Hearst Principal Leaving/Washington Post

[Anonymous]

Don't children (parents on their behalf) have a right to police/judicial action in case of a truly violent physical attack? I honestly don't know the answer and don't even know the legal specifics of how an adult could access police/judicial action but it is against the law to be attacked physically, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:Please help with some clarifications? Are there such things as "hinged" Rhee-haters? Also, is it possible to be a Rhee critic without being a Rhee-hater (hinged or unhinged)? If you were a Rhee supporter, but disapproved of her bailing out after the election, are you therefore an unhinged Rhee-lover?

If you supported Rhee leaving abruptly, must you also support Kerlina's departure? The opposite argument has certainly been implied.

Is there any difference between the person at the top of the pyramid -- who wields great power -- and a person lower down who has much less influence? Do we measure them with the same ruler?

It would be helpful for me to understand all of this while I wait for Amazon to ship my copy of "Formal Arguments for Dummies".

For some, anyone who criticizes Rhee or one of her disciples merits the description "unhinged Rhee hater" because for some, Rhee is a deity figure who is beyond human criticism.

Right, and for others, anyone who speculates on the future happiness of Rhee's marriage (as some did here), or accuses Rhee of physical acts of child endangerment because she got kids to put masking tape across their lips (as many did here), etc, etc... ad nauseum.

There are plenty of things that "hinged" Rhee critics can attack her for. But, lemme tell you, some of her critics are accurately (and kindly) described as "unhinged".

Oh, and, yes, I would describe someone who thinks Henderson's use of a colloquialism is the worst thing that's happened in DCPS since 1970 as "unhinged" as well.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
Oh, and, yes, I would describe someone who thinks Henderson's use of a colloquialism is the worst thing that's happened in DCPS since 1970 as "unhinged" as well.

Who thinks that?

[Anonymous]

Jeff Steele: Thanks for that, and also for the reminder of exaggeration so many posters ascribe to Rhee CRITICS. Separately, any parent who is so insecure they need to show off how they know a big word like "colloquialism" really should switch over to the private school blogs. The competition for grammar over their is SERIOUS. Here in DCPS we have it in our artillery, but don't always feel the need to show off. This may even sum up how so many really decent families do remain committed to DCPS even with the means and good students who would easily be admitted to any private.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Jeff Steele: Thanks for that, and also for the reminder of exaggeration so many posters ascribe to Rhee CRITICS. Separately, any parent who is so insecure they need to show off how they know a big word like "colloquialism" really should switch over to the private school blogs. The competition for grammar over their is SERIOUS. Here in DCPS we have it in our artillery, but don't always feel the need to show off. This may even sum up how so many really decent families do remain committed to DCPS even with the means and good students who would easily be admitted to any private.

I'm sorry...I can't resist the irony. The sentence should read "the competition for grammar over there is serious..."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jeff Steele: Thanks for that, and also for the reminder of exaggeration so many posters ascribe to Rhee CRITICS. Separately, any parent who is so insecure they need to show off how they know a big word like "colloquialism" really should switch over to the private school blogs. The competition for grammar over their is SERIOUS. Here in DCPS we have it in our artillery, but don't always feel the need to show off. This may even sum up how so many really decent families do remain committed to DCPS even with the means and good students who would easily be admitted to any private.

I'm sorry...I can't resist the irony. The sentence should read "the competition for grammar over there is serious..."

not irony -- just a typo.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Oh, and, yes, I would describe someone who thinks Henderson's use of a colloquialism is the worst thing that's happened in DCPS since 1970 as "unhinged" as well.

Who thinks that?

an unhinged Rhee supporter.

I hope it's someone whose livelihood depends this version of school reform not being a big bust, rather than a parent who has gone over the edge.

[Anonymous]

20:39 -- I hear you -- that was my post -- this was an automatic spell check error! Though I'm no Shakespeare...

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Oh, and, yes, I would describe someone who thinks Henderson's use of a colloquialism is the worst thing that's happened in DCPS since 1970 as "unhinged" as well.

Who thinks that?

So...I'll take the fact that you've latched onto my mild use of hyperbole as an endorsement of the examples in my first paragraph. Look, Rhee has her supporters. She has her rational detractors. I'm ambivalent--I'd give her positive marks for some things, negative for others. But frankly the level of vitriol directed at her on anonymous fora like DCUM, and the Washington Post comments section is hilariously unhinged. (My personal favorite is the loonbat who responds to any defense of Rhee with the accusation that the supporter is a paid shill from the dreaded "Central Office".)

I don't see that coming from her "supporters".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Jeff Steele: Thanks for that, and also for the reminder of exaggeration so many posters ascribe to Rhee CRITICS. Separately, any parent who is so insecure they need to show off how they know a big word like "colloquialism" really should switch over to the private school blogs. The competition for grammar over their is SERIOUS. Here in DCPS we have it in our artillery, but don't always feel the need to show off. This may even sum up how so many really decent families do remain committed to DCPS even with the means and good students who would easily be admitted to any private.

