For one example, see THE DAILY HOWLER, 7/2/07. If you search our archives on the word Rhee, youll find many more examples.