Guess what Michelle Rhee charged a school to speak

[Anonymous]

$35,000 + $5,000 in expenses. This is discounted from her regular fee of $50,000.

[Anonymous]

I think it's ridiculous for a public institution to pay anyone that much, but if they're willing to pay, I guess that's what she was worth to them. It's called economics 101, dear. They didn't have to pay her fee. Students and alumni should be appalled though.

[Anonymous]

I can't stand Michelle Rhee but with regard to her speaker's fee, this is what they all do - charge as much as they possibly can. I can't lose any sleep over it.

[Anonymous]

Honestly, why do you guys care? I wasn't here when Rhee was head of schools however, it appears to me that she has moved on with her life. In my humble opinion, some posters should let this whole Rhee thing go, and move on with their lives as well. All the hate is simply not healthy.

[Anonymous]

I was here before Rhee came, and I still have skin in the game. She drove 100 MPH and it scared people. Just the shock our system needed, and actually, still needs.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:Honestly, why do you guys care? I wasn't here when Rhee was head of schools however, it appears to me that she has moved on with her life. In my humble opinion, some posters should let this whole Rhee thing go, and move on with their lives as well. All the hate is simply not healthy.

Rhee's impact (no pun intended) is still being felt. While she has moved on, she has moved on to a role where she continues to influence education policy. Indeed, I just saw a report that her StudentsFirst organization is the largest political contributor in a recall election in Michigan where the organization has donated to an anti-union Republican (he's a family-values type who, as these things go, has just fathered an out-of-wedlock child with a staff member). I think it is entirely appropriate to have policy differences with Rhee. I simply don't understand why any criticism is always labeled "hatred" as if it has no rational basis.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly, why do you guys care? I wasn't here when Rhee was head of schools however, it appears to me that she has moved on with her life. In my humble opinion, some posters should let this whole Rhee thing go, and move on with their lives as well. All the hate is simply not healthy.

Rhee's impact (no pun intended) is still being felt. While she has moved on, she has moved on to a role where she continues to influence education policy. Indeed, I just saw a report that her StudentsFirst organization is the largest political contributor in a recall election in Michigan where the organization has donated to an anti-union Republican (he's a family-values type who, as these things go, has just fathered an out-of-wedlock child with a staff member). I think it is entirely appropriate to have policy differences with Rhee. I simply don't understand why any criticism is always labeled "hatred" as if it has no rational basis.

I am not a fan of Michelle Rhee, but neither am I shocked and offended by anti-union Republicans.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:I am not a fan of Michelle Rhee, but neither am I shocked and offended by anti-union Republicans.

Fair enough. Assuming you oppose unions. Is your opposition based on a rational evaluation of the pros and cons of unions or do you simply hate unions for no apparent reason? Is it appropriate to respond to any anti-union comment you make simply by calling you a "hater"?

By the way, the candidate in question is well-known for supporting policies that are anti-transgendered persons. Since Rhee's organization is the largest contributor in that campaign, it is fair to criticize her in that regard. But, supporting the rights of transgendered people would probably also be described as "hatred" given that Rhee is involved.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not a fan of Michelle Rhee, but neither am I shocked and offended by anti-union Republicans.

Fair enough. Assuming you oppose unions. Is your opposition based on a rational evaluation of the pros and cons of unions or do you simply hate unions for no apparent reason? Is it appropriate to respond to any anti-union comment you make simply by calling you a "hater"?

By the way, the candidate in question is well-known for supporting policies that are anti-transgendered persons. Since Rhee's organization is the largest contributor in that campaign, it is fair to criticize her in that regard. But, supporting the rights of transgendered people would probably also be described as "hatred" given that Rhee is involved.

I'm opposed to many of the actions of the teacher's union in Wisconsin. I find it deceptive in the extreme that it owned the insurance company which it then collectively bargained for to provide services. Instead of allowing a competitive bid process, the union lined its pockets with political donations which were kicked back. They siphoned over $300 million from the state coffers.

I guess if you want to call me a "hater" you can, but I don't believe it's true. I think the corruption in that situation is despicable and I'm in favor of breaking it down.

http://www.publicschoolspending.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/WEA-Trust-final-report.pdf

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly, why do you guys care? I wasn't here when Rhee was head of schools however, it appears to me that she has moved on with her life. In my humble opinion, some posters should let this whole Rhee thing go, and move on with their lives as well. All the hate is simply not healthy.

