This comment was posted by a reader:
The Washington Post editorial page has a lengthy recent history of misrepresenting the truth about American public education. Worse, it continues to support and advocate for “remedies” that do little to improve schooling.
The lead education editorial writer, Jo-Ann Armao, has made the claim that American public education is broken and teacher unions are to blame. She has consistently touted more testing, charter schools and abolishment of tenure as “the fix.” But Armao gets it wrong again and again, and again.
If unions impede student learning, for example, how does Armao explain high achievement in many strong union states (Maryland and Massachusetts come to mind), and bottom-of-the-barrel achievement where unions are weak or non-existent (the deep South, for example)? She cannot.
A USA Today investigation into cheating in the District schools under Michell Rhee found that for a school to be “flagged” for possible cheating a “classroom had to have so many wrong-to-right erasures that the average for each student was 4 standard deviations higher than the average for all D.C. students in that grade on that test, meaning that “ a classroom corrected its answers so much more often than the rest of the district that it could have occurred roughly one in 30,000 times by chance. D.C. classrooms corrected answers much more often.” When half of all the schools in the system are flagged for grossly abnormal wrong-to-right erasures on tests and “ the odds are better for winning the Powerball grand prize than having that many erasures by chance,” then it’s more than likely that “some cheating” took place. And, even Rhee has admitted that “some cheating” may have occurred during her reign as superintendent of the DC schools.
But, in a fit of editorial obtuseness, The Post(Armao) said “there are many innocent explanations for changed answers.” The Post told the public, inaccurately, that Rhee and her cronies “were cleared by an outside firm.”
However, Rhee and her top minions, including current chancellor Kay Henderson, were very reluctant to have any kind of investigation. Consider also that the “investigations” that finally took place were quite limited. The school system refused to release the names of the schools that were initially investigated, and it refused to release the limited-in-scope “investigative” reports. In essence, the “test security” company, Caveon, that performed the very limited inquiries into the DC testing irregularities, performed much like the Wall Street ratings agencies (Fitch’s, Moody’s, Standard & Poor’s) that signed off on the toxic, collateralized securities peddled by the investment banks. Those agencies took the big fees and gave the banks what they wanted: AAA ratings for securities that were dogs. So too, Caveon took the money and looked the other way. It suggested, as did DC school officials, that all the red flags signaling rampant cheating might be due to students who just checked their work. Interestingly, that “checking” was virtually always from wrong answers to right ones.
Here’s how Post education reporter Bill Turque covered the DC limited inquiry:
“Caveon founder John Fremer said he was doing exactly what his client, DCPS, asked. Had it asked for more, he said, more could have been done. The Utah-based firm could have analyzed answer sheets at greater depth–far beyond erasure rates, which Fremer says are the crudest and least reliable marker for possible testing misconduct.”
“It could have searched for patterns of collusion, looking for unusual levels of agreement on answers among students seated near each other. It could have checked for logical inconsistencies in answer patterns, determining if students were doing unusually well on the harder questions while getting easier ones wrong. It could have gone back and looked at prior-year performance by students, or the performance of classrooms under certain teachers in the past.”
“I could do everything you could ever want done,” Fremer said.
Obviously, like the big bankers and hedge funders who caused the financial meltdown and still do not want prosecutors nosing into their corrupt practices, Rhee and Henderson (and others) do not want full scrutiny. They know what an independent, in-depth investigation –– like the one in Atlanta –– would uncover.
The Washington Post The Post ombudsman, Patrick Pexton, wrote fairly recently that when “Eugene Meyer bought this newspaper in 1933 he put at the top of his seven guiding principles…”
Two of those “guiding principles” are these:
‘The first mission of a newspaper is to tell the truth as nearly as the truth can be ascertained,’ AND ‘The Newspaper shall tell ALL the truth so far as it can learn it.’
The Washington Post and its editorial page, including Ms. Armao, would do well to remember and abide by Meyer’s principles. But they seem to be having a difficult time of it.
You’re spot-on here, as Ross Perot used to say.
