Most sexy women politicians

Name: Mara Karfanya
Age: 34
Country: Italy


Name: Alina Kabaeva
Age: 26
Country: Russia

Name: Eva Cahuilla
Age: 32
Country: Greece

Name: Joan Mukho
Age: 34
Country: Poland

Name: Ruby Dhalla
Country: Canada

Name: Lucien Leon
Age: 31
Country: Peru

Name: Anna-Maria Galoyan
Country: Estonia

Name: Orly Levy
Age: 36
Country: Israel

Name: Yulia Tymoshenko
Age: 49
Country: Ukraine

Name: Vera Liska
Country: Austria

Name: Setrida Geagea
Age: 43
Country: Lebanon

Name: Krista Markualder
Age: 35
Country: Switzerland

Name: Emma Kiernan
Age: 27
Country: Ireland

Name: Michela Vittoria Brambilla
Age: 49
Country: Italy

Name: Kirsten Gillibrand
Age: 43
Country: United States

Name: Marina Shuster
Country: Germany

Name: Sabina Uitslag
Age: 37
Country: Netherlands

Name: Julia Bonk
Age: 24
Country: Germany

Don't Swap Horses in the Middle of the Stream

Jim Hamilton of UCSD wrote in Econbrowser:

I sometimes hear Bernanke's critics speak as if there is some kind of shallowness to his world view, as if he is somehow incapable of seeing what is obvious to those with common sense. If you want a bumper-sticker-size summary of what he's all about, here it is-- Bernanke believes strongly that a credit crunch can be devastating to regular people, and has done everything in his power to mitigate that damage. You may agree or disagree with his claim that the extraordinary steps taken under his leadership "averted the imminent collapse of the global financial system." But you must agree with two things: the global financial system did not collapse, and preventing its collapse is the reason Bernanke did what he did. If you think his motives were anything other than this, you have been sucked into a groupthink far shallower than the world view sometimes ascribed to Bernanke.

Sound apt and ring a bell? Hint: Pansus.

and

I shake my head when I look at the list of senators who say they'll vote "no." How could there possibly be an alternative whom Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and Jim DeMint (R-SC) would both prefer to Bernanke?

Ring another bell? Hint: Those lawmakers and their political parties.

Update: Even Krugman said

But — and here comes my defense of a Bernanke reappointment — any good alternative for the position would face a bruising fight in the Senate. And choosing a bad alternative would have truly dire consequences for the economy.

Again, still relevant to us

Politicians, pundits, and school reform

Teachers Should Be Seen and Not Heard

by Anthony  Mullen, Teacher of the Year

http://blogs.edweek.org/teachers/teacher_of_the_year/2010/01/teachers_should_be_seen_and_no.html

I am a fly on the wall sitting at a table. Seated at a round table are three state governors, one state senator, a Harvard professor and author, and a strange little man who assumes the role of group moderator. The strange little man asks the group to talk about their experiences at the education conference. The ex governor from the South begins to talk about how the traditional school model is not working and the problem of too many teachers who do not understand what they teach. Teachers, he complains, are not prepared to teach in 21st century classrooms because they possess, in his words, "only 20th century skills." He does not provide specific examples or elaborate upon his theory but the other guests at the table nod their heads in agreement.

A governor from the Midwest first pays homage to the governor from the South. He tells us that his "good friend "is "right on target" about teachers not prepared to teach in 21st century classrooms. The governor from the Midwest thanks the governor from the South for presenting "the best talk at the conference." Not to be undone, the governor from the South responds by telling the governor from the Midwest that he "presented the best talk at the conference." When both men are done patting each other's backs, the Midwest governor complains that teachers, particularly math teachers, don't know their subject materials. Again, the other guests at the table nod their heads in agreement. All is civil.

The third governor hails from a cold northern state but his words have a scorching tone. "The problem with schools, "he says, "is a lack of accountability. Schools need to be guided by specific core curriculum standards and data-driven assessment." The governor continues his diatribe. "I don't understand why schools are not managed more like businesses." This time the guests nod their heads vigorously, not unlike those small bobble head dolls seen on car dashboards.

