Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok, 23:30, here's one example:

A bunch of third graders get to third grade and they can hardly read (usually means "comprehend") at a first grade level. Instead of teachers going back to get these kids the basics they need, the students have test prep after test prep thrown at them. They are given "strategies" instead of just being taught the things they need to learn. This is not because teachers are terrible, but it is because they are desperate.

It's just over-simplifying today's classrooms to say that if the curricula were great and everyone was doing what they should be doing, teaching to the test wouldn't exist.

Note what I highlighted. What that represents is failure at pre-K, K, 1st and 2nd that got them to not being able to read at a 3rd grade level by third grade. Like I said, they should have had an appropriate curriculum at all those prior grades (and ALL grades for that matter), otherwise they wouldn't be so far out of kilter by third grade.

Get it now?

You won't find me arguing against improving curricula; however, I still think you're over-simplifying it. And, anyway, if the curricula should have been improved before testing took on so much weight (it should have), that was certainly a failure on Rhee's part. What happened was teachers were being asked to reach goals that students hadn't been properly prepared for...some teachers cheated - she didn't ask them to, but it's not surprising that it happened.

Anonymous wrote:Ok, 23:30, here's one example:

A bunch of third graders get to third grade and they can hardly read (usually means "comprehend") at a first grade level. Instead of teachers going back to get these kids the basics they need, the students have test prep after test prep thrown at them. They are given "strategies" instead of just being taught the things they need to learn. This is not because teachers are terrible, but it is because they are desperate.

It's just over-simplifying today's classrooms to say that if the curricula were great and everyone was doing what they should be doing, teaching to the test wouldn't exist.

Note what I highlighted. What that represents is failure at pre-K, K, 1st and 2nd that got them to not being able to read at a 3rd grade level by third grade. Like I said, they should have had an appropriate curriculum at all those prior grades (and ALL grades for that matter), otherwise they wouldn't be so far out of kilter by third grade.

Get it now?

Ok, 23:30, here's one example:

A bunch of third graders get to third grade and they can hardly read (usually means "comprehend") at a first grade level. Instead of teachers going back to get these kids the basics they need, the students have test prep after test prep thrown at them. They are given "strategies" instead of just being taught the things they need to learn. This is not because teachers are terrible, but it is because they are desperate.

It's just over-simplifying today's classrooms to say that if the curricula were great and everyone was doing what they should be doing, teaching to the test wouldn't exist.

Oh, I don't doubt it's happening, 22:19, and I didn't say it wasn't - you missed my point. My point was that "teaching to the test" is happening because the rest of the curriculum is crap.

To give you a (slightly) hyperbolic example, it's practically as though they are teaching underwater basket weaving in English class and then, "oh yeah, we have to take time out and go back and do that annoying grammatical parts-of-speech crap for the stupid DC-CAS test". That's backwards, and is not how it should be.

Anonymous wrote:I don't buy the "teaching to the test" BS. From everything I've seen about the DC-CAS, what's covered on it is nothing more than a watered-down subset of content that should be covered in a standard, grade-appropriate curriculum. It's stuff that would have been a piece of cake, with no studying for me, were it to be given back when I was in grade school. By and large, it's stuff that kids already should have learned.

Wouldn't be any need for cheating, or "teaching to the test" if DCPS had the right curriculum and materials in the first place. It's not the test that's the problem, it's the whole system that's the problem.

You don't buy it in the same way the crazies don't buy global warming. It's happening whether or not you believe it.

I don't buy the "teaching to the test" BS. From everything I've seen about the DC-CAS, what's covered on it is nothing more than a watered-down subset of content that should be covered in a standard, grade-appropriate curriculum. It's stuff that would have been a piece of cake, with no studying for me, were it to be given back when I was in grade school. By and large, it's stuff that kids already should have learned.

Wouldn't be any need for cheating, or "teaching to the test" if DCPS had the right curriculum and materials in the first place. It's not the test that's the problem, it's the whole system that's the problem.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is there any evidence that Rhee ever actually asked anyone to change test results? And as for the "rewards", that goes to the "who knew what, and when" question. From reading any of the articles, it's not clear that she would have known what was going on with the cheating scandal when the rewards were given. Is there a concrete timeline that can establish it conclusively?

I agree - her system caused the cheating - but it doesn't mean she asked anyone to cheat-

This is old news- I can't believe NO ONE has mentioned FREAKENOMICS here- What do Sumo wrestlers and teachers have in common? _ When given the right incentive - they will cheat...

It's a false premise and a complete cop-out to say her system "caused" the cheating. Any teacher or school administrator that would cheat rather than try to do it right deserves to get bounced. It shows a fundamental lack of ethics, and has no place whatsoever in the educational system. And, that people are here shifting the blame right and left demonstrates clearly that there still is a fundamental ethical problem at DCPS.

I'm going to play devil's advocate for a second and ask if it doesn't show a similar lack of ethics for teachers to comply with a program that forces schools and teachers to teach so much to the test that students' end up losing vital academic experiences. I don't condone cheating, but why do we condone the alternative? Rhee didn't ask teachers to cheat, but she did create an environment in which teachers were/are expected to do everything they can to get students' test scores up, regardless of whether it is in the best interest of students.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, the problem with Rhee is that she had no experience in the classroom, no insight into the complex problems of DCPS, and came from an organization that is upfront about NOT creating professional educators.

