Unions: 2 Students: 0

[cpwill]

Michelle Rhee, the public schools chancellor of the District of Columbia who drew attacks from unions for firing more than 200 teachers, mostly over student performance, has resigned, effective at the end of the month.

...

Rhee, 40, favored measuring teacher quality by students’ test scores, firing underperforming instructors and pushing merit pay -- the same changes advocated by President Barack Obama’s administration in its $4.35 billion Race to the Top program. In July, Rhee dismissed 241 teachers and put 737 on notice to improve within a year or leave. Washington has languished for years near the bottom of national rankings in student proficiency in reading and math.

...

U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan in a statement called Rhee “a pivotal leader in the school reform movement.” Duncan said the department expects her to be a force for change wherever she goes... Fenty, speaking with reporters after the press conference said Rhee has “probably done more to turn around a public school system than almost anybody” who has served as a chancellor in a similar period.

...

Chester Finn, president of the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, a Washington education research organization, said he favored Rhee’s goals and approach. Her short-lived tenure is typical of those who push change in a disruptive way, Finn said.

“It’s a cautionary tale that you don’t always win these battles, that there will be setbacks and there will be costs in making changes that will better serve kids,” Finn said in a telephone interview.

...

Rhee, the middle child of South Korean immigrants, earned her undergraduate degree at Cornell University in Ithaca, New York, and her master’s degree in public policy at Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government, in Cambridge, Massachusetts.

A single mother, Rhee has two daughters who attend public school in Washington. She is engaged to be married to Kevin Johnson, the former professional basketball player who is mayor of Sacramento, California.





check that last part again. then ask yourselves how many of the Democrats that killed the Washington DC voucher program can say the same.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

I saw this on the news. Incredible dooshbaggery by the unions.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

Explain to me more clearly what the entire issue of her favoring merit and test scores as a means of determining pay and 'teaching success' has to do with her being a single mother of two kids who attend public school?

I'm not seeing how that matters - at all.
I would naturally expect a parent who lives in a school district, governs within that school district, to naturally have their kids attend that school district.

 

[justabubba]

Explain to me more clearly what the entire issue of her favoring merit and test scores as a means of determining pay and 'teaching success' has to do with her being a single mother of two kids who attend public school?

I'm not seeing how that matters - at all.
I would naturally expect a parent who lives in a school district, governs within that school district, to naturally have their kids attend that school district.

your expectation would be the exception rather than the rule
for example, Obama's kids do not attend public school in DC
with good reason'he wants them to get a good education and has the means to assure it
the same for other affluent public officials ... even school board members


i am still looking for the manner in which test scores were evaluated. were raw scores used, or were the firing decisions based on the failure to elevate the kids significantly above the education level they possessed when they entered the teachers' class rooms?
the first approach would be very wrong
the second would indicate an approach which might need to be adopted more widely

 

[Aunt Spiker]

So - you don't want her kids in public school? You think they should be in a private school?
To me, if her kids were in private school, it would be highly hypocritical for her to push an agenda only to not have her kids be directly affected by it.

If you want to pick apart her beliefs and reasons for her actions then I'm all for it. But I fail to see why her kids being in her public school system has anything to do with it in a negative means - nor does *the President's family decisions* somehow compare in any way to Rhee's family decision.

 

[Gray_Fox_86]

So - you don't want her kids in public school? You think they should be in a private school?
To me, if her kids were in private school, it would be highly hypocritical for her to push an agenda only to not have her kids be directly affected by it.

If you want to pick apart her beliefs and reasons for her actions then I'm all for it. But I fail to see why her kids being in her public school system has anything to do with it in a negative means - nor does *the President's family decisions* somehow compare in any way to Rhee's family decision.

I think he wants to see more the public officials children in public school. Because how can they successfully reform something if they are not going through it? Their children will not know how crappy public school system is because they do not have to experience it. And most of these politicians will just laugh because they are not worried since their children are getting a good education and do not have to put up with lousy teachers who have tenure.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

Ok - *that* made sense, Gray.

CP - if that was your point then it just didn't come across that way.
I read this:

check that last part again. then ask yourselves how many of the Democrats that killed the Washington DC voucher program can say the same.

and didn't get what your point was.