The next education expert to speak is the professor from Harvard. He gives a mini lesson about the role of chaos theory in education. His new order of thinking-or New Age way of thinking- argues that seemingly unrelated events occurring in the classroom (the boy coughing, the girl raising her hand, and the teacher writing on the board) when taken together form a pattern of continuity and purpose rather than chaotic or random events. The 21st century teacher must be able to recognize these events as purposeful moments in time and space because education is connected to the rest of the universe. Wow. I will forever wonder if I did something to upset a time and space continuum the next time I admonish a student for not covering his mouth while coughing. Teachers do recognize that order and disorder exist in classrooms and that educating children is often an uncertain endeavor, but we do not have time to reflect on such esoteric thoughts when breaking up a spit ball fight.

The strange little man tries to fuse all the promulgated ideas together and asks the group to consider the following question: "Where do we take education from here?"

The state senator from the West is asked to go first. She is a diminutive lady and pauses to reflect upon the question. "I think we need to consider the role of teachers in the classroom," she replies in a soft voice. "We are headed toward a teacherless classroom and must be guided by this fact." A teacherless classroom? I look around the table and hope one of the esteemed guests will ask her to clarify or possibly expand upon her statement. Instead, the guests just nod their heads in agreement.

The strange little man interrupts. "I agree. Technology is making the traditional classroom teacher less relevant-possibly obsolete. Soon students will be learning at home from online classes on their laptops." I silently question who will be teaching the online classes.

The senator continues her line of reasoning, asserting how the rapid infusion of technology in classrooms is better understood by students than teachers. Teachers are best suited to facilitate the dissemination of knowledge through interactive technology rather than try to teach ideas and concepts using traditional methods. A Brave New World suddenly enters the discussion and the senator's vision of a utopian classroom is greeted with comments such as "indeed" and "without question."

The Harvard professor tugs at his chin with his right thumb and index finger and compliments the senator. "In the future," he says, "students will be learning at home using their computers. School buildings and classrooms will not be the primary learning environment." Really? Could any sane person envision millions of school children staying home and learning a full curriculum online? I foresee a stay-at-home mom or dad spending most of the day trying to keep their children away from Facebook.

The senator from the West is very pleased that her comment about technology replacing teachers is embraced by the people seated at the table. So far I have not been asked to speak or comment. I remain a fly on the wall at the table. How weird and familiar it feels to be an invisible teacher listening to politicians and academics speak about teachers and the teaching profession. I try not to move lest they notice me.

The governor from the South changes the direction of the conversation and boasts about how he personally raised test scores in his state by challenging the "status quo of education." He forgot to mention that he lowered the passing grades for state assessment tests- a status quo practiced by quite a few states.

The strange little man grabs a large strawberry from a fruit dish and gnaws at it. I have never seen a person eat a strawberry with two hands. "I think we all agree that changes are needed, "he declares to the group.  "That's why we are here," the senator replied.

The politicians and academics enjoy a dessert of pastries and fruit. I can't keep my eyes off the strange little man nibbling on the strawberry like some backyard squirrel. The group discusses the need to drastically modify classroom management and teaching practices. They talk about curricula and how children learn best when they are provided meaningful activities. We are reminded by the governor from the South that teachers must be proficient in content knowledge.

Once again the strange little man grabs the reigns of the discussion and now alerts the group of my presence. He deposits the strawberry's calyx on a plate. I am no longer a fly on the wall at a table as the others look upon me. "What do you think?" the senator asked.

Where do I begin? I spent the last thirty minutes listening to a group of arrogant and condescending non educators disrespect my colleagues and profession. I listened to a group of disingenuous people whose own self-interests guide their policies rather than the interests of children. I listened to a cabal of people who sit on national education committees that will have a profound impact on classroom teaching practices. And I heard nothing of value.

"I'm thinking about the current health care debate, "I said. "And I am wondering if I will be asked to sit on a national committee charged with the task of creating a core curriculum of medical procedures to be used in hospital emergency rooms."

