A SAVAGE STORY! Michelle Rhee likes to tell that story. And she likes telling it rough: // link // print // previous // next //
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 16, 2011
Do you understand how he did it: So how about it? Do you understand how Obama did it?
In yesterdays New York Times, we were told that he had reduced the risk of a fiscal crisis with this weeks budget proposal; he had prevented an uncontrolled explosion of debt (see THE DAILY HOWLER, 2/15/11). More specifically, Obamas proposal was enough to prevent an uncontrolled explosion of debt in the next decade.
We were glad to hear that hed done all this. But we were puzzled by how he had done it.
How the heck did Obama do it? According to the Times, his plan would only reduce the total projected deficits over the next decade by $1.1 trillion, or about 10 percent. (Thats projected deficitsnot projected spending.) We didnt see how such a relatively minor amount of deficit reduction could prevent the uncontrolled explosion of debt about which the whole world has been screaming. Beyond that, we were surprised to see projected deficits dropping rather quickly, to just three percent of GDPa level of deficit spending which is widely described as sustainable.
How the heck did Obama did it? Needless to say, the Times made no attempt to explain, and we still dont know for certain. But we would assume it has something to do with the assumptions built into those budget projections. More specifically: Do those projections assume that we will return to the tax rates of the Clinton years? Unless were mistaken, thats what will happen under current law, unless Obama and the Congress agree to extend the current lower rates. And budget projections are usually done in accord with current law.
Is that why those projected deficits drop so far, so fast? On Monday, Kevin Drum offered this post about Obamas budgeta post in which he urged us to recall a little-discussed, basic fact:
This is hardly new. But in the gong-show discussion our nations been having, very few people are ever told that a return to the Clinton tax rates would transform our budget outlook. This would involve raising taxes, you see. And by the rules of the current game, were supposed to talk about spending cutsspending cuts, nothing else.
Liberals encourage this gong-show, of course, obsessing on rates for the top two percent and pretending thats the whole ball game. In that passage, Kevin talks about letting all the Bush tax rates expire.
Did those projections in the New York Times assume a return to the Clinton tax rates? We dont know, but we do know this; in the small print of one Times graph, you can see that those budget projections only assume an AMT fix in the next three years. (Alternate Minimum Tax.) The AMT gets fixed every year, of course, by full bipartisan agreement; in recent years, this has subtracted roughly $70 billion from projected revenue in any given year. But the projections which appeared in the Times assume that the annual AMT fix wont occur in the last seven years of the decade. This is part of the reason why those deficit projections start to look so good.
Youd think the Times would explain such things, but that would be against all the rules. By the wayheres a letter in which a worried high school student shows that she has ingested an ongoing novel:
That girl has every right to worrybut she has ingested a norm of her culture. She only thinks about spending cuts. Quite likely, no one has told her what would occur if we returned to the Clinton tax ratesif we raised everybodys taxes. The chances are good that she has never so much as considered this possibilitythat shes never seen it discussed.
One last note on the way the Times works:
Read this news report, in this mornings paper. From its headline on down, the report asserts that Chicago is now less black, according to new census figures. Incredibly, the report never says how much less black the city is.
They dont need no stinking numbers at the glorious Times!
PART 2A SAVAGE STORY (permalink): Michelle Rhee has never been shy and retiring, especially when it comes to the basic task of tooting her own giant horn.
Rhee has never been self-effacingbut might she have a problem with the truth?
Consider what Rhees resume said when she hit DC in June 2007, nominated to serve as head of the citys public schools. Needless to say, the nominee was making those grandiose claims about her students astonishing progress when she was a teacher in Baltimore (see THE DAILY HOWLER, 2/15/11). But as the Washington Times was noting (just click here), her official bio at The Teacher Project was making an additional claim:
According to Rhee, her outstanding success had earned her acclaim from several major organson Good Morning America and The Home Show, as well as in the Wall Street Journal and the Hartford Courant. But uh-oh! As we noted at the time, these self-glorying claims had a minor flaw; they didnt seem to be accurate (see THE DAILY HOWLER, 7/11/07). Its true: The Baltimore school where Rhee taught for three years had been discussed by those national organs; it lay at the heart of an early experiment in public school privatization. Beyond that, Rhee had been quoted in some of those news reports. But none of those organs ever reported that Rhee had achieved outstanding success; nor had any of their reports showered any sort of acclaim on the self-impressed teacher. Despite these unfortunate facts, Mayor Fentys official statement introducing Rhee repeated these impressive claims (word for word)and Rhees inaccurate language would continue to be cut-and-pasted in the months that followed. Among many examples: To see the Center for American Progress repeat this claim in August 2007, just click here. In January 2008, the DC Cornell Club did the same, describing the wondrous grad-made-good who would soon be addressing the club.