On the voucher-program note. I'm against government-funded vouching for private schools.
If the schools are *that bad* then *that money* should go to fixing the public school system instead of simply paying to let *some* kids attend a private school.

 

[justabubba]

So - you don't want her kids in public school? You think they should be in a private school?
To me, if her kids were in private school, it would be highly hypocritical for her to push an agenda only to not have her kids be directly affected by it.

If you want to pick apart her beliefs and reasons for her actions then I'm all for it. But I fail to see why her kids being in her public school system has anything to do with it in a negative means - nor does *the President's family decisions* somehow compare in any way to Rhee's family decision.

appears we see things differently
if i were the superintendent of a weak public school system, i would place my kids in the system ONLY if i was certain they would get a good education. color me dubious of that happening in DC
and my kids were educated in public school ... we bought where we did primarily because we knew it would guaranty our children access to one of the nation's top 10 schools
one of the reasons i refused promotions - requiring relocation and assignment to DC - was because i knew the public schools system there sucked. the additional salary would have been absorbed by the cost of a private education
unlike rhee, i would not subject my kids to the terrible public school system of DC. i value their education more that the public's perception of endorsing the DC public school system
and i am inclined to believe that the Obama's chose to place their kids in an excellent private school system because their concern for their childrens' welfare and education exceeded the limited kudos they would have realized for placing their kids in the public school system
as i see it, rhee is sacrificing her kids' learning opportunities as the price she is willing to pay for the perception of 'good form' as the head of the public school system. that's not a price i would be willing to pay

 

[cpwill]

Explain to me more clearly what the entire issue of her favoring merit and test scores as a means of determining pay and 'teaching success' has to do with her being a single mother of two kids who attend public school?

I'm not seeing how that matters - at all.

it was in comparison to the politicians who axe programs to improve the education offered to children in public schools (such as the kind she championed) while they keep their children safely ensconced in the private school system.

 

[cpwill]

Ok - *that* made sense, Gray.

CP - if that was your point then it just didn't come across that way.
I read this:

and didn't get what your point was.

On the voucher-program note. I'm against government-funded vouching for private schools.
If the schools are *that bad* then *that money* should go to fixing the public school system instead of simply paying to let *some* kids attend a private school.

money is not the problem in the public school system. per capita real spending on education has exploded even as our educational system has gotten worse. vouchers are about letting children escape failing schools.

which is why unions oppose them. keeping children trapped in those failing schools means guaranteed jobs and benefits for those failing teachers.

 

[justabubba]

money is not the problem in the public school system. per capita real spending on education has exploded even as our educational system has gotten worse. vouchers are about letting children escape failing schools.

which is why unions oppose them. keeping children trapped in those failing schools means guaranteed jobs and benefits for those failing teachers.

math, reading, science, writing
AL 269, 255, 138, 148
AZ 277, 258, 140, 148
AK 283, 258, n/a, n/a
GA 278, 260, 144, 153
KY 279, 267, 153, 151
MS 265, 251, 132, 142
MO 286, 267, 154, 153
NC 284, 260, 144, 153
SC 280, 257, 145, 148
TX 287, 260, 143, 151
VA 286, 266, 155, 157
WV 270, 255, 147, 146
WY 286, 268, 159, 158

AVG 282, 262, 147, 154


better than average: 6, 4, 4, 2
worse than average: 7, 9, 7, 10

notice that the states which do not negotiate with unions perform substantially worse than those states which do have active, recognized unions in their school systems
if the unions were actually detrimental to educational achievement, that finding should be reversed
one can conclude that unions may be a contributor to enhanced educational attainment

State Profiles.net

 

[Gray_Fox_86]

math, reading, science, writing
AL 269, 255, 138, 148
AZ 277, 258, 140, 148
AK 283, 258, n/a, n/a
GA 278, 260, 144, 153
KY 279, 267, 153, 151
MS 265, 251, 132, 142
MO 286, 267, 154, 153
NC 284, 260, 144, 153
SC 280, 257, 145, 148
TX 287, 260, 143, 151
VA 286, 266, 155, 157
WV 270, 255, 147, 146
WY 286, 268, 159, 158

AVG 282, 262, 147, 154


better than average: 6, 4, 4, 2
worse than average: 7, 9, 7, 10

notice that the states which do not negotiate with unions perform substantially worse than those states which do have active, recognized unions in their school systems
if the unions were actually detrimental to educational achievement, that finding should be reversed
one can conclude that unions may be a contributor to enhanced educational attainment

State Profiles.net

Please take note on this. In those states-the leasst progressive states in the US, which is bad considering how backwards the US is-religion comes into play. Many of the people in the states are religious and that prevents them from wanting to learn anything outside of the bible.