The strange little man cocks his head and, suddenly, the fly on the wall has everyone's attention.

"I realize that most people would think I am unqualified to sit on such a committee because I am not a doctor, I have never worked in an emergency room, and I have never treated a single patient. So what? Today I have listened to people who are not teachers, have never worked in a classroom, and have never taught a single student tell me how to teach."

An uneasy silence cloaks the table. The governor from the South looks at his watch, the
  
governor from the North bows his head, the governor from the Midwest stirs his coffee, the 

diminutive senator stares at me, and the strange little man grabs another strawberry. One

by one the lunch guests leave the table.  I return to being a fly on a wall at a table.


I wonder how many other teachers have been treated in such a manner.


The groups missed in this parody include state senators, assemblypersons, and Sacramento Bee editorial writers.



 

Stubborn General

Apparently our friend Sunaryo, the cafe's office boy, knows economics better than him.

And Sjamsu's headache remains.

Black-haired Capitalist

As expected, presidential election campaign produces some funny lingo. This one comes from the incumbent SBY who doesn't want the economy be dominated by global as well as black-haired capitalists.

What the hell does he mean by black-haired capitalist?

He would have been in better position if he said that he denounced the capitalists who asked for government protection to prevent market competition get into their way and punish their inefficiency. But calling these crooks black-haired capitalists doesn't help --if not puts him in, alas, the same league as his opponents in term of economic literacy.

Et Tu, Jekus?

That was Kate's reply five minutes after I emailed her this JK's posting in his Kompasiana blog --with a snobbish show-off note saying "sent from Blackberry" at the bottom of her reply.

And she is right. JK's writing is a terrible example on how one misunderstands market economy, and coming from JK, the current VP and next presidential candidate, the inability to comprehend basic economics and the economy is even more depressing.

In his opening paragraph, JK argues that liberalization would put farmers into danger. But does he really think that most of Indonesians are rice farmers? For a presidential candidate, ideally he should be more knowledgeable on what most Indonesians are actually doing for life, so, if elected, will pick the policy benefiting the majority of people.

But is he up to expectation?

Your barista, Aco, coauthored a forthcoming paper on the political economy of rice and fuel pricing. There you'll find that 75 percent of total households in Indonesia do not grow rice and 82 percent are net rice consumers. Even in rural area, 63 percent of rural households are not rice growers and total around 72 percent of rural households are net consumers of rice

What does it have something to do with liberalization? If importing rice means lower rice price, at least 75 percent of national households and 63 percent rural households will benefit from that free market policy.

What to do with the rest? My take is two things: first, if import led them to fell down below poverty line, they deserve to get across the boards anti-poverty transfer, like direct cash transfer scheme --not because they are rice growers, but because they are now poor. Second, and more importantly, do not block their access to move into more dynamic sectors in the economy. And getting rid the obstacles they face means removing anti market competition policy like inflexible labor regulations, corruption, and lack of infrastructure.

In the second paragraph, JK thinks that in the international trade the developing countries are victimized as price takers, while the developed countries reap most benefits as price makers. Really?

Last year, as all of you know, there was a steep increase of the world's price of (primary) commodities produced by developing countries --like food and agriculture products. It would not have been the case if the developed countries, as the major consumers, could set or make the price as JK thinks.

But maybe JK is right, the current international trade of agriculture product is not fair because the developed countries as producers, and the competitors of developing countries, deliberately distort the market by applying high subsidy and trade barriers --in other words, violating free market principles. By that, here, what we want is, well, free trade so that we can sell our products and fairly compete in their markets too.

And on his remark that the price 1 kg of cocoa is far below the price of 1 kg of Silverqueen, what should I say? You just don't make one kg Silverqueen with one kg cocoa. You need to put some milk and mix it with other ingredients. Then you want to wrap them in in a nice package, advertise and distribute them to stores.