Rhee's impact (no pun intended) is still being felt. While she has moved on, she has moved on to a role where she continues to influence education policy. Indeed, I just saw a report that her StudentsFirst organization is the largest political contributor in a recall election in Michigan where the organization has donated to an anti-union Republican (he's a family-values type who, as these things go, has just fathered an out-of-wedlock child with a staff member). I think it is entirely appropriate to have policy differences with Rhee. I simply don't understand why any criticism is always labeled "hatred" as if it has no rational basis.

All this is making excuses retroactively. Folks were unhinged at the mere mention of Rhee (and who now rarely mention Henderson, who is essentially Rhee II) four years ago weren't hating on her because she contributed to a recall election in Michigan less than a year ago. And frankly, if I had Fenty / Rhee's experience, I'd probably be a lot more anti-public employee union as well. They've seen first hand how teachers unions fight with every fiber of their being against needed reforms. We were lucky to have snuck the reforms like IMPACT through before Parker was sent packing. If Sanders had been president, we'd still be living in 1990--and DCPS would still be primarily a welfare society geared towards providing lifetime employment to PG County residents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly, why do you guys care? I wasn't here when Rhee was head of schools however, it appears to me that she has moved on with her life. In my humble opinion, some posters should let this whole Rhee thing go, and move on with their lives as well. All the hate is simply not healthy.

Rhee's impact (no pun intended) is still being felt. While she has moved on, she has moved on to a role where she continues to influence education policy. Indeed, I just saw a report that her StudentsFirst organization is the largest political contributor in a recall election in Michigan where the organization has donated to an anti-union Republican (he's a family-values type who, as these things go, has just fathered an out-of-wedlock child with a staff member). I think it is entirely appropriate to have policy differences with Rhee. I simply don't understand why any criticism is always labeled "hatred" as if it has no rational basis.

All this is making excuses retroactively. Folks were unhinged at the mere mention of Rhee (and who now rarely mention Henderson, who is essentially Rhee II) four years ago weren't hating on her because she contributed to a recall election in Michigan less than a year ago. And frankly, if I had Fenty / Rhee's experience, I'd probably be a lot more anti-public employee union as well. They've seen first hand how teachers unions fight with every fiber of their being against needed reforms. We were lucky to have snuck the reforms like IMPACT through before Parker was sent packing. If Sanders had been president, we'd still be living in 1990--and DCPS would still be primarily a welfare society geared towards providing lifetime employment to PG County residents.

PP here. And, no, I'm not opposed to "unions". I think they can be very beneficial, so long as their interests and the interests of those served can be aligned. Once the union loses sight of the long-term viability of the profession, yes, it's time to rein them in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not a fan of Michelle Rhee, but neither am I shocked and offended by anti-union Republicans.

Fair enough. Assuming you oppose unions. Is your opposition based on a rational evaluation of the pros and cons of unions or do you simply hate unions for no apparent reason? Is it appropriate to respond to any anti-union comment you make simply by calling you a "hater"?

By the way, the candidate in question is well-known for supporting policies that are anti-transgendered persons. Since Rhee's organization is the largest contributor in that campaign, it is fair to criticize her in that regard. But, supporting the rights of transgendered people would probably also be described as "hatred" given that Rhee is involved.

I'm opposed to many of the actions of the teacher's union in Wisconsin. I find it deceptive in the extreme that it owned the insurance company which it then collectively bargained for to provide services. Instead of allowing a competitive bid process, the union lined its pockets with political donations which were kicked back. They siphoned over $300 million from the state coffers.

I guess if you want to call me a "hater" you can, but I don't believe it's true. I think the corruption in that situation is despicable and I'm in favor of breaking it down.

http://www.publicschoolspending.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/WEA-Trust-final-report.pdf

I agree. "Hater" is unfortunate. The growing opposition to public sector unions isn't the result of some kind of right-wing smear campaign. It's the result of people interacting with their child's shitty teacher who can't be fired, or reading about a bus driver fired for assaulting a cop...then being rehired six months later. The reasons for opposing the power of these unions is pretty self-evident. You might argue they do more good than harm, but to simply dismiss their opponents as "haters" reminds me of the mainstream media idiots who can't figure out just what it is the OWS protesters are angry about. "What could it possibly be!?! Why, they must be irrational haters!"