Please Lord, tell me you're one of the folks getting het up over the use of "ain't".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jeff Steele: Thanks for that, and also for the reminder of exaggeration so many posters ascribe to Rhee CRITICS. Separately, any parent who is so insecure they need to show off how they know a big word like "colloquialism" really should switch over to the private school blogs. The competition for grammar over their is SERIOUS. Here in DCPS we have it in our artillery, but don't always feel the need to show off. This may even sum up how so many really decent families do remain committed to DCPS even with the means and good students who would easily be admitted to any private.

Please Lord, tell me you're one of the folks getting het up over the use of "ain't".

Me again. Just to clarify, I think the ostentatiously negative reaction to the word "ain't" used as a rhetorical device, coupled with a kind of finger-wagging middle-brow scorn at the use of the word "colloquial", sums up the culture of mediocrity enshrined in some corners of DCPS pretty neatly.

[Anonymous]

Apologies if this has been addressed before - I couldn't sift through the whole thread. Is there a policy in DCPS regarding expulsion of an OOB student from the OOB school, but not the system? Students have the right to a free DCPS education, but not necessarily at the OOB school for which they won the lottery. If an OOB student is a discipline problem, wouldn;t it be appropriate fo the OOB school to say, "You've lost the right to attend this school. Back to your local school." Not on the first offence, but as an intermediate sanction.

And if it's been accurately reported, the way the PG student (or his parents) gamed the system is shameful. Lie about residency, get caught, but move into the city, but get to reap the benefits of OOB status. It's absurd.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
So...I'll take the fact that you've latched onto my mild use of hyperbole as an endorsement of the examples in my first paragraph. Look, Rhee has her supporters. She has her rational detractors. I'm ambivalent--I'd give her positive marks for some things, negative for others. But frankly the level of vitriol directed at her on anonymous fora like DCUM, and the Washington Post comments section is hilariously unhinged. (My personal favorite is the loonbat who responds to any defense of Rhee with the accusation that the supporter is a paid shill from the dreaded "Central Office".)

I don't see that coming from her "supporters".

I did not respond to your examples simply because that part of your message was incomprehensible to me. I had no idea what you were trying to say, so I ignored it. I think that when one is complaining about others being unhinged, it is a bad time to engage in hyperbole (which I would classify as mild, btw).

Here are examples of things I have seen from Rhee supporters:

1) any criticism of Rhee is described as support for the status quo and opposition to reform;
2) any criticism of Rhee is described as being derived from personal animosity, possibly due to her ethnicity or gender.
3) the ability to remain oblivious to repeated statements while latching on to an outlier that is repeatedly cited. For example, a couple of posters complained about Henderson using the word "ain't". Far more either said this was not an important issue or that the real problem was the brush-off implied in the statement. Yet, posters such as yourself refuse to no acknowledge any objections but those about "ain't". Do you feel that the brush off was an acceptable way to address the loss of a popular principal?

Finally, Rhee supporters may be accused of being central office employees, but I can tell you from personal experience that Rhee critics are constantly accused of being teachers or relatives of teachers. The idea that someone could make an objective evaluation of Rhee and end up opposing her policies seems like a very alien concept to the average Rhee supporter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Keep in mind Rhee was known to fire principals in the middle of the year - obviously not concerned about the effect that would have on the schools.
What does "Amateurs need not apply" mean? Just how strong do you need to be to work in DCPS?

That is the exact opposite of true. How many people do you know with the intestinal fortitude to quit a steady, reliable, paycheck to pursue an entrepreneurial venture in a miserable economic environment? Have you done it?
Yeah, I didn't think so. What he chose to do is actually quite fearless and even admirable.

Actually, yes. More than once. Learned from the first failure and now succeding. What I did not do was abandon my junior staff and clients. Being burnt out does not absolve one of doing what you can to ease the transition of others.

Being a DCPS principal is NOT a reliable paycheck. They have 1 year contracts, serve at will of the chancellor, are subject to furloughs, etc. To be effective despite incredible odds requires the fortitude and persistence to face failures. You are responsible for children's live. Not the flavor of their frosting.

Have you been a DCPS principal? I didn't think so.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
Actually, yes. More than once. Learned from the first failure and now succeding. What I did not do was abandon my junior staff and clients. Being burnt out does not absolve one of doing what you can to ease the transition of others.

Being a DCPS principal is NOT a reliable paycheck. They have 1 year contracts, serve at will of the chancellor, are subject to furloughs, etc. To be effective despite incredible odds requires the fortitude and persistence to face failures. You are responsible for children's live. Not the flavor of their frosting.

Have you been a DCPS principal? I didn't think so.

When do you think Kerlina should have resigned? Didn't he resign at almost the same time that the list of principals whose contracts were not renewed was announced? Had he been on that list, the timing would have been the same. You seem to be implying that there is one standard for those who quit and another standard for those who get fired. If he was on a one-year contract, then I assume he quit at the end of his contract. Why are you making an issue out of that? You seem to really be stretching to place blame.