Still, you can not write your price tag as high as you want, if you still want somebody to buy your products. You need to consider the price of Ghirardeli, Toblerone, Lindt, Cap Jago, Haribo, Trebor, licorice, etc --all are your products' direct competitors -- as well as its indirect substitutes.

If you let market to work, your price reflects only normal profit, or some temporary supernormal profit that is always subject to natural creative destruction. It is not fair if you get government protection or commit in unlawful acts against your competitor. But you can not blame market mechanism for these faults, because what is unfair is the government discriminative anti-market protection.

Bottom line: it is rather unintelligent to support the argument for fairness by comparing cocoa's price to Silverqueen's and asserting an upside-down argument blaming market mechanism for the anti-market outcome.

On Faithless Neoliberals

Following the Boediono-Neolib controversy, I think the problem is not so much that some people dislike neoliberalism. It is perfectly OK if you disagree with something, but it'd be better if you have clear idea on what you disagree with is about.

In my old posting, quoting Stanley Fish, you can find the broad definition of neoliberalism (at least from the perspective of its critics) that I won't repeat here. Problem of definition aside, the real catch is that --also from Stanley Fish, quoting Boas and Gans-Morse of UC Berkeley in his subsequent Times' column --, its force is more rhetorical (Boediono, you accursed neoliberal) than analytic.

In the last debacle on neoliberal here in Indonesia, I think the problem is even more depressing: some people attach moral or religious value on neoliberalism. It is akin to say that because you are neoliberal, your faith is questionable.

In Boediono case, you can confirm this by reading the weird flip-flop statement from Tifatul Sembiring who said that Boediono is not a neoliberal because during his time as Coordinating Minister of the Economy, shariah economy was developed and he passed the Law on Shariah Economy.

While Homer Simpson would say "D'oh!", Econ 101 students would say: the opposite of neoliberalism is socialism.

I am fine if you are socialist. I will disagree with you, and sometime ridicule you, but I will never question your faith based on your socialist viewpoint - unless you kidnap, torture, and kill others.

A Friendly Reminder

When I wrote the previous posting on neoliberalism, I could not relate why one commenter asked about Boediono and his religious attitude.

Only after I read Faisal Basri's take on Boediono that I become aware of the Boediono-Neoliberalism controversy, that the commenter might think I was talking about, which I wasn't.

Kate apparently gets really annoyed with that controversy, and all baristas here know too well that hell has no fury like Kate scorned.

Just wait what she's gonna say. Stay tune.

Added: My take on the commenter's question remains the same, nevertheless.

Statesmanship as Fiction

With all of my due respect to Magnis-Suseno, Syafii Maarif, and Satjipto Rahardjo, please stop hoping and asking for politician to be statesman. The latter is just a fiction. Not because they do not exist (maybe there are few of them), but because it doesn't help in analyzing the politics and its social impact. We will too easily slip into pointing out any failure of politics in providing higher social benefit to the lack of statesman quality in politicians.

Wanted: Positive Political Analysis

Can anyone tell me what national interest means? I have been trying to translate it into a kind of operative utility function to which politician might want to maximize as suggested by our numerous political pundits in their so-called analysis of Indonesian election campaign. And it goes nowhere.

The more workable proposition is to take that politicians are self interested or partisan, that is, trying to maximize social welfare function for disproportionate benefit of particular group in society (Persson and Tabellini, 2000). With that, your positive analysis for social calculus could fly better. Of course after you carefully set up the payoff, constraints, political market structure, as well as sufficiently address the problem of time consistency in your analysis.

Otherwise, you'd end up with empty boring statement like politician must put national before individual interest to make everyone happy; or politician running for this year's election must follow the example of (fill in the name of your favorite dead politicians from 1950s) who was a genuine defender of national interest. Yadda yadda yadda.

