PLEASE COME TO FINLAND! As Big Dogs warbled a new hit song, Goldstein voiced an objection: // link // print // previous // next //
THURSDAY, APRIL 23, 2009
Please stop talking: Wed rather not discuss this today. But the topic is hard to avoid. Wed say it looks semi-remarkable.
Rachel Maddow and even Keith Olbermann have done some good segments this week. Why, a certain guest even did a Maddow segment without once playing the fool! (Correction: Without always approach[ing] things from a humorous and risqué point of view when possible.) But Maddows work is now rather hard to discuss. To all appearances, her networkthe historically gruesome MSNBChas stopped making her transcripts available.
Shorter MS: Please stop talking?
As we type on Thursday morning, none of the transcripts from Maddows shows have been posted on Nexis this week. Every Countdown transcript has been postedin timely, next-morning fashion. Ditto every Hardball program, every Ed Show broadcast.
Transcripts from all Fox programs are there. So too with CNN.
On MSNBCs own site, transcripts are being postedvery, very slowly. The network loftily tells viewers this: Transcripts will be available within 24 hours of airing, except for Friday shows (just click here). But only Mondays nights transcripts are currently posted, as we approach Thursday noon. Were not sure when these transcripts were posted, but they hadnt been posted as of last night. (There is some indication that they were posted a short time ago, late on Thursday morning.)
On Nexis, everything is thereexcept Maddow. Its hard to avoid a certain thought: Maddow has received some criticism in the past two weeks, even in the New York Times. Her network has responded by making it harder to report the things she says.
Is that whats happening? No idea. Wed rather not have discussed this today. But Hardball, Countdown and Ed are all there. Only one program is missing.
PART 2PLEASE COME TO FINLAND: Sung to the tune of Please come to Boston, the song has become a major hit among the opinion elite:
Well actually, there arent any fjords in Finland. Nor is it clear that Finland has major lessons to teach about how to run public schools. But so what! For years, opinion leaders from the U.S. have let themselves be dragged off to Finland; theyve proceeded to walk through Finnish schools, then type up the requisite glowing reports. In 2005, for example, Big Dog uber-insider Robert Kaiser rhapsodized in the Washington Post about the quality time hed spent among the Finns:
Actually, that was the unsigned synopsis of Kaisers report. Kaiser himself only said that Finlands school system was very likely the best on Earth. Sadly, there was no sign in Kaisers report that he had the expertise or savvy which might allow him to form such a judgment. But so what! To see how Kaiser formed his view, see THE DAILY HOWLER, 5/24/05.
Kaiser rhapsodized from the Finland Station, as Big Dogs are currently wont to do. To read about a recent trip by someone who knows a good deal about schools, consider this post by Dana Goldstein at Tapped. Goldstein is one of the very few writers at career liberal sites who focuses on educational issues. That said, well admit itwe were somewhat puzzled by her post about Finland this week. There must be something in the Finlandic air, we incomparably mused.
But people! Before we review Goldsteins post, lets recall the excellent piece she published last December, shortly after her return from the land of the midnight shine. In the following passage, Goldstein explained why so many Big Dogs have found it so easy to gulp down Finlandia. She also suggested a potential problem with familiar, glowing assessments:
Why do our education reformers insist on pimping the Finns? Because their students have scored at the top on a certain international measure, Goldstein says. But uh-oh! The truth of the matter is far more complicated, she then claimed. She then put the gloom on the rose:
Goldstein offered no further detail about that disturbing achievement gap, said to be similar to what educators are battling in the United States. But it was very instructive when she chose to cite it. You see, Finland has always been a middle-class, unicultural nationthe easiest kind of nation in which to produce wonderful test scores. When Big Dog Kaiser told Post readers that Finlands system was very likely the best, he too offered a bucolic overview of the nations student populationnot seeming to realize that almost anyone will produce good test scores with a student population like this:
Finland doesnt have slums, Kaiser said. And it doesnt have many immigrant kidskids who may be struggling with a new culture, with a new language, with the effects of poverty. By the way: How good were the test scores at Karkkainens previous schoolthe school which was located in a poor neighborhood? The results were very good, Karkkainen said. There was no sign that Kaiser had checked.
Karkkainens new schoolthe school Kaiser toured consisted primarily of the children of college graduates and professionals. Of course, if you visit schools like that in this country, you will find plenty of strong test scores too. But when they report from the Finland Station, our Big Dogs may not realize the perils of easy praise and facile comparison. When they compare the schools of middle-class Finland to the schools found in the U.S., they may, in some cases, be comparing apples to kumquats. Question: How well do middle-class, majority-culture American kids score compared to similar Finns? Question: How well do Finlands schools perform when they do have poverty kids? We dont know the answers to these questionsin part because they never seem to occur to touring Big Dogs like Kaiser. Goldsteins statement about that achievement gap suggests a possible answer.
This week, another famous Big Dog journalist has reported back from the Finland Station. It was Thomas Friedman of the New York Times, in yesterdays high-minded column (see THE DAILY HOWLER, 4/22/09). No, he hadnt walked through Finlands schools himselfhe was merely cutting and pasting from the latest report by official approved experts. That said, we thought his column was, at times, almost cosmically clueless.
Last week, another Big Dog had done the same thinghad cut and pasted a hot new report. Tomorrow, we return to Friedmans piece. After that, its on to the Issacson Station!
Somewhat puzzled: Well admit that we were somewhat puzzled by Goldsteins post this week. She responded to a question about national education standards, a proposal Friedman and Isaacson have been pimping in the past few weeks. (For ourselves, were neutral on the question. Well wait till someone makes a coherent proposal before we state a view.) In her post, Goldstein praised those Finnish schools. She then offered an assessment of the Finnish system which struck us as somewhat odd:
Oh boy. If they recalled Goldsteins piece from December, readers might have had some idea what the OECD is.
That said, we were struck by Danas statement that Finland has a national curriculum. We thought that formulation was a bit odd, because the excerpt and examples she provides are exceptionally vague and broad. (See her piece.) Indeed, she makes this point herself, saying this of the excerpts shes provided:
But of course, a content standard like ancient Greece and Rome is so vague that is barely constitutes a content standard at all. In this country, the so-called standards movement was largely begun in reaction to such loosey-goosey curriculacurricula so vague and so broad that they impose very little order on what different teachers will teach. To us, content standards like the one Dana cites show that Finland doesnt have educational standards of the type being sought in this country. If Finland does have high test scores, we would draw these conclusions from what Dana shows:
Do Finlands schools really do better after adjusting for class, and for similar factors? Thanks to a string of observers like Kaiser, we dont have the slightest idea. Tomorrow, lets play a schoolyard game: As he warbled that new hit song, lets see if Friedman asked.