The states with teacher unions are rarely any better than the least progressive states. Why? I suggest you go into a highschool room class that is not "serious". Watch how the students behave against eachother and their teacher. Does the teacher care? No. And then there is the class that matters but you have most students making noise until the teacher tells them to quiet down. But still you have students whipsering to one another throughout the whole class time and random students making comments outloud.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

Many people are religious and that prevents them from wanting to learn anything outside the bible?

That has to be the dumbest thing I've ever read concerning education and has absolutely no basis in reality.

 

[Gray_Fox_86]

Many people are religious and that prevents them from wanting to learn anything outside the bible?

That has to be the dumbest thing I've ever read concerning education and has absolutely no basis in reality.

Sounds dumb, but often the truth is hardest to swallow. Look at nations where religion is the law. Enough said.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

Sounds dumb, but often the truth is hardest to swallow. Look at nations where religion is the law. Enough said.

We're not Germany or Iran, here.

We're not a religious country. Religion does not governmen us, our school system - or anything. Our BIGGEST problem when it comes to the issue of religion is that we try to please everyone and that's inherently impossible.

So - since we don't have a national-religion nor do we cater to any particular one - why, then, do we have school systems like Chicago's and DC's?

 

[justabubba]

We're not Germany or Iran, here.

We're not a religious country. Religion does not governmen us, our school system - or anything. Our BIGGEST problem when it comes to the issue of religion is that we try to please everyone and that's inherently impossible.

So - since we don't have a national-religion nor do we cater to any particular one - why, then, do we have school systems like Chicago's and DC's?

a good teacher can only do so much with bad students. a good student can only learn so much from a bad teacher

 

[Gray_Fox_86]

We're not Germany or Iran, here.

We're not a religious country. Religion does not governmen us, our school system - or anything. Our BIGGEST problem when it comes to the issue of religion is that we try to please everyone and that's inherently impossible.

So - since we don't have a national-religion nor do we cater to any particular one - why, then, do we have school systems like Chicago's and DC's?

Auntie I do not understand what you are complaining about? That other poster posted stats on test scores that show the conservative states lacking behind more progressive states. And while we are not exactly like Iran, our nation is highly religious and has a holier than thou approach and attitude. My reasoning for why those states were lagging was due to their religious beliefs. Most of the adults are poor and uneducated so what they have been doing like their fathers and mothers before them did. Has been attending church and following what the bible tells them to follow. While there has been an improvement in the South it still is lagging compared to progressive states.

And on the subject as to why we have school systems like Chicago's and DC's. Well it is because of ghetto culture being so prevelant in those areas. So really our schools suck because our people suck. Don't flame me for that comment.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

Oh I see - You're seeing "Conservative" and directly associating it with "Religious" - when it's not *so.*
And you're seeing "Progressive" and directly associating it with "non-religious" when that, also, is not so.

Whether someone attends church or not doesn't determine how much they learn or how solid of a student they are - the issues of learning as a priority, critical thinking abilities and study habits, parental concern, encouragement and involvement, reading habits, etc, have more of a root in the success or fail of a student/education system than a mere religious belief *or* - not even a belief - but the act of attending church on Sunday morning.

My family, for example, is extremely religious (except for me) and everyone's a college graduate and many have doctorate degrees. My sister who is *the most* religious person in my family (2nd to my Dad, at least) was Valedictorian of her High School. I've lived in 7 different states and I've attended 9 different schools in my life and I can't think of a single example in which your view would net a truth.

I'm in college right now - surrounded by barely passing students with crappy attitudes about being in school - and not *once* has "but that's not in the bible" come up.

So that's all I'll say about it. Defending those who are religious tends to give me a headache because it's out of my usual repertoire.