Politicians fail teachers

A Teacher’s Anger: Markets, Moral Hazards And Schools

http://edwize.org/a-teachers-anger-markets-moral-hazards-and-schools


Over the last year, as the growing economic crisis took a grim toll among working Americans unable to make mortgage payments on their homes, we witnessed the introduction of a term of art from laissez-faire market economics into our national political conversation. It would be wrong for government to provide assistance to those facing foreclosure and the loss of their homes, we were told again and again, because such aid would create a moral hazard. The dream of working Americans to own their own home has led to financially risky behavior, the logic went, as too many bought homes beyond their means. When an economic downturn makes it impossible for these working homeowners to make ends meet, they have to face the hard consequences of their risky behavior: the loss of their home. Rescue them and others will be encouraged to engage in economically risky behavior. Market discipline must rule, unchallenged, whatever carnage it leaves in its wake.

Yet in recent weeks, as Wall Street’s leading financial institutions came crashing down, one after the other like falling dominoes, one heard no talk of moral hazards. When it comes to finance banks, insurance companies and mortgage providers, a different logic had to apply. If these corporate leviathans are subjected to harsh market discipline, if they are not rescued, we are now told, the American and global economies will collapse, resulting in a massive economic privation. It matters not that in this instance the risky economic behavior was in the service of sheer greed, as those with millions and billions of dollars sought more and more, rather than a modest dream to own your own home. All that is important is that the insolvency of Wall Street’s leading financial institutions would bring economic disaster far beyond their particular bottom lines.

Secretary of Treasury Henry Paulson, who was the CEO of the finance bank Goldman Sachs before he took his current position in the Bush administration, proposed that the rescue of Wall Street involve the unconditional handover of $700 billion. The legislation he brought to Congress gave him the sole authority over the use of this unprecedented amount of money. He and his one-time colleagues on Wall Street fought against provisions which would place limits on the pay of the executives of the rescued corporations, restricting the obscene bonuses and golden parachutes that were symptomatic of the current crisis, on the grounds that this would undermine the incentive of corporate brass to work hard. Incredibly, opposition was also mounted to providing financial aid to homeowners facing foreclosure. It was only Congressional resistance that forced Paulson and the Bush administration even partially off these positions.

Let’s be clear: massive government intervention is clearly necessary if we are to avert a total economic meltdown and the immense harm it would inflict on working people around the globe. But it must not be done on the terms of Wall Street and the Bush administration. Their economic vision treats private profits as sacred, but quickly loses market religion when it comes to socializing corporate losses and having working Americans pick up their bill with our taxes and cuts in our essential public services. Instead, America needs a new New Deal. An effective rescue package will have to address the structural causes of this crisis, restoring the public interest by re-regulating and redirecting an economy where corporate greed has been given free rein. It will need to stimulate economic growth and create new jobs through government spending, provide needed aid to working homeowners, and protect essential public services and the social service safety net. If government is going to save Wall Street from its own folly and avarice with our tax money, the public must have an ownership share in those institutions, and the public must recoup its investment when these corporations turn a profit once again. The government intervention that seems to have had the most positive effect in the current crisis – the purchase of equity shares in the troubled financial institutions – was fashioned by the British Labour government, and the power to implement it in the U.S. was written into law by Congressional Democrats, with the Bush administration unhappily bringing up the rear.

Working Americans have much good reason to be very angry about these developments, and none more so than teachers. For the last decade, Wall Street financiers, hedge fund operators and corporate moguls, together with the market fundamentalists who provide them their ideological support, have been mounting a steady drumbeat of attacks on public schools and on the educators who have dedicated their professional lives to teaching and caring for our children. Our schools are failing and our teachers are incompetent, they repeated again and again in a systematic effort to delegitimize public education, and market based reforms and privatization will make everything right. They know as much about education as Sarah Palin knows about foreign policy: they could see a school from their house. But for them ignorance was bliss: it meant that the laissez-faire market could be the answer to every educational question, without any danger of troubling information on what that actually meant in practice. One might think that the catastrophic failure of the financial markets of Wall Street they had fought to deregulate and remove from public oversight and checks and balances would have led to a little pause and a second thought or two on the wisdom of unfettered, unregulated markets in education. But let’s face it: there is not much capacity for self-reflection in these circles. The work of defending and improving the public schools that are vital to American democracy will rest with those of us who actually work in their classrooms.