The Caveon investigators were strictly prohibited from asking administrators and teachers questions such as:
“Did you take part in any changing of answers?”
“Do you know of any administrators or teachers who took part in and changing of answers?”
“Have you heard anyone discussing the changing of answers or the possibility of such?”
and on and on…
Instead, they asked questions such as—and I say “such as”, because I don’t have the exact wording, just the essence— …
“Now, we know there was NO cheating or changing of answers, right? Right? RIGHT??!!!
“Well, as you consider that this is the truth that THERE WAS NO CHEATING, what other possible causes might there be for the erasures?”
The administrators and teachers that Caveon interviewed then replied with cockamamie stuff like:
EXPLANATION #1: “Well, maybe students skipped a question because it was difficult, hoping to go back later and try again. Then, by accident, forgot to leave that answer blank on the answer sheet, and mistakenly put in the answer to the next question in the wrong place on the answer sheet… for example, bubbled in the answer for Question #6 in the place for Question #5, Question #7 in the place for Question #6, etc…. then later discovered this, then had to move all the answers down one place… that would lead to a lot of wrong-to-right erasures….”
EXPLANATION #2: “Well, we instructed our students to go back and check every single question and answer, hoping to catch any mistakes you might have made… perhaps when you jumped at an answer that at first, seemed like the right answer, but in actuality that first instinct was wrong, and you see where you went wrong, then tried the question again, and got it right.”
Could you imagine a homicide investigation where the detectives were not allowed to ask:
“Did you murder so-and-so? Alone, or with someone else?”
“Do you have any knowledge of who might have murdered so-and-so?
“Did you ever witness any evidence that might indicate who might have murdered so-and-so?”
BUT INSTEAD… they had to ask questions like,
“Now, we know that so-and-so WAS NOT MURDERED… and that the cause of HIS DEATH WAS NOT THE RESULT OF MURDER IN ANY SHAPE OR FORM, right? Right? RIGHT??!!!
“Well, as you consider that this is the truth that THERE WAS NO MURDER, what other possible causes might there be for so-and-so’s death?”
Then you’d get answers like, “Well, now that I think about it, you know the gun WAS loaded and lying on the table where the cat likes to walk around and play… and the cat may have been playing with the gun, and accidentally pulled the trigger with his paw… causing the gun to go off and the bullet to fly into into my wife’s head… and then the cat continued his playful pawing, causing the gun to shoot a few more times, each bullet also entering my wife’s head.. my wife’s known to have bad luck, you see… ”
It’s all in the USA Today article’s documents. The investigators from Caveon were explicitly and absolutely prohibited by D.C. Public School officials from asking questions that would lead to a conclusion that there had been cheating… but were only asking questions that would give alternative explanations for the wrong-to-right erasures.
I won “COMMENT OF THE DAY (SO FAR” last Saturday,
in an article Dr. Ravitch wrote of the same name about
that COMMENT.
I’m gunning for “BEST COMMENT” two Saturdays in a row here.
Here goes…
Jo-Ann Armao has a proven history of re-writing and softening
former education reporter Bill Turque’s criticisms of Rhee… without
either the knowledge, permission, or prior input of Turque.
For her part, Rhee was livid at Turque’s coverage, and consequently
refused to talk to Turque, and directed all D.C Public Schools
staff to do likewise.
Well, WaPo education reporter Bill Turque
wrote the following regarding Editor Jo Ann Armao’s bias
in favor of former D.C. Public Schools Chancellor Michelle
Rhee (Turque’s criticism made the initial print and on-line
editions… the parts that were later re-written by Armao are
in CAPITALS):
Turque: “THE CHANCELLOR IS CLEARLY MORE
COMFORTABLE SPEAKING WITH JO-ANN, WHICH
IS WHOLLY UNSURPRISING. I’M A BEAT REPORTER
CHARGED WITH COVERING, AS FULLY AND AS FAIRLY
AS I CAN, AN OFTEN TURBULENT STORY ABOUT THE
CHANCELLOR’S ATTEMPTS TO FIX THE DISTRICT’S
PUBLIC SCHOOLS.
“THIS JOB INVOLVES CHRONICLING MESSY AND
CONTENTIOUS DEBATES BASED IN BOTH POLITICS
AND POLICY, AND SOMETIMES PUBLISHING
INFORMATION (that Michelle Rhee) WOULD RATHER NOT
SEE IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN .
“JO-ANN, ON THE OTHER HAND, SITS ON AND EDITORIAL
BOARD WHOSE SUPPORT FOR THE CHANCELLOR HAS BEEN
STEADFAST, PROTECTIVE AND AT TIMES, ADORING. WHERE
THIS GETS COMPLICATED IS THAT THE BOARD’S STANCE, AND
THE CHANCELLOR’S OBVIOUS RAPPORT WITH JO-ANN
ALSO MEANS THAT DCPS HAS A GUARANTEED SOFT LANDING
SPOT FOR UNCOMFORTABLE AND INCONVENIENT DISCLOSURES —
KIND OF A PRINT VERSION OF THE LARRY KING SHOW.”
(1/27/2011)
Ouch! A supposedly objective pillar of U.S. journalism—the
very entity that brought down a corrupt president—now
” HAS A GUARANTEED (Michelle Rhee) SOFT LANDING
SPOT FOR UNCOMFORTABLE AND INCONVENIENT DISCLOSURES —
KIND OF A PRINT VERSION OF THE LARRY KING SHOW
Dem’s fightin’ words!
Well, Jo Ann was non-plussed by this characterization, and
without Turque’s knowledge or consent,
had the last sentences re-written & greatly condensed for the later print and
on-line editions thusly:
“Where this gets complicated is that board’s stance, and THE
CHANCELLOR’S obvious RAPPORT WITH JO-ANN MEANS THAT DCPS WOULD
PREFER TO TALK TO HER THAN ME.”
(again, the part BELOW that Armao rewrote/condensed is in CAPITALS…
note how Armao excised the pointed adjective “OBVIOUS”… to make
Armao appear more objective that Turque believes she is.)
Again, this alteration was printed as if Turque himself wrote the
Above words (in CAPITALS), when it came from Armao’s keyboard
without any prior permission and input from Turque… to the public,
this misleading at best, despicable at worst.
Other sections of Turque’s piece were similarly watered down by
Armao. This was a huge story during January and February 2011.
As a pro-union teacher out her in L.A., I could go on at length about
my problems with the L.A. Times coverage of education.
Don’t get me wrong. Occasionally, its coverage is fair and
accurate, but at other times, most of the coverage is…
well, let’s not get into all that here.
However, the problems with bias at the L.A. Times pales
In comparison to such an action on Armao’s part. She
deliberately misled people into thinking Turque wrote
words that he did not.
Regarding the Turque/Armao WaPo controversy, Robert
Pondiscio of Core Knowlege put it best at:
http://blog.coreknowledge.org/2010/01/28/who-censored-the-washington-posts-rhee-item/
Regarding the Armao rewriting / censoring, Pondiscio states:
“Having spent the better part of my career in journalism, I was
thrilled to read Turque’s original blog post, and delighted the
paper showed enough respect for its readers to lift the curtain
on its processes. By explaining the behind-the-scenes
machinations and showing how powerful people maneuver
to affect coverage and spin perceptions, they were treating
readers like grownups, holding both Rhee and the paper
itself accountable.
“But what happened? Why change the story?”
Here’s how the end of that comment should have read (sorry for the slip up):
The Washington Post ombudsman, Patrick Pexton, wrote fairly recently that when “Eugene Meyer bought this newspaper in 1933” he established seven guiding principles, and at the top were these:
‘The first mission of a newspaper is to tell the truth as nearly as the truth can be ascertained,’ AND ‘The Newspaper shall tell ALL the truth so far as it can learn it.’
The Washington Post and its editorial page, including Ms. Armao, would do well to remember and abide by Meyer’s principles. But they seem to be having a difficult time of it.
Well, abiding by those rules is tough when the profits of your subsidiary (Kaplan) allow your newspaper to be the official loudspeaker for both so-called education reform and whomever happens to be in the White House.