Really Michelle Rhee!?

Michelle Rhee wearing her signature black suit showing that she is "sweeping" away the bad teachers. (Photo: flackrabbit.com)

One can’t help but have a warm-fuzzy feeling when you hear Michelle Rhee talk about education. It is those warm and fuzzy feelings that have garnered Rhee the celebrity that she has gotten since she left her post as the Chancellor of DC Public Schools after 3 ½ years. (NOTE: Waiting for Superman made a pun against a former DCPS school leader who left after a short time. – But I digress) As sympathetic as I am in the need to reform schools, I am quite stunned at the apathy that Michelle Rhee has towards anyone that doesn’t support or embrace her agenda. Her apathetic tone has been a trend since she left her post at DC Public Schools. Before anyone embraces her or her drive to “reform” America’s education system, one must ask what really are Michelle Rhee’s motives?

 

“Yesterday’s election results were devastating, devastating. Not for me, because I’ll be fine, and not even for Fenty, because he’ll be fine, but devastating for the schoolchildren of Washington, D.C.”

This was a quote taken by the Washington Post on the day she found out that soon to be former Mayor Fenty lost his primary bid for re-election. In an interview with NPR she said, “I wish that the reporter would have actually expressed the entire sentiment and not just those words…[b]ecause what I said was, it was devastating because I have received calls from people inside the city and across the nation who are saying this is the worst thing that could’ve happened to school reform.” Even Rhee’s half-baked attempt to backtrack on her words still had an air of arrogance that shouldn’t surround a reformer, especially for the “civil rights issue of our time.” Reformers for civil rights issues like Martin Luther King never purported that the issue was hinged on one person, however Rhee has certainly set up that precedent.

In all fairness to Rhee, who wouldn’t feel arrogant? She was propped up as a hero in the movie Waiting for Superman. She has been made education advisor for the governor’s elect transition team in Florida. Oprah enthusiastically embraced Rhee on her show by saying, “I don’t have the know how to fix it…I have been saying from this platform that somebody needs to fix it. [A]nd the fact that you stepped up and said ‘I am the one to do it,’ God bless you.” Is arrogance what he need in the school reform movement?

Despite the fact that I disagree with many of Rhee’s policies, her apathy towards anyone who doesn’t agree with her agenda is the biggest sticking point with me. I am sure there are many educators across the country that would be willing to sit down and discuss the issues facing education with Rhee and come to a consensus. Unfortunately, Rhee’s goal is not to develop or create a consensus rather, it’s to develop a national competition on who is right, and who is wrong. She is creating national competition on who can be labelled education reformers and who are the members of the status quo. The most alarming thing about this competition is that she is participating in a competition that she feels she can invariably win. Why? Because she has the backing and support of big names with large sums of money like Bill Gates, Barack Obama, and Oprah who believes that Rhee has the “solution” to the problem in education. To add to the alarming factor, she believes that competition is acceptable in the education – even among children. She was quoted saying, “We have become a little too obsessed about making kids feel good about themselves…[w]e have lost the competitive spirit.” Is the competition what we need to change the American school system for the better?

“After the shock of Fenty’s loss, it became clear to me that the best way to keep the reform going in the D.C. schools was for me to leave my job as chancellor….But I felt that Mayor-elect Vincent Gray should have the same ability that Fenty had to appoint his own chancellor. And I knew I had become a lightning rod and excuse for the anti-reformers to oppose the changes that had to be made.” (Newsweek Editorial)

Really Michelle Rhee!? “Anti-reformers oppose the changes that had to be made.” It is that inflammatory and self-serving rhetoric that spurred the opposition against Michelle Rhee. Education is a consequence of and rooted in democracy. In other words, the stakeholders must be represented in the decisions that are being made throughout the school district. The mere fact that the stakeholders are demanding that they are to be heard is not a function of being an anti-reformer but of being an anti-“RHEE”former. Rhee should not be allowed to say, “I know people say I wasn’t good enough at building consensus, but I don’t think consensus can be the goal” on one hand and then appear on Oprah or purport on her new “Student’s First” website that the mission is to build a national movement to defend the interests of children. Are the parents integral to the success of children, therefore they the first defence in looking out for the interests of them? Aren’t the teachers that work with them day in and day out looking out for the interests of children? It is unfair for Michelle Rhee to vilify and stifle the voices of the stakeholders in the name of her version of reform.