She was, and is, astonishingly single minded and dim.
l

I don't really give a damn about Rhee, I give a damn about results, and given the phenomenally poor results before and after Rhee, it seems pretty evident that the DCPS staff must likewise have "no experience in the classroom, no insight into the complex problems of DCPS, and come from an organization that are likewise NOT about creating professional educators" and they must likewise be "astonishingly single minded and dim". It's pretty clear many of them don't know what they are doing.

Proof's in the pudding - the results suck. Guess that must mean all of the obvious DCPS folks posting.

Uhg.. there are soooooo many factors involved- many not in the control of educators- why do they have to take the blame all the time-

Education is messed up - the whole system-

are there bad teachers out there? Sure- but this is not the only problem -

not enough money... poor attendance - truancy...lack of materials- bad materials ... student school readiness (lack there-of) ... student transience... school over-crowding/class size... lack of time to for teachers to collaborate - lack of time to plan- to use data - to individualize... student's needing basic things on maslow's hierachy ...

That's just flat out not true. DCPS has 99 problems, but lack of money isn't one.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is there any evidence that Rhee ever actually asked anyone to change test results? And as for the "rewards", that goes to the "who knew what, and when" question. From reading any of the articles, it's not clear that she would have known what was going on with the cheating scandal when the rewards were given. Is there a concrete timeline that can establish it conclusively?

I agree - her system caused the cheating - but it doesn't mean she asked anyone to cheat-

This is old news- I can't believe NO ONE has mentioned FREAKENOMICS here- What do Sumo wrestlers and teachers have in common? _ When given the right incentive - they will cheat...

It's a false premise and a complete cop-out to say her system "caused" the cheating. Any teacher or school administrator that would cheat rather than try to do it right deserves to get bounced. It shows a fundamental lack of ethics, and has no place whatsoever in the educational system. And, that people are here shifting the blame right and left demonstrates clearly that there still is a fundamental ethical problem at DCPS.

I am probably among the last people to defend Michelle Rhee, but DC was hardly Atlanta. It's hard to prove a grand erasure conspiracy any larger than the ones before NCLB when Blue Ribbons were easier to get than AYP safe harbor. (Oyster is a case in point. Scores were tampered under pre-Rhee principal. Nobody will admit that on record of course.)

Rhee was famous for listening to and respecting the views of students over adults. She also brought in some amazingly hard working and dedicated central office staff. More than a few of her principals were "older" black women even though she supposedly fired older black women teachers. She was also the first to admit that overall some test increases were from Janey's changes and kids learning how to take the tests.

But why the hype of a few? That's like asking why the broom on the magazine cover. (As my tween would say, duh.)

Regardless of what she did or did not do, Rhee's fundamental view that a turnaround of a system like DC could happen in less than 8 years was naïve at best. At times it seemed as if MoCo, FFX, Loudon, Anne Arundel etc. public schools didn't exist. Or only existed as sources of unprepared principals.

Henderson has shown that cooler heads can prevail. Or at least not reinvent the wheel. Thankfully she hasn't made any grand pronouncements of early retirement or going to Davos or TED.

I haven't seen Frontline episode, but I hope it puts some of the Rhee mania to bed so we can move on.

The Queen had only one way of settling all difficulties, great or small. 'Off with his head!' she said, without even looking round.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, the problem with Rhee is that she had no experience in the classroom, no insight into the complex problems of DCPS, and came from an organization that is upfront about NOT creating professional educators.

She was, and is, astonishingly single minded and dim.
l

I don't really give a damn about Rhee, I give a damn about results, and given the phenomenally poor results before and after Rhee, it seems pretty evident that the DCPS staff must likewise have "no experience in the classroom, no insight into the complex problems of DCPS, and come from an organization that are likewise NOT about creating professional educators" and they must likewise be "astonishingly single minded and dim". It's pretty clear many of them don't know what they are doing.

Proof's in the pudding - the results suck. Guess that must mean all of the obvious DCPS folks posting.

Uhg.. there are soooooo many factors involved- many not in the control of educators- why do they have to take the blame all the time-

Education is messed up - the whole system-

are there bad teachers out there? Sure- but this is not the only problem -

not enough money... poor attendance - truancy...lack of materials- bad materials ... student school readiness (lack there-of) ... student transience... school over-crowding/class size... lack of time to for teachers to collaborate - lack of time to plan- to use data - to individualize... student's needing basic things on maslow's hierachy ...

Anonymous wrote:Is there any evidence that Rhee ever actually asked anyone to change test results? And as for the "rewards", that goes to the "who knew what, and when" question. From reading any of the articles, it's not clear that she would have known what was going on with the cheating scandal when the rewards were given. Is there a concrete timeline that can establish it conclusively?

I agree - her system caused the cheating - but it doesn't mean she asked anyone to cheat-

This is old news- I can't believe NO ONE has mentioned FREAKENOMICS here- What do Sumo wrestlers and teachers have in common? _ When given the right incentive - they will cheat...

And Rhee for all her bluster, didnt tackle it head in because it madevher reforms look good. That's a coward in my book

The whole erasure scandal wasn't so much about Rhee as it was an indictment of the mentality across a large part of the DCPS system - to just fudge it and wing it rather than actually trying to achieve anything. That culture of underperforming didn't come as a result of Rhee, it already was there and still is there now.