Guess what Michelle Rhee charged a school to speak

[Anonymous]

One last thing. Whatever Rhee's warts, this article by (Rhee skeptic) Valerie Strauss which excerpts a teachers recommendations for strengthening IMPACT is pretty revealing:

I came to D.C. Public Schools in 2007, a time when ineffective teachers were essentially free to spend their days doing whatever nonsense they so wished to do. During my second year of teaching, the teacher next door to me often had her students practice cursive for a majority of their school day, and another teacher down the hall spent much of his teaching time in the hallway talking on his cell phone. It horrified me to see it going on then, and I would never want such teachers to be able to find a place in D.C. Public Schools now.

Rhee was hired in 2007. She goes on to say

Today, I see IMPACT creating a culture in which teachers are more worried about their jobs and professional reputations than they are about what and how well students are learning.

Obviously, that's bad. And how much of that is just getting used to the system, and how much flaws in implementation that need to be worked out we don't know. But as a parent of a DCPS student, I'd sure as Hell prefer the latter environment to the former.

[Anonymous]

link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/post/teacher-how-to-improve-dcs-impact-evaluation-system/2011/08/31/gIQARop3sJ_blog.html

[Anonymous]

Rhee was the worst possible person to come into play when DCPS was finally freed with Mayoral control. I believe she was thrust upon Fenty by her fans in NY (Bloomberg, Klein, etc) as part of a larger corporate scheme that continues to supply fat fees tied to contracts with numerous testing companies and the like. Before Rhee we were constrained in a terribly dysfunctional system but community/parent involvement and innovation was rewarded --remember the "10 autonomous schools" that Janey was promoting, so school communities could be creative and address the particular needs of each school? Instead, the momentum that could have been harnessed by an experienced actual Superintendent more interested in DCPS than a national spotlight was killed. Our schools that could have soared once OPEFM took over the nasty business of facilities/modernization from the super. office have largely not improved academically, hordes of our best teachers have left the system or been fired, the achievement gap is wider. And this former DCPS parent, who was able to boost the lives of kids without resources simply by being involved serves only my own family now, paying for private school. This is the real problem with placing robots in charge of schools and shutting out real community input. Parents who have a way out, unless they are in privileged W3 or pockets of Cap. Hill, leave for charters or pay for private to get out of the one-size-fits-all bureaucracy striving only for "proficiency" and memorization. The students left behind in still terrible DCPS schools lose out on the improvement that came with more economic diversity. Sad.

[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 a Republican who belonged to the DC Teacher's Union (hey, they pay legal fees in the case of frivolous lawsuits). Can't stand Rhee. It's absolutely odious to see her running her victory lap and collecting 'prizes' on the back of the house of cards she constructed during her stint in DC. Ugh. Good riddance. It's sad such fanfare precedes her and I hope other districts take a good hard look before letting her influence policy. Sadly, these kinds of pop stars seem to get all the attention in the wilderness of education.

[Anonymous]

Thank you, Republican. I'm a liberal democrat and miss the days when we all had things in common...Have you considered entering the current GOP field?

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Oh boy. Sorry for such a large quote but I wasn't sure how to straighten this out otherwise. PP, before you declare my statement to have been "objectively false", I suggest that you read it a little more carefully. Had you done so, you would have noticed that I write this:

"IMPACT evaluates how well teachers adhere to a formula..."

It's right there up above. Look and you will see it.

Then, to show that my post is "objectively false" you quote this:

"Teachers are scored against an extensive rubric that measures a variety of factors corresponding to the DCPS 'teaching and learning framework.'"

So, please explain the difference between my statement and your quote. Also, maybe spend some time reading the "teaching and learning framework". Then, you would understand the potential of success for robots.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Thank you, Republican. I'm a liberal democrat and miss the days when we all had things in common...Have you considered entering the current GOP field?

Hee hee. I appreciate that. But I am currently enjoying Herman Cain far too much to do anything except pass the popcorn....

I may have to throw my hat in the race though if it looks as though Rhee will only get taxed 9% on these hefty, passing GO and collecting $200 while laughing all the way home, honorariums.

[Anonymous]

Curious if any of the previous posters have ever actually belonged to a union?

I was in a union that thankfully, was voted out when our company merged with another one. Because of the union, it was virtually impossible for anyone to be fired.

[Anonymous]

Who said anything about unions? Also DCPS was always able to fire teachers though the process was cumbersome and slow, and often not worth doing. Again, if an actual experienced Superintendent or equally qualified EDUCATOR took the reins rather than Rhee we may find DCPS in a much better place. It's not in any better place than it would be if you put Ronald McDonald in charge, as long as they had that brand new freedom to walk through the musty warehouses sniffing at the waste of the bad old days. She failed in her mission to teach all DCPS children better and failed in her mission to provide services during the critical 3:30 to 6:00 time frame and failed in her mission to close the achievement gap and failed in her mission to empower school communities with autonomy and failed in her mission to recruit world-class leaders on nationwide searches, etc etc etc.