Now more than ever, America needs a vibrant and flourishing public square, with public education at its center. The pursuit of greed and excess, the idolatry of unregulated and uncontrolled markets, are no substitute for the pursuit of our common good and the support of our public purpose. We will now pay a heavy price for having forgotten and abandoned this truth of our republic, so as educators, we need to ensure that it is a lesson fully learned.
Leo Casey : from Edwize

------------------------------------

When politicians decide on reading programs

http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2008-05-01-reading-first_N.htm

Study: Bush's Reading First program ineffective
By Greg Toppo
USA TODAY

A $1 billion-a-year reading program that has been a pillar of the Bush administration's education plan doesn't have much impact on the reading skills of the young students it's supposed to help, a long-awaited federal study shows.
The results, issued Thursday, could serve as a knockout punch for the 6-year-old Reading First program — Congress has already slashed funding 60%. Reading First last year was the subject of a congressional investigation into whether top advisers improperly benefited from contracts for textbooks and testing materials they designed, and whether the advisers kept some textbook publishers from qualifying for funding.

Advocates of Reading First, an integral part of the 2002 No Child Left Behind law, have long maintained that its emphasis on phonics, scripted instruction by teachers and regular, detailed analyses of children's skills, would raise reading achievement, especially among the low-income kids it targets. But the new study by the U.S. Education Department's Institute of Education Sciences (IES) shows that children in schools receiving Reading First funding had virtually no better reading skills than those in schools that didn't get the funding.

The large-scale study looked at students in first through third grade from 2004 through 2006. For each of three samples, researchers studied 30,000 to 40,000 students, says IES Director Russ Whitehurst. "This is a big study."

On the plus side, researchers found that Reading First teachers spent more time emphasizing phonics and other aspects of what many experts consider solid instruction — about 10 minutes more a day, or nearly an hour more a week. "Teachers' behavior was changed," Whitehurst says.

But for all their effort, the study shows, their students' reading scores on standardized tests were nearly indistinguishable from those of students in other schools; in many cases, they may have been using the same materials, but their teachers may not have received the same training.

"For all intents and purposes, the kids read at the same level in each grade," Whitehurst says.

Congressional Democrats were quick to point out the program's ties to President Bush. In a statement, Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., said the Bush administration "has put cronyism first and the reading skills of our children last and this report shows the disturbing consequences. Instead of awarding scarce education dollars to reading programs that make a difference for our children, the administration chose to reward its friends instead."

Rep. George Miller, D-Calif., who presided over the April 2007 hearings, said the report, "coupled with the scandals revealed last year, shows that we need to seriously re-examine this program and figure out how to make it work better for students."

While critics will likely say the data portray Reading First as an expensive failure, Whitehurst speculates that the study may simply suggest that schools need to spend even more time on phonics and the like.

But he also notes that states that got Reading First money earlier in the program's history actually got worse results than those that more recently got their federal funding. The difference may be unrelated to years spent in the program, Whitehurst says, as schools in more recently funded states tend to spend more per student to implement the program.

He also says school districts may have spread their cash thin — they can use up to 20% of their Reading First funding outside of Reading First schools to improve reading skills districtwide. Eligible schools have high numbers of students from low-income families.

Education analyst Mike Petrilli of the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, a Washington think tank that supports Reading First, says the study was poorly designed and "certainly not the last word on Reading First's effectiveness."

For one thing, he says, researchers looked at "lackluster" Reading First schools that just barely qualified for grants, comparing them to schools that just barely missed getting grants.

Whitehurst stands by the research, saying researchers vetted the schools in advance. "It's not a valid criticism."

U.S. Education Secretary Margaret Spellings had no immediate comment, but in a statement, Amanda Farris, the deputy assistant secretary who oversees Reading First, said Spellings consistently hears from educators and administrators "about the effectiveness of the Reading First program in their schools and their disappointment with Congress for slashing Reading First funds."

"We know — and this IES study further proves — that Reading First funding has an impact on teaching practices," she said.