Is this picture very inviting to you? (Photo: atlantic.com)

Really Michelle Rhee!? I think the most ironic thing about her fame especially on the hills of her Student’s First website launch is that she is going to “transform education” by creating a special interest or lobbying group? (I hope that everyone reading took a few moments to let that settle in.) Isn’t this same person who tarnishes teacher’s unions for being a special interest group? Isn’t this the same person who in her Newsweek editorial, argued that even textbook manufacturers shape the agenda in education reform? However, it is not ironic to believe that her Student’s First organization is no better than the teacher’s union or the textbook manufacturer simply because she puts the word STUDENT in the title. She even asserted that school board meetings rarely discuss children, however her agenda includes mayoral control, merit-based pay for teachers, and increased accountability based on test scores. Where is the mention of children? Aren’t these just bureaucratic policies towards education? This is the same bureaucracy that Rhee is against.

Really Michelle Rhee!? This “reformer” clearly has a difficult time staying consistent. In her Newsweek editorial she said, “I did a particularly bad job letting the many good teachers know that I considered them to be the most important part of the equation. I should have said to the effective teachers, ‘You don’t have anything to worry about. My job is to make your life better, offer you more support, and pay you more.’ In other words, hindsight ‘I should have been nicer to teachers.’” However, in her speech in Sacramento she once again antagonized ALL teachers by asserting that teacher training schools are filled with the “lowest performing students” – better students choose other careers. Once again, Rhee failed to discuss the nuances of some of the better Schools of Education around the country including the one of her alma maters, Harvard University. In that one statement she debased a whole segment of current teachers and future teachers who went to teacher training schools –many of you reading this blog post. (Full Disclosure: I went to a teacher training school too.) However, teachers around the country are supposed to rally behind her in her brand of school reform.

After reading and listening to Michelle Rhee it has become very difficult for me to have any warm-fuzzy feelings about her or her agenda. Contrary to her belief, I do want the best for my students and I am sure the educators reading this blog post do too. It is in that vein, that I can never support someone so condescending and self-serving as Rhee has become. Oprah may be a successful media mogul – successfully endorsing books – but I am not quick to jump on the Oprah bandwagon here. In the end, I have found that Rhee’s “Student’s First” organization is nothing but a platform for Michelle Rhee to pontificate on a national scale. Her organization will do no more to serve the needs of children than the teacher’s union, the textbook manufacturer, and bureaucrats that she lambastes in the media. The organization is not about students; it’s about Michelle. That’s fine! However, don’t insult the intelligence of many educators in the meantime. Really Michelle Rhee!? We don’t need a queen; we need a leader!

Late Add
Let’s just say for the sake of conversation that her “reforms” are “well-intentioned” and in the spirit of students. Here is some data she cannot dispute:

• She will still be the wife of a prominent politician.
• She will still make a lot of money with her “Students First” organization.
• She still made $275,000/year as chancellor of DCPS.
• She makes good money from her television appearances, movie appearances, and her work in Florida as Hess’ transition team in Florida.
• Because of her wealth she has the option to send her children to private school.
• AND if her “reforms” crash and burn because of her untested “reforms,” alienation of educators, and apathy towards anyone who disagrees with her including her stake holders, she will STILL have all the above, and the parents, community members, and students will still lose. Really Michelle Rhee!?

Don’t Pee on My Leg and Tell Me It’s Raining: Jason Song and Jason Felch Leave’s Questions Unanswered about LA Times Project

Title Source: Judge Judy’s Autobiography Title

This picture sums up my feelings during the Felch/Song chat from Thursday.

Have you ever watched paint dry? Have you ever watched a spider spin its web? Have you ever watched a documentary made in the 1970’s? I would imagine that for at least the former two most would say “no.” I would also imagine that it would be seem as something utterly boring and a complete waste of time. Well, today we can add the “chat” with the authors of “Who’s Teaching LA’s Kids,” Jason Song and Jason Felch.

Initially, I was excited to be able to have a very candid, but informative discussion about the purpose, rationale, and plans in regards to their article from Sunday. However, that is not what I got. That is clearly not what Sabrina from the “Failing Schools Blog” got either. (If you have sensitive eyes you should skip the next sentence). That hour was the longest disingenuous attempt at a masturbatory “conversation” I have witnessed in a long time. It was more upsetting, because it was supposed to be coming from journalists, whose job is to be transparent – they failed miserably.