[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.

Jeff, what are you talking about? I'm the PP who posted the link re/ the corruption and graft of the Wisconsin Teacher's Union's collective bargaining and how they bilked hundreds of millions of dollars from Wisconsin taxpayers.

I never said anyone who's opposed to Rhee is a "hater." I prefaced my statement by saying I'm no fan of hers. In fact, it was you who called me a "hater" simply because I said I wasn't automatically opposed to Republicans who break up corrupt unions. Which the Wisconsin Teacher's Union was.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
Jeff, what are you talking about? I'm the PP who posted the link re/ the corruption and graft of the Wisconsin Teacher's Union's collective bargaining and how they bilked hundreds of millions of dollars from Wisconsin taxpayers.

I never said anyone who's opposed to Rhee is a "hater." I prefaced my statement by saying I'm no fan of hers. In fact, it was you who called me a "hater" simply because I said I wasn't automatically opposed to Republicans who break up corrupt unions. Which the Wisconsin Teacher's Union was.

Please show me where I called you a hater. I did no such thing. Here is what I wrote:

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"?


Instead of answering that fairly simple question, you went on and on about corruption in Wisconsin unions. I did not react to your accusations about unions by calling you a hater. However, those who oppose Rhee are routinely labeled as such.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Jeff, what are you talking about? I'm the PP who posted the link re/ the corruption and graft of the Wisconsin Teacher's Union's collective bargaining and how they bilked hundreds of millions of dollars from Wisconsin taxpayers.

I never said anyone who's opposed to Rhee is a "hater." I prefaced my statement by saying I'm no fan of hers. In fact, it was you who called me a "hater" simply because I said I wasn't automatically opposed to Republicans who break up corrupt unions. Which the Wisconsin Teacher's Union was.

Please show me where I called you a hater. I did no such thing. Here is what I wrote:

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"?


Instead of answering that fairly simple question, you went on and on about corruption in Wisconsin unions. I did not react to your accusations about unions by calling you a hater. However, those who oppose Rhee are routinely labeled as such.

Perhaps we misunderstood each other.

I posted about the Teacher's Union in Wisconsin, because it is a textbook case of why someone might reasonably and logically take an anti-union position. This was in response to your post (excerpted):

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.

My point, is that the fact that someone is an anti-union Republican, is not necessarily a strike against them. In fact, it could reasonably be interpreted as a point in their favor. I don't condone out-of-wedlock parenting, but I find corruption and graft to be the greater sin here, specifically with respect to robbing the taxpayers of the entire state.

I am illustrating the converse of your stance (which in no way negates it, but rather extends it). Although I am not a Rhee supporter/fanatic, this is one instance where I actually have a policy concurrence with her.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:
So, please explain the difference between my statement and your quote. Also, maybe spend some time reading the "teaching and learning framework". Then, you would understand the potential of success for robots.

Perhaps I'm misinterpreting, but I took your reference to "a robot with an eraser" as a clear reference to "erase to the top" scandal. If it was just ridiculous hyperbole, I apologize for calling it "objectively false". The bottom line is, based on your line of argument, any attempt to hold any teacher to any standard is illegitimate. IMPACT looks at how teachers perform in a set of defined areas, as judged by their peers, their principal, and teachers who've been designated "master educators". There's a weight given to performance on standardized tests for some teachers, but not all, and it's by no means the deciding factor.

Now, there are opponents of IMPACT who argue that it's unfair to give any weight to standardized test results. Fine, that's an argument. But make that argument. Not some nonsense about robots with erasers. Because all you're doing is misleading people who are unfamiliar with the system. It's beneath the usual quality of your contributions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Also DCPS was always able to fire teachers though the process was cumbersome and slow, and often not worth doing.

This is hilarious, and really could only come from someone who has no kids in DCPS. "Hey, the possiblity of firing was always there, it was just *practically* impossible."

If you guys want to know why you're getting absolutely *killed* in the court public opinion, you need to stop looking at right-wing boogeymen, and have a long, deep, soul-searching.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
Perhaps we misunderstood each other.

I posted about the Teacher's Union in Wisconsin, because it is a textbook case of why someone might reasonably and logically take an anti-union position. This was in response to your post (excerpted):

Yes, I clearly understood, and even acknowledged, that you opposed teachers' unions and that you were able to support your position with reasonable arguments.

However, this discussion went a bit like this:

1) a poster in a thread which is critical of Rhee said this, "some posters should let this whole Rhee thing go, and move on with their lives as well. All the hate is simply not healthy."

2) I responded to show that Rhee still plays a relevant role in education policy and politics and objected to being labeled as a hater.

3) Then, you come along to state your opposition to unions.

I repeatedly acknowledged the validity of your position, but my post was about Rhee's continued role and the fact that Rhee critics are constantly labeled "haters". I simply think that Rhee critics should be granted the same respect that I give you regarding your position towards unions.