Can we talk? Many people inflate their resumes, as Rhee apparently did in this instinctive act of self-glorification. Sometimes, such people say things which are blatantly false, as Rhee seems to have done. But when it comes to this ballyhooed star, the acts of embellishment just dont seem to end. Just yesterday, Albert Shanker tried to make sense of self-flattering claims found at Rhees current site, the site for her new org, Students First. At one point, Shanker tried to figure out what Rhee could mean by this:
What does Rhee mean when she says DC was the worst performing school district in the country when she arrived on the scene? Because it would make so little sense, Shanker said he assumed she couldnt be talking about the districts performance on the NAEP (the National Assessment of Educational Progress). But Shanker is playing by outdated rulesrules which look for rational conduct from people of Rhees public stature. In fact, that is plainly what Rhee means by that claim about DCs schools; she has explicitly made this gimmicked-up claim many times in the past. (For one very high-profile example, see THE DAILY HOWLER, 10/18/10.)
Was DC the worst performing school district in the country when this self-glorying star hit the scene? Theres no way to tellbut it makes a good tale. So Rhee fluffs herself, then says it.
With Rhee, the embellishment never seems to endbut as weve noted, her most significant claim is the sacred story she has always told about her own brilliant teaching career, a sacred story which lays at the heart of her reform agenda. According to Rhee, she engineered an education miracle in the last two years of her three-year career at Baltimores Harlem Park Elementary. Back in 2007, Rhees resume described the miracle: 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. Right to this day, the sacred tale of this miracle cure drives Rhees picture of reform, with various millionaire/billionaire rubes swallowing her claims down whole. If Rhee could achieve this miracle, anyone canif those lazy teachers would just work harder! This sacred story thus drives a whole movement, in which know-nothings in High Gotham blame Americas teachers, and their infernal unions, for all that is wrong with the world.
Did Rhee really produce that successthe vast success about which she has bragged? Tomorrow, well start to look at the 16-year-old study which helps cast doubt on this claim, which was always highly improbable. For today, lets consider another part of the Rhees gamethe vehemence with which she has pimped this improbable, now withdrawn, story. (In the past week, Rhee told the Washington Post that she would now say something less grandiose about her students performance.) This unfortunate lady has walked away from the glory tale which defined her career. In walking away, she has made it clear that this story should never have done told.
With that in mind, just consider the way she has told this sacred tale in the past. In particular, consider the savagery with which she has used these now-renounced claims to denounce all others around her.
Rhee has never stopped telling the tale about her success in the classroom. Just last November, she told the tale to the Washingtonians Harry Jaffe. Jaffe presented the transcript of an interview with Rhee. In this part of the session, Rhee told her sacred tale:
Amazing! Despite the fact that Rhee was in the neighborhood where they later filmed The Wire, she took her kids from the bottom to the top in her second year of teaching. Rhee mangles her story just a bit here; she has always claimed that this miracle occurred over a two-year period, in her second and third years of teaching. Whatever! Rhee has never been a stickler for facts when it comes to telling this story. The only rule has always been that the tale must display her full glory.
Often, displaying her own full glory means savaging everyone else. Consider the way she told her tale to Jay Mathews in 2008.
Mathews reported the tale in the Washington Post, embarrassing himself a bit as he did (see THE DAILY HOWLER, 11/26/08). But most significantly, his report showed an ugly side of this self-impressed hustler:
From that report, you might even think that test scores soared because Rhee had come up with such stunning innovations as having her students sit in a semi-circle, while Rhee herself made quick marks on the blackboard for good and bad behaviorwithout ever stopping the lesson! Incredibly, you live in a nation where such monumental nonsense can appear in a very famous newspaper, presented by one of the nations best-known education reporters. Just last week, Rhee finally downscaled the claim she has always made about the way those test scores soared. (Specifics tomorrow.) But please note the ugly place where her recollection took her this day.
Poor Rhee! Teaching in the hood where theyd film The Wire, she had learned to sit the kids in a circleand shed seen their test scores soar! She even imagined that she had received acclaim for this manifest brilliance in the Wall Street Journal! But what had filled Rhee with sheer despair, even as those test scores soared? She just knew that all her work would be lost when her students moved on to all those other teachers! Lets go ahead and rewrite that passage, inserting the word Rhee employed:
Rhee, of course, had been brilliant. She knew this because she had read it in the Wall Street Journal; she also dreamed that she had seen it on Good Morning America. But around her, those other teachers were shitty, as she later told Matthews. Of course, those shitty teachers never had to renounce long-standing claims about the gigantic success they attained, as Rhee was forced to do last week. But still, Rhee knew how shitty they were.
For reasons we cant begin to explain, she knows this deep in her bones.
Rhee has told these ugly, inaccurate tales all through her rise to the top. Millionaire marks in Upper Manhattan have cheered her savage acts on. Last week, she had to walk her sacred tale back, in a way well discuss in more detail tomorrow.
But something is very wrong with this ugly, sacred story. Is it time for Mathews and his colleagues to make some quick marks on the board?
Tomorrowpart 3: Jay to Rhee: Under the bus!