The public employee unions have an image problem. And if they want to identify the culprit, rather than wasting their time blaming the Right, they need to take a good long look in the mirror.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
PP here. And, no, I'm not opposed to "unions". I think they can be very beneficial, so long as their interests and the interests of those served can be aligned. Once the union loses sight of the long-term viability of the profession, yes, it's time to rein them in.

So, both you and the other poster have what you believe to be well-reasoned positions in opposition to teacher's unions. Yet, you stand by your position that anyone opposed to Rhee is a "hater". You don't seem to realize this is not an issue of the validity of your position. It is an issue of why you won't recognize the validity of a differing position.

From the first time I heard Rhee's name (in the Washington Post, just like everyone else), I researched her past and her experience. I found plenty about which to be critical. As a result, I've been critical. I can point to pages and pages of detailed research. I can even show you Jay Mathews' article in which he agrees that I scooped him by more than three years with evidence that Rhee exaggerated her test score claims. But, all of it is repeatedly ignored by someone whose entire argument is that I am a hater.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
PP here. And, no, I'm not opposed to "unions". I think they can be very beneficial, so long as their interests and the interests of those served can be aligned. Once the union loses sight of the long-term viability of the profession, yes, it's time to rein them in.

So, both you and the other poster have what you believe to be well-reasoned positions in opposition to teacher's unions. Yet, you stand by your position that anyone opposed to Rhee is a "hater". You don't seem to realize this is not an issue of the validity of your position. It is an issue of why you won't recognize the validity of a differing position.

From the first time I heard Rhee's name (in the Washington Post, just like everyone else), I researched her past and her experience. I found plenty about which to be critical. As a result, I've been critical. I can point to pages and pages of detailed research. I can even show you Jay Mathews' article in which he agrees that I scooped him by more than three years with evidence that Rhee exaggerated her test score claims. But, all of it is repeatedly ignored by someone whose entire argument is that I am a hater.

Where's that? We've had this conversation before. There are plenty of rational reasons to disagree with Rhee. Just as there are reasons to want to see the power of public employee unions curtailed (but not eliminated). The difference between being a "hater" and holding a position is that you actually give a rational argument for your position. You usually do so. Frankly, the folks who type up an ALL CAPS screed every time Rhee is reported to have cut a fart *are* deranged haters. They're no different than the folks on the right who use "union" as a synonym for "mafia thug", or who think that "What about ACORN?!?" is some sort of argument, dripping with meaning.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who cares about her she made changes that flopped and took credit for test scores rising when there was cheating going on....NEXT

Doesn't matter. Her legacy will be IMPACT. Now we can actually pay good teachers well, and fire shitty teachers. That's worth whatever the cost we paid. Everything else was window dressing.

IMPACT evaluates how well teachers adhere to a formula and how successful they are at raising standardized test scores. As such, it is useful for identifying a specific kind of teacher, though not necessarily a good one. A robot with a good eraser would be evaluated quite well by IMPACT.

Oh, and by the way, this is objectively false. Here you leave the reader with the impression here that IMPACT is solely a matter of test scores. In reality, the largest component of the IMPACT is in-person evaluations by their peers, principals, and external Master Educators.

Under IMPACT, all DCPS teachers receive five evaluations and debriefs throughout the school year -- three by their supervisors or principals, and two by external "Master Educators" who have expertise in the teacher's subject and grade level. Teachers are scored against an extensive rubric that measures a variety of factors corresponding to the DCPS "teaching and learning framework." The $4 million system is designed to provide data-based feedback to educators, and its year-long development included input from more than 500 teachers and school-based staff. Yet some teachers have complained that the system is confusing, and that it was poorly implemented.
So what exactly do the teachers think? Overall, it sounds like a large majority of teachers who responded to the survey felt they didn't receive enough training to understand IMPACT or what was expected of them under it, but most teachers also agreed with the ratings they received.

http://dcist.com/2010/07/what_teachers_think_about_impact.php

You'd have to be pretty cynical to believe a robot with an eraser would get high marks from the five different humans who participate in the evaluation process.