Guess what Michelle Rhee charged a school to speak

[Anonymous]

...uhh...my kids were in DCPS pre-and post-Rhee. Our principal managed to fire a couple of bad teachers pre-Rhee. Why is soul-searching necessary, we're just talking about some facts here. It was a terrible burdensome process to fire teachers before, and now it is an easier but stupid process that cans teachers now. Somewhere in the middle --fair and easier --should have been the results but Rhee was not the person to broker these changes. PP, it's not a right or left issue.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I don't think any standard is illegitimate. I think that IMPACT is overly-formulaic and eliminates opportunities for teacher creativity. As a result, it nurtures robots. I have come to this understanding by reading the IMPACT guidebooks and talking with teachers a former master educator.

While I don't suggest that standardized tests should be ignored, I think the weight IMPACT gives them is far beyond reason. I think the significance encourages cheating and such cheating has, indeed, been documented.

You may consider describing IMPACT as favoring "robots with erasers" to be "nonsense". I think it succinctly describes the reality.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

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.

Okay, well I'll go in record in support of that. In fact, I'm in complete agreement. The reflexive "haters" moniker is clearly intended to shut people down and write them off, as though any possible discussion is unreasonable. An ad hominem attack is not a respectable rhetorical device.

In reality, it is that behavior which is unreasonable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:...uhh...my kids were in DCPS pre-and post-Rhee. Our principal managed to fire a couple of bad teachers pre-Rhee. Why is soul-searching necessary, we're just talking about some facts here. It was a terrible burdensome process to fire teachers before, and now it is an easier but stupid process that cans teachers now. Somewhere in the middle --fair and easier --should have been the results but Rhee was not the person to broker these changes. PP, it's not a right or left issue.

Well, it shouldn't be. In reality however, it is highly politicized, and the right and the left have established very firm camps. Of course, most of those who are ideologically pure, don't actually have any "skin in the game" (by which I mean, children who are directly affected by policy shifts). The issue is more complicated and nuanced to those of us who live it.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:I don't think any standard is illegitimate.

Really that's all you had to say. It puts you far outside the mainstream of modern research on effective teaching, but it's a legitimate position. I'm curious: Why even require teaching degrees? Shouldn't we just interview anyone off the street, and give them a position if they think they'd be an effective teacher. After all, there's no way to objectively measure teacher quality, and the opinion of any random dude off the street is just as legitimate as anyone else.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:...uhh...my kids were in DCPS pre-and post-Rhee. Our principal managed to fire a couple of bad teachers pre-Rhee. Why is soul-searching necessary, we're just talking about some facts here. It was a terrible burdensome process to fire teachers before, and now it is an easier but stupid process that cans teachers now. Somewhere in the middle --fair and easier --should have been the results but Rhee was not the person to broker these changes. PP, it's not a right or left issue.

Well, it shouldn't be. In reality however, it is highly politicized, and the right and the left have established very firm camps. Of course, most of those who are ideologically pure, don't actually have any "skin in the game" (by which I mean, children who are directly affected by policy shifts). The issue is more complicated and nuanced to those of us who live it.

Yup. Frankly, it's ideological anti-union jerks on the right, and ideological folks who think the overriding purpose of public sector is to provide guaranteed employment to people on the other. And the kids get caught in the middle.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:I don't think any standard is illegitimate.

Really that's all you had to say. It puts you far outside the mainstream of modern research on effective teaching, but it's a legitimate position. I'm curious: Why even require teaching degrees? Shouldn't we just interview anyone off the street, and give them a position if they think they'd be an effective teacher. After all, there's no way to objectively measure teacher quality, and the opinion of any random dude off the street is just as legitimate as anyone else.

I don't know if you are just trolling or honestly don't understand my position. My position is that there are legitimate standards. IMPACT is simply too formulaic.

As for your hypothetical method of hiring teachers, haven't you just described Teach for America?