Thursday's results are part of an interim study; a more complete analysis that followed students through the 2006-2007 school year could show more promising results when it's released in November.
------
as in California where political control has forced a similar reading program on English Language Learners- with no positive results.

Testing, testing, testing

Op-Ed Columnist
High-Stakes Flimflam
October 8, 2007
by Bob Herbert
It’s time to rein in the test zealots who have gotten such a stranglehold on the public schools in the U.S.

Politicians and others have promoted high-stakes testing as a panacea that would bring accountability to teaching and substantially boost the classroom performance of students.

“Measuring,” said President Bush, in a discussion of his No Child Left Behind law, “is the gateway to success.”

Not only has high-stakes testing largely failed to magically swing open the gates to successful learning, it is questionable in many cases whether the tests themselves are anything more than a shell game.

Daniel Koretz, a professor at Harvard’s Graduate School of Education, told me in a recent interview that it’s important to ask “whether you can trust improvements in test scores when you are holding people accountable for the tests.”

The short answer, he said, is no.

If teachers, administrators, politicians and others have a stake in raising the test scores of students — as opposed to improving student learning, which is not the same thing — there are all kinds of incentives to raise those scores by any means necessary.

“We’ve now had four or five different waves of educational reform,” said Dr. Koretz, “that were based on the idea that if we can just get a good test in place and beat people up to raise scores, kids will learn more. That’s really what No Child Left Behind is.”

The problem is that you can raise scores the hard way by teaching more effectively and getting the students to work harder, or you can take shortcuts and start figuring out ways, as Dr. Koretz put it, to “game” the system.

Guess what’s been happening?

“We’ve had high-stakes testing, really, since the 1970s in some states,” said Dr. Koretz. “We’ve had maybe six good studies that ask: ‘If the scores go up, can we believe them? Or are people taking shortcuts?’ And all of those studies found really substantial inflation of test scores.

“In some cases where there were huge increases in test scores, the kids didn’t actually learn more at all. If you gave them another test, you saw no improvement.”

There is not enough data available to determine how widespread this problem is. “We know it doesn’t always happen,” said Dr. Koretz. “But we know it often does.”

He said his big concern is where this might be happening. “There are a lot of us in the field,” he said, “who think that if we ever really looked under the covers, what we’d find is that the shortcuts are particularly prevalent in lower-achieving schools, just because the pressure is greater, the community supports are less and the kids have more difficulties. But we don’t know.”

One aspect of the No Child Left Behind law that doesn’t get enough attention is that while it requires states to make progress toward student proficiency in reading and math, it leaves it up to the states themselves to define “proficiency” and to create the tests that determine what constitutes progress.

That’s absurd. With no guiding standard, the states’ tests are measurements without meaning.

A study released last week by the Thomas B. Fordham Institute and the Northwest Evaluation Association found that “improvements in passing rates on state tests can largely be explained by declines in the difficulty of those tests.”

The people in charge of most school districts would rather jump from the roof of a tall building than allow an unfettered study of their test practices. But that kind of analysis is exactly what’s needed if we’re to get any real sense of how well students are doing.

Five years ago, President Bush and many others who had little understanding of the best ways to educate children were crowing about the prospects of No Child Left Behind. They were warned then about the dangers of relying too much on test scores.

But those warnings didn’t matter in an era in which reality was left behind.

“No longer is it acceptable to hide poor performance,” said Mr. Bush, as if those who were genuinely concerned about the flaws in his approach were in favor of poor performance.

During my interview with Dr. Koretz, he noted that by not rigorously analyzing the phenomenon of high-stakes testing, “we’re creating an illusion of success that is really nice for everybody in the system except the kids.”

That was a few days before the release of the Fordham Institute Study, which used language strikingly similar to Dr. Koretz’s. The study asserted that the tests used by states to measure student progress under No Child Left Behind were creating “a false impression of success.”

The study was titled, “The Proficiency Illusion.”

Even newspaper pundits are beginning to recognize the problem. Next, the really slow learners; politicians.
Duane Campbell