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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.