CUNNINGHAM (4/04): Mr. Speaker, Colonel Bud Day, former Vietnam prisoner of war for over 6 years, recalls in his book on how Jane Fonda, Ramsey Clark, and John Kerry energized the enemy through their accusations and hurt them as prisoners of war. Mr. Speaker, I was shot down over North Vietnam at that time. I can remember the anger and the disparaging remarks that John Kerry made about our service. I remember the rage in all of us from his slander. I am proud of the men and women that I served with in Vietnam and those that are serving us at great risk today in Iraq and Afghanistan and all over the world. Even today, John Kerry votes against defense, the military, veterans, and intelligence bills that would enforce the safe return of our men and women. We do not need someone that would vote like a Jane Fonda as commander in chief.Now we see how clownish it was when Cunningham complained about being slandered. At any rate, in 1992, Candidate Clinton was a traitor (because he took a trip to the Soviet Union). Here was the dope about Candidate Kerry. Of course, as Cunningham was making these stirring remarks, he was selling his nations defense contracts—so he could put his sweaty old socks into a fine French commode.
For several decades, from Rush on down, people like this stupid old fake have been making an absolute joke of our discourse. Bill Clinton is a traitor! Al Gore said he invented the Internet! John Kerry would vote like Jane Fonda! He voted against every weapon system! Now that everyone on earth can see just what a consummate fraud this man was, Dems and libs should revisit these comments. At some point, voters will see the fraudulence here—will see the clownish way theyve been played. But that will happen only if we aggressively show them the clowning—and frame it. Voters deserve the chance to rethink the fake, phony things they were told in the past. But given the way our lib elites work, we wont be holding our breath.
POSTSCRIPT: By the way, did you know that liberals are trying to take away Christmas? That Democrats pelted poor Michael Steele with a hail of Oreo cookies? Many people believe these idiot claims. We need to provide a framework which lets these claims be reassessed. To this day, we still havent done that.
Special report: You know the drill!
PART 3—THE LEAST AMONG US: For starters, lets make one thing clear. Fairly obviously, Charlotte has expended a lot of effort as it gathers data by use of the Drill-Down, and in some cases, it may well be that the Drill-Down yields useful information. Beyond that, its fairly obvious, when one watches Making Schools Work, that the teachers and administrators whom Hedrick Smith interviews are deeply concerned with real children. (We have some concerns about Eric Smith, the tightly-wound former superintendent, but his assistants clearly seem like superlative people—the kind of people who go to work every day trying to help low-income kids.) But is it likely that Charlottes Drill-Down provides the stuff of academic revolution? That seems extremely unlikely to us—and Charlottes test scores suggest no revolution, although that one NAEP score in fourth-grade math is worthy of further examination (see THE DAILY HOWLER, 11/30/05). But if youve followed urban ed for the past four decades, you may well feel that you know this old drill. Teachers and administrators are always convinced that the latest educational reform is the best, and well-meaning scribes like Hedrick Smith routinely accept whatever theyre told about this latest miracle. Result? The latest in a string of feel-good tales about low-income schools that work—and all too often, the latest trip down a path of reform that, in the end, just wont pan out. Large chunks of time get lost this way as we chase after schools that (dont actually) work.
And make no mistake: Grandiloquent claims are made for the Drill-Down all through this segment of Making Schools Work. (Here is the programs full transcript.) Eventually, were even told that the Drill-Down is used to address the problems of Charlottes high-poverty schools. We crunch data every single day, assistant superintendent Susan Agruso says. Then, Hedrick Smith explains how the Drill-Down is used to help low-income schools:
HEDRICK SMITH: Rapid response to students needs is critical at the district level, too. In the districts nerve center, they use the Drill-Down to monitor the progress of every school. The focus is on schools in need. The commitment is to equity, shoring up schools often staffed by inexperienced teachers who need extra help.Standing in the school systems nerve center, Hedrick Smith never asks why Charlotte-Mecklenburg allows its low-income schools to be staffed by so many inexperienced teachers who need extra help. Instead, were soon whisked away to Spaugh Middle School, a high-poverty, inner-city school whose test scores are depressingly low—although were told, for unknown reasons, that its a school where the students are thriving (see THE DAILY HOWLER, 10/28/05). Judging by Spaughs depressing scores, that remark is completely absurd. But then, you may know this old drill, which gets vicious at moments like this.
High-poverty schools—schools like Spaugh—are what this PBS show claims to study. But how have Charlottes vaunted reforms actually worked in such settings? More specifically, how have Charlottes reforms worked in high-poverty elementary schools—schools which send deserving (but low-scoring) kids on to their three years at Spaugh? Making Schools Work rarely asks such questions. Instead, it accepts vague word of praise about the Drill-Downs great brilliance—and cruelly pretends that Spaughs students are thriving. But then, this is what we typically get when well-meaning but inexperienced journalists head off to investigate low-income schools. Like so many scribes before him, Hedrick Smith rarely shows any sign of knowing what questions to ask in these schools. Instead, he marvels at vague, mushy claims of reform—and accepts bogus claims about test scores.
What should Hedrick Smith have asked when he journeyed to low-scoring schools like Spaugh? Well cite the questions that came to mind when we watched this part of this program.
First, lets recall whats often at stake when we visit low-income schools. Back in August, the New York Times Bob Herbert described a new study about such schools (see THE DAILY HOWLER, 8/29/05). The study was commissioned by the Center for American Progress and the Institute for America's Future. This is the part Herbert quoted:
HERBERT (8/29/05): An education task force established by the center and the institute noted the following:How's that for a disturbing passage? Herbert asks, for obvious reasons. Indeed, according to the passage he quotes, low-income students are about three grade levels behind in reading by the time they get to the fourth grade! There is, of course, no perfect way to quantify the achievement of our low-income students; some such kids do just fine in school. But in our experience, many kids are so far behind by the fourth or fifth grades that normal instruction becomes very difficult. These children cant read the standard textbooks in any subject area, including science and social studies. And if theyre also years behind in math, normal instruction becomes quite maddening. In the real world, instructional programs are normally devised for kids proceeding at a more normal fashion. For kids in need of such deep remediation, its hard to find published instructional programs—programs devised with their instructional profile and needs in mind. Indeed, these childrens instructional needs are nothing like those of other kids their age. In Charlotte-Mecklenburg, a large, urban-suburban system, there are surely plenty of highly capable, fifth-grade kids who could work on seventh-grade level in math—and there are presumably many kids who are several years behind grade level. So here they are, the first questions wed ask: How many low-income kids in Charlottes elementary schools are about three grade levels behind non-poor students? And what kind of instructional programming do you provide to children like these? How exactly do you teach math to fourth-grade kids who may be several years behind? Presumably, such kids cant use a standard math textbook or standard math program—and, presumably, they wont be given the same instruction as kids who may be years above grade level. In our experience, these are the actual problems which actually confront actual teachers in low-income schools. Are these problems found in Charlotte? Due, well presume, to his lack of experience, Hedrick Smith never quite asks.
''Young low-income and minority children are more likely to start school without having gained important school readiness skills, such as recognizing letters and counting. By the fourth grade, low-income students read about three grade levels behind non-poor students. Across the nation, only 15 percent of low-income fourth graders achieved proficiency in reading in 2003, compared to 41 percent of non-poor students.''
Instead, Hedrick Smith stares off into air as former superintendent Eric Smith makes claims which strike us as quite remarkable. How does Charlotte teach low-scoring kids—kids who may be years behind by the fourth grade? In his extended interview, the superintendent seems to make a remarkable statement; it sounds like these low-scoring kids get the very same instruction as kids who are years beyond them. Heres part of the lengthy, Eric Smith background interview which is used in the actual show:
SUPERINTENDENT ERIC SMITH: I knew from Day One that all the kids could do the same level of work. They could accomplish it in the same time frame. In terms of calendar days they would respond to the expectation to work at an extraordinarily high level. I knew that Charlotte had the capacity to make that happen.All the kids can do the same level of work? The fourth-grade kid whos three years behind can do the same level of work, that year, as the kid whos a year or two above grade level? Based on our years in high-poverty classrooms, this strikes us as a preposterous statement—and Superintendent Smiths pleasing claims about [high-poverty] minority children excelling at extraordinary levels really come off as a nasty deception when you look at those dismal test scores from Spaugh—the test scores which are swept away in the false claims offered by Making Schools Work, which tell us that Spaughs kids are thriving. Yes, plenty of minority kids are performing at extraordinary levels; such kids can be found all over the country. But Eric Smiths high-minded, crowd-pleasing statement ignores another unavoidable fact; if that recent study is accurate, there are also large numbers of deserving, high-poverty minority kids who are several years below grade level, even by the fourth grade. In our experience, its absurd to suggest that these kids should be given the same instruction as kids who are far more advanced; in our experience, thats a ticket to disaster for kids who are already years behind (more on this tomorrow). But all through the PBS segment on Charlotte—and all through the programs supplementary materials—it sounds as if every fourth-grader gets the fourth-grade curriculum, then the corresponding Drill-Down. For example, here is Superintendent Smith, in his extended interview, explaining his first move in Charlotte:
HEDRICK SMITH: But there are a lot of people in this country who say public education can't work and it specifically can't work for kids who come from minority families and high poverty areas.
SUPERINTENDENT ERIC SMITH: People who say that low-income children, minority children can't excel at extraordinary levels are flat-out wrong. They just haven't seen the evidence. And the evidence has to be seen with children that are given the kind of instruction that is required to allow children to excel at that level...Kids will perform at the level at which they are taught. And if you teach at a low level you're going to get performance at a low level.
SUPERINTENDENT ERIC SMITH: The first thing we had to do was to make sure we had clarity around the nature of the teachers' work in every school. This discrepancy in the quality of teaching between inner city and suburban had to change.Persistently, it sounds like every fourth-grade teacher is on the same page in the same teaching guide, whether she has above-grade-level students in a leafy suburb or struggling kids in the inner city. This strikes us as a remarkable approach. But perhaps you know this old drill. Hedrick Smith doesnt ask a single question about this peculiar approach.
We established the clarity of our purpose by writing specific documents. Very clear concise documents that would tell every teacher that you had to be covering these kind of materials in this time frame and these were the ways that other good teachers recommended getting the job done. We set the agenda right down to the last detail.
The second piece we found was that we had to have equity in terms of strategies. First define the work. Second, make sure there is equity, which we didn't have and which wasn't in place. We had to bring equity to all classrooms. We couldn't expect teachers to teach physics at the same level, using the same pacing guides and model lessons, if they don't have the physics equipment to teach with, or the labs. And so we went through the equity effort.
Whats happening in Charlottes low-income schools? Its extremely hard to tell from this program. But one thing is clear—Spaugh Middle School has very low scores, and PBS viewers get deceived about that. But then again, you may know this pleasing old drill, in which deserving, low-income kids become props for the publics amusement—characters pushed around the boards to produce a new feel-good tale.
TOMORROW: High scores at Highland.