Cherry Picking Questions

It was clear that Sabrina attempted to ask some questions that many may have had on their mind, but as you can see from her tweets, Song/Felch cherry-picked the questions that they wanted to answer and had no interest in a substantive debate or conversation.

“I’ve sent 4 comments so far, all asking about the possibility of misleading the public by offering no context. 1 fragment made it through.”

“I think I’m up to 8 comments submitted, and one “pending” on the site itself. #headdesk”

“9 comments. Instead we get softballs like “will you do more profiles in the future?”

As journalists, I would have expected that the Jasons would have been more transparent in their intentions, furthermore more clear and concise to the answers to the chat member’s questions. However, the entire hour felt like a political stump speech. The few cherry-picked questions that were answered did very little to address the concerns that exists across the blogosphere.

Issues with Valued-Added Assessments

One of the many concerns that came up across the blogosphere is the limitations of value-added assessments. It became clear throughout the “chat” that Felch/Song was intent on circumventing the actual issue by either justifying it with “expert analysis” or using ambiguous words to describe why they are still effective in assessing teacher performance.

[Comment From Clay Landon]
Diane Ravitch wrote on your paper’s editorial page that a standardized test is an awful way to measure a child’s educational achievement. Why do you feel such a test should be used as a measurement of teacher effectiveness?

Jason Song:
One thing all experts said is that value-added analysis shouldn’t be the sole factor in determining a teacher’s effectiveness. Most districts that use it count on value-added for 50% or less. But the test are aligned to state educational standards, so many feel they could be a valuable evaluation tool.

How does this answer Mr. Landon’s question? The mere fact that the tests are “aligned to state educational standards” is not an all-inclusive answer to demonstrate the benefits of the use of tests as a means for evaluating teacher effectiveness. Additionally, the answer was not all-inclusive of the potential problems that may arise from using test scores as a measure of teacher effectiveness. The answer Mr. Song gave to this question clearly indicates that he is possibly aware of the problems, which is why he wanted to make clear that “most districts…count valued-added for 50% or less” on evaluations. If he was not acknowledging the problems, he clearly didn’t make it clear he wasn’t.

One of my favourite comedians in the world is George Carlin. Since his early days of being a comedian used the phrase (a phrase I use in my classroom) that “language will always give you away.” I love that phrase because it is concise in saying that the words you choose reveal the way you are actually thinking about things. It was clear that Mr. Song and Mr. Felch knew that there were many reservations (including from education statistics experts) of the value-added approach. Despite the knowledge of the reservations they insist on using it and justified it by detailing their “methodology.”

[Comment From Kev]
How can factors such as severely emotional chaos at a student’s home and local gang activity, for example, factor in to a teacher value? My wife teaches in Highland Park where very few parents seem to really care that their children are learning, and certainly don’t care if they advance past their own education which is frequently illiterate.

Jason Felch:
The value added approach has limitations, but its strength is that, for the most part, it does score judge teachers by who their students are — something they have little control over. How can it do this? By measuring student progress against their own past work, not that of other children. Statistically speaking, this controls for many of the factors beyond a teacher’s control: student poverty, limited English, chaos at home, etc. The assumption underlying the approach is that many of these factors are consistent in a student’s life…if a student was poor in 2nd grade, they’re likely to be poor in 3rd.

If my student wrote a paper using the words “for the most part,” “controls for many” and “assumption” I would question their argument as something that they aren’t clear or convinced of themselves. I believe that these answers speak to my blog piece “Editorizing Fear.” There is a convoluted dismissal of the research that shows that it is difficult to control for many factors that a teacher may have to deal with on a daily basis, and they justify it by following it up with their “research findings.” Clearly, Mr. Song and Mr. Felch are advancing an agenda one, that prays on the desperation of a chronically failing urban school district and using the teacher as scapegoats. (P.S. You should read @TeacherSabrina’s piece “Scandalize their Name” for more on the scapegoating).