Edit: if anyone is wondering why I think IMPACT causes robotic teaching, here is a post I previously wrote that goes into some detail:

http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/45/177185.page#1679559

[Anonymous]

I don't know if you are just trolling or honestly don't understand my position.

Sorry, you said you didn't "think any standard is legitimate." I took that to mean you didn't think any standard was legitimate.

My position is that there are legitimate standards. IMPACT is simply too formulaic.

To paraphrase John Fogerty, "The only answer is 'less, less, less'."

As for your hypothetical method of hiring teachers, haven't you just described Teach for America?

And to think you accused *me* of trolling. That's some kind of chutzpah.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/12/education/12winerip.html?pagewanted=all

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

I don't know if you are just trolling or honestly don't understand my position.

Sorry, you said you didn't "think any standard is legitimate." I took that to mean you didn't think any standard was legitimate.

What I actually wrote, and what you not only quoted but bolded, was:

"I don't think any standard is illegitimate."

I admit that it was not the most eloquently written sentence. But, there is a difference between "illegitimate" and "legitimate".

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I don't know if you are just trolling or honestly don't understand my position.

Sorry, you said you didn't "think any standard is legitimate." I took that to mean you didn't think any standard was legitimate.

What I actually wrote, and what you not only quoted but bolded, was:

"I don't think any standard is illegitimate."

I admit that it was not the most eloquently written sentence. But, there is a difference between "illegitimate" and "legitimate".

Mea culpa. Too many negatives. I still think you're overstating the TFA issue. And I still think most anti-IMPACT folks fall into the same fallacy as anti-tax folks: nothing is too little, and everything except nothing is too much.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I was a teacher and it was possible to fire people. You had to document it *shocker*

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:...uhh...my kids were in DCPS pre-and post-Rhee. Our principal managed to fire a couple of bad teachers pre-Rhee. Why is soul-searching necessary, we're just talking about some facts here. It was a terrible burdensome process to fire teachers before, and now it is an easier but stupid process that cans teachers now. Somewhere in the middle --fair and easier --should have been the results but Rhee was not the person to broker these changes. PP, it's not a right or left issue.

Well, it shouldn't be. In reality however, it is highly politicized, and the right and the left have established very firm camps. Of course, most of those who are ideologically pure, don't actually have any "skin in the game" (by which I mean, children who are directly affected by policy shifts). The issue is more complicated and nuanced to those of us who live it.

Yup. Frankly, it's ideological anti-union jerks on the right, and ideological folks who think the overriding purpose of public sector is to provide guaranteed employment to people on the other. And the kids get caught in the middle.

Wow, I think there's probably a handful of people who fit those actual descriptions. Most people aren't like that.

And then finishing it off with "kids get caught in the middle." Yeah, those kids are out there all on their own while all their parents are jerks and parasites. Has it occurred to you that maybe a more nuanced description of the people involved might make people more willing to listen to you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:...uhh...my kids were in DCPS pre-and post-Rhee. Our principal managed to fire a couple of bad teachers pre-Rhee. Why is soul-searching necessary, we're just talking about some facts here. It was a terrible burdensome process to fire teachers before, and now it is an easier but stupid process that cans teachers now. Somewhere in the middle --fair and easier --should have been the results but Rhee was not the person to broker these changes. PP, it's not a right or left issue.

I think you nailed it here, pp. It should have been easier to fire bad teachers - no question - but the current process doesn't seem the best way to measure teacher quality. Ultimately Rhee's problem was that she lacked experience and was learning on the job but anyone who points that out is labeled a "hater." She wanted to hold other people accountable using a questionable approach to measuring their accomplishments but she would never allow herself to be held accountable by anyone else.

[Anonymous]

To answer the original question, I'm guessing she got paid considerably more than what Sulaymon (not worth correcting the spelling) Brown was paid for his hits on Fenty.

[Anonymous]

None of this surprises me.