THE PANTS SEEN ROUND THE WORLD! A truly gruesome act of bad faith has passed with little comment: // link // print // previous // next //
MONDAY, AUGUST 2, 2010
The Empire States new test scores: Weve followed public school testing issues for almost forty years. For that reason, a news report in last Thursdays New York Times was quite hard to take. It was maddening, almost infuriating. It took us three tries to finish.
In her report, Jennifer Medina described a very strange state of affairs. Results from this years statewide tests in reading and math (grades 3-8) have been released by the state of New York. And statewide passing rates have plunged, as we noted last Friday:
Say what? Last year, New Yorkers cheered as 86 percent of the states kids were deemed passing, or at grade level, in math. This year, only 61 percent were so deemed, with a similar plunge in passing rates on the states reading tests. (New York State calls its reading tests English.)
For the record, no one thinks that New York States kids are actually doing worse this year. What actually happened? New York State simply changed its tests, and many fewer kids were able to pass! In this remarkable passage, Medina describes part of what occurred:
Good grief! Last year, a fourth grader needed 37 points (out of 70) to pass the states math test. This year, his younger sister needed 51 points! Truly, thats a remarkable factand yet, as written, Medinas passage doesnt make much sense. If New Yorks tests had become too easy because the test questions were too predictable, why did the state raise its requisite passing scores? Why didnt they simply rewrite the test items? Why didnt they leave it at that?
Medina never attempts to solve this riddle at any point in her lengthy report. Nor did she tackle this riddle on July 20, when she first reported this state of affairs. (New York State education officials acknowledged on Monday that their standardized exams had become easier to pass over the last four years and said they would recalibrate the scoring for tests taken this spring, which is almost certain to mean thousands more students will fail.) But in truth, the problems in last Thursdays report began with this semi-comical passage, which directly followed Medinas description of the large drop in passing rates:
Are you kidding? The scoring adjustment could raise questions about New York States testing? The drop in passing rates could raise doubts about New York Citys improvement? Of course these events will raise such questions, except perhaps at the New York Times, which kissed the hem of Bloombergs wealth and power as it clowned its way through the test score gains of the past decade. It was always obvious that there were problems with some of the claims Mayor Bloomberg was making; it has long been plain that there might be problems with the score gains recorded all over the state. But under Gail Collins (Duchess of Middle Inania), the New York Times editorial board kept kissing the hem of Bloombergs garments. This practice continued in the reign of the current editorial board chairman, Andrew Rosenthal, former dauphin of the province of Times-Rosenthalia.
The scoring adjustment could raise questions about New York States testing? In her very next paragraph, Medina quoted Thomas Petrilli, an educational expert, saying this: The state test is completely unreliable. (On July 20, she quoted David Steiner, the current education commissioner, saying this about recent scoring patterns: The only possible conclusion is that something strange has happened to our test.) Obviously, the scoring adjustment raises the gravest sorts of questions about the states testing procedures, questions Medina shows no sign of wanting to answer or ask.
How inept is Medina, writing for our nations smartest newspaper? Just look back to the earlier passage where she says that a score of 51on the fourth grade math test means that a student has reached Level 3 (out of 4), or grade level (our emphasis). Is that an actual claim by the state? Does New York State explicitly claim that a student getting 51 points has shown that she is working on traditional fourth-grade level in math? Most important: If the state is making that claim, is there any reason to believe it? Last year, the same state said that a score of 37 showed a child was on grade level. If the state was so crazily wrong last year, why believe the state now?
In other words: How did the state of New York come up with its new magic numbers? Did they pull these numbers out of a hat, or was there some coherent process by which the new passing scores were selected? And by the way: If last years passing scores were crazily low, is it possible that the new passing scores could even be artificially high? That kids who really are on grade level cant make the grade on this test?
These statewide tests are very important. Such significant tests should be carefully developed, by valid psychometric procedures, not pulled out of somebodys keister. But the New York Times has always been hopelessly dumb when it comes to such basic topics (as has the Washington Post). Trust us: Medina will never ask the relevant questionsand her editors will never make her. The Empire State has been wearing few clothesand its famous leading newspaper has never been willing to notice.
Please note: We arent trying to prejudge the work of the current state regime. Steiner has been on the job for roughly a year; in our view, he deserves credit for addressing this long-standing problem. As best we can tell, Merryl Tisch, current head of the State Board of Regents, deserves such credit too. But are changes being made in a competent way? As usual, the New York Times seems to be working on a kindergarten level as it examines this topic. Medinas treatment of this remarkable story has been pure D-minus work.
Alas! The meta story in this mess involves our societal IQ. If the Times really is our smartest newspaper, that score can barely be found. And of course, we liberals never discuss such topics. More on that on Friday.
A gruesome letter: On Saturday, the Times published five letters about this July 24 editorial. Apparently texting it in from the Hamptons, the editors had assured the world that the problem in New York [State testing] seems to have involved no deliberate deception. Several letter-writers joined Medina (and the editors) in jumbling up the basic issues involved in the current mess. But one letter came from Jacqueline Ancess, a honcho at Teachers College, Columbia University. And uh-oh! Ancess seems to know what shes talking about! Could the factual claims in this passage possibly be accurate?
Question: If Ancess factual statements are accurate, why are we reading them in a letter, not in a news report?
Silly Ancess! Shell never get party invites from the mayor, making outrageous statements like these! Why, shes saying the Empire State had no clothes! Who could think something like that?
THE PANTS SEEN ROUND THE WORLD (permalink): Josh Marshall asked a very good question this weekendbut you know the way we liberals are! He showed little sign of understanding that hed asked it a little too late.
This was Joshs question: Is Charlie Rangel facing a trial in the House ethics committee? How about Maxine Waters? The term has been widely used by our leading news organizationsbut has it been used in this type of case in the past? Josh says he poked around in Nexis a bit, sounding like a real first-timer when it comes to this thing called research:
We liberals! Thats the way our smartest players conduct their research.
Actually, it isnt that hard to prove a negative when it comes to a matter like this. After reading Joshs piece, we briefly researched the mother of all modern ethics hearings, the 1990-91 Senate hearings involving the so-called Keating Five. In real time, these hearings were extremely high-profile because they involved five sitting senators, a very large number. And these hearings stayed in the news for years after that, because one of the solons was the worlds most honest man, the future saint, Saint John McCain.
Searching on Keating AND trial, it becomes clear that these hearings were almost never described as a trial in the New York Times or the Washington Post. (Except in the rare moment, as when columnist Mary McGrory wrote this: But this is not a trial, as everyone is frequently reminded by the chairman, Sen. Howell Heflin.) Heres how the Post headlined the hearings at five early junctures:
November 15, 1990: Keating Five Hearings to Open Today; Senators Actions in S&L Case Probed
Joshs impression seems to be right. In the past, such hearings have rarely been described as trials. But this morning, the fraught term appears, three separate times, above the fold on the Times front page. Beyond that, the term trial has routinely been used in the Posts headlines concerning Rangel.
Yes, this seems to be new language, language which does tip the scales a tad. (Has anyone seen Frank Luntz around?) But you know easy how we liberals can be! As Josh notes, his own site, like the rest of the insider world, has been using that new, exciting term in its own coverage of Rangel! Josh tosses this off in a rueful aside, without displaying any real sense that his own site has perhaps been tooken by some Luntzian language machine.
(On the other hand, this new usage may simply reflect the press corps drift toward more exciting, tabloidized coverage. If you want to know what the drift toward tabloid looks like, go check Joshs site.)
Good God, we liberals are easy! This brings us to the recent news about Al Gore and that pair of stained pantsthe pants seen round the world.
Last Friday, Gore was cleared of allegations he groped and assaulted a masseuse in a luxury Portland hotel room in 2006, the AP reported. On Saturday, the Washington Post ran this remarkably uninformative, brief report in its hard-copy editions. On-line, the Post linked to the AP report, which continued its nugget sentence with this imitation of reality: closing a case that could have tarnished the Nobel Prize winners reputation.
A case that could have tarnished Gores reputation? Plainly, the case has tarnished his reputation; it has also changed the worlds discussion of climate change. To a certain extent, these unfortunate events have occurred because of that pair of black pantsthe pants seen round the world.
To see the pair of pants in question, just click here. You will soon be gazing upon a case of astounding bad faith.
Alas! The link takes you to the cover of a recent National Enquirer. On the cover, Gores accuser was shown holding up a pair of black pantsthe pants the accuser said she wore on the night of the alleged incident. HER STAINED PANTS, a tabloid bubble screams, pointing to the troubling trousers. Supermarket shoppers saw this photo on the cover of the Enquirer. The worlds discussion of climate change will be forever altered. (How much? Theres no way to say.)
What made that cover photo a display of astounding bad faith? When the Portland DA announced that he would not proceed further with the allegation against Gore, he released a public document detailing deficiencies with the accusers case. Among them: The accuser seems to have been paid by the Enquirer. (The Enquirer itself has said that she asked for a million dollars.) The accuser failed a lie detector test. The accuser has repeatedly failed to provide various types of records. And this:
But the Portland DA was being kind to Hagerty in that passage. Last month, the Portland Tribune published this long account of its own attempt to research the case back in 2008. Heres part of the Tribunes account of their interview with the accuser:
According to the Tribune, the pants had already tested negative, as of 2008! But so what? Two years later, the million dollar-seeking accuser plaintively posed with the pair of pants, in a move transparently intended to evoke that woman, Miss Lewinsky. The Enquirer engaged in this disgraceful conduct, throwing the photo onto its cover, where Molly Hagertys thrilling STAINED PANTS became the pants seen round the world.
Unless theres something bad wrong with these facts, this represents truly disgraceful conductby the accuser, and by the Enquirer. But have you seen a single liberal who has made this case? We liberals! In the Clinton-Gore era, we made our feckless natures clearyou could say any damn thing you pleased about our leaders, and we agreed not to get mad! By the end of that era, fiery liberals by the barrel were vouching for the truthfulness of Gennifer Flowers, whose initial complaints about Candidate Clinton were full of groaning factual errors, whose overall story never made sense. (For our money, Frank Rich was the most clownish of those who vouched for Flowers. Flowers not only got rich through her accusations, she even got Frank in the process.)
Perhaps you can recall the history, a history we liberals never discuss: Clinton was trashed all through the era, often in ludicrous ways, while fiery liberals slept in the woods. Then, the press corps went after Goreand Bush ended up in the White House.
Many liberals played active roles in that two-year war against Gore. Others sat back and allowed it. Just last week, E. J. Dionne grandly announced that Al Gore never said he invented the Internet! Ass-kissing liberals like Little Lord Benen cheered him for his conductand forgot to note that Dionne never said such a thing in real time, when it might have rescued the world.
When it mattered, Dionne ran off and hid in the woods. Lord Benen followed suit last week.
Can we talk? We liberals are often a pitiful breeddumb, dishonest, corrupt, ass-kissing. Here at THE HOWLER, well examine our tribe in the next four days. We liberals! We love to praise our own brilliance and goodness. The truth is a whole nother thing.
Go ahead! Gaze again on that cover photo! Those are the pants seen round the worldthe pants which have changed the worlds climate discussion. We liberals have meekly let this go, just as we meekly let everything go in The Decade That Was.
By the way: On Sunday, Salon posted this AP report, a news report built around the claim that Maxine Waters could face an ethics trial this fall. And uh-oh! Ethics Trail [sic] may derail Maxine Waters, Salons own headline cried. Salon was trying to call it a trial, but it transposed its letters.
We liberals are so smart, so pure! Well examine this proposition all week. Its much as Pogo once opined: When it comes to progressive interests, the enemy can often be us.