Effects with Releasing the Scores

One of the most ubiquitous concerns across the blogosphere concerning the article and the LA Times project is the releasing of teacher’s value-added scores. Many of the concerns centred around the fact that releasing the sores could cause undue hostility from parents, some who are ill-informed to properly analyze the data. Once again, Song/Felch does little to address these concerns.

Given that parents generally want the “best” teachers, do you worry that this will generate more parental pressure on teachers and cause more teachers to “teach to the test” rather than focusing on providing a more wholistic learning experience?

Jason Song: It could generate parental pressure, but, as I said before, value-added analysis is only part of the picture. It only measures performance on math and English standardized test scores right, so if a parent wants to make sure their child gets exposure to art or other subjects or a teacher’s classroom manner, they’ll have to find other sources of information or visit a school.

[Comment From Effective Teacher]
Jason and Jason — The two of you are doing profound damage to select LAUSD teachers. Your cautionary notes that this data only provides one facet of the true picture will be lost on parents who see their children’s teachers labeled as ineffective.

Jason Felch: And what about all of those incredible teachers who, like one we featured in the story, are eating lunch in their classrooms, unrecognized and unstudied? In the end, we came down on the side of publication. We’re trying hard to put the data in context, and giving all teachers an opportunity to provide additional context or comments before the scores go live.

Mr. Song was completely nonchalant when addressing the issue of teachers possibly teaching to the test. I guess to Mr. Song that fact that releasing the value-added scores “could generate parental pressure” is not much of a problem. Apparently, Mr. Felch doesn’t seem to care either. Mr. Song’s weak justification for this is “valued-added analysis is only part of the picture.” However, he has done little to show that valued- added assessments are only part of the picture. He essentially editorialized VAA as the best measure to assess teacher performance. Parents, who are not equipped to analyze the data, are then left to interpret something that is flawed and in his words not complete. However I guess it’s okay for a teacher to get fired while a parent “make[s] sure their child gets exposure to art…[and] a teacher’s classroom manner…[through] other sources of information.” Mr. Felch’s weak justification is that “we came down on the side of the publication.” How is this journalism? Isn’t journalist supposed to supply the whole picture? At least he was honest, coming down on the side of the publication means choosing what will sell. With the current demonizing of teachers in the media, it is clear that any “parental pressure” or that the “true picture will be lost on parents” is just a negative externality.

Journalist Education Credentials

[Comment From LA Times Subscriber]
What credentials do you hold to judge the teaching profession? Do you guys have degrees in education?

Jason Song:
I don’t think many people would label either me or the other Jason as an educational “expert.” But we observed many teachers multiple times and have researched value added analysis for almost a year and checked our findings with leading experts, so I feel we’re on solid ground as journalists.

[Comment From Guest]
They should actually teach for a year, too. 😉
Jason Felch:
I thought you’d never ask! Before going into journalism, I taught middle school and high school students. I also founded and ran an after school program for “inner city” kids in San Francisco, and am very familiar with their challenges. My colleague Jason Song has covered the city’s schools for years.

It was clear that Mr. Song and Mr. Felch tried to maintain their image as an authority on the matter. Mr. Felch even went as far as saying that he taught middle school and high school students before he became a journalist. I am not negating that it is true. However, it is clear that Mr. Song and Mr. Felch are not aware of the daily realities of a teacher, especially a teacher in a urban school. Why? Because of the answer to this question.

[Comment From Mr.G]
What are your plans for “Grading the Administrators”?

Jason Felch:
Good question. Research shows that teachers are the most important influence on a student’s learning. But principals are also important. Many also used to be teachers. We’re exploring ways to reliably get at this with the data. Stay tuned!

I guess that Bill Gates and Jason Felch are looking at the same “research” when making the dubious claim that “teachers are the most important influence on a student’s learning.” Any teacher knows that they are very influential on their student’s learning, but that there is a lot more that influences children. What happened to the old adage, “It takes a village to raise a child?” However, when talking to teachers in affluent suburban school districts, magnet urban schools, and some private schools they all sight many factors including parent involvement, home status, and personal issues. It is and will always remain a RIDCULOUS notion that teachers are the most important influence on a student’s learning. Especially when teachers have to combat with many different influences including some of the horrifying ones detailed in the “Failing Schools” blog. If there is going to be an examination of teachers, then there should be concurrent examination of administrators. Not only do they hire the teachers, they set the tone for the school. Read “Stepping Up to the Plate” by my good friend Erin for more information on that.

I think my tweet and Sabrina’s tweet sums up the sentiment of the entire “chat” from Felch and Song.

@mppolicy: The #LATimes chat was one of the most unproductive hours of my entire life. #smh #ineedsomeair

@TeacherSabrina: Wow, that was a total sham. I wish I’d saved the comments I submitted in vain.

Shake my head Felch/Song.

Print? The Final Frontier?

I’ve had ample discussions with many of my friends that are around my age about the need for handwriting in school. When I was in school is was absolutely mandatory that we not only practice our handwriting, but be proficient at writing the letters. This goes for both print and cursive. 1st-3rd grade we practiced print writing and 4th-6th grade we practiced cursive handwriting. Grades 7-8 we were finally given the autonomy to write in whatever style we liked. Many of my friends who were in grammar school in the late 80’s and through the 90’s had a curriculum similar to this one.

Recently, I have read the second article of the year in regards to whether or not school districts should require their teachers to teach cursive handwriting. The most recent article “School Adjust How Writing is Taught in the Text Age” discusses this paradigm shift. Many education administrators site three reasons why cursive handwriting needs to be reevaluated.

1. In the days of high-stakes testing many districts have had to really streamline “ancillary” subjects like handwriting so they can spend more time with reading and mathematics.

2. As we conclude the first decade of the 21st century, many students aren’t communicating through pen and paper writing — let alone cursive handwriting.

3. Even when students are writing using pen and paper they typically skew to print writing instead of cursive.

Cursive writing should be here to stay.

Personally, I think these are all valid reasons why a district should re-evaluate the handwriting curriculum. However, to eliminate cursive handwriting would be a big mistake. I have two reasons why I think it would be a mistake:

1. If you are not a fan of high-stakes testing to evaluate student learning, then eliminating handwriting from the curriculum wouldn’t be consistent with that logic. If you analyze many of the “reforms” going through our system today, you begin to send a trend where little by little we are asking to dismiss many things that were core to our own learning. For example, reducing the amount of time student take elective courses (art, music, etc.), doubling the amount of time students are doing reading/mathematics, etc. Eliminating cursive handwriting from the curriculum would just add to schools just focusing on “core subjects” and straying away from creating the “whole student.”

2. Ironically as I am writing this blog I realise that once again I am not physically writing something down on a piece of paper. I am using type for a medium of communication. This shows my privilege in my access to technology for communication. However, I am one of the few people in our society that has this privilege. The article that I using as a basis for this blog discusses how many students use technology as means of communication. I will grant them that.

Texting is NOT the only form of communication.

However, as long as ALL students don’t have consistent access to communication through technology then eliminating cursive handwriting would be problematic. I feel it needs to be understood that handwriting is just one form of communication. This one form of communication is the easiest to teach (usually through repetition and application), the cheapest to teach, and is universal among all literate people in our society. Using WordPress for blogging, creating a Meebo account for streamlined communication, and developing a Linked-In page for social networking is not easy to teach, cheap to furnish, or particularly universal among everyone. Web 2.0 has done an excellent job at providing communication services free of charge, but training principals, teachers, and students in these Web 2.0 applications is not free. Therefore, until ALL districts provide ALL stakeholders with the tools and the knowledge to use texting, IM, and Web 2.0 tools, districts must not be quick to eliminate handwriting (including cursive) from their curriculum. Rather, they should find a way to strike a nice balance.

The Turnaround Trap

Kipp Schools New Hope?

A prominent member of ASCD recently did a blog discussing the Turnaround Trap.  He describes Turnarounds as “[a] cheery faith that substitute a cherry faith in the transformative power new leaders or good intentions for the real work of creating conditions where excellent new providers can emerge and thrive.” I would go one step further and it is explained a little in my response to his blog post. In order to create this conditions CEOs, Superintendents, Chancellors, etc. must realize that a school is part of a community. You must buy take into account the stakeholders of the community and that includes the parents, teachers, and the students.

AUSL has some successes? Should it be the model for all schools?

In the book Breakthrough: Transforming Urban School Districts, John Simmons says that “despite the fact that, for decades, research and common sense have shown how important parents are in improving student performance in schools, in city after city little is done to tap the single most underutilized assets for school improvement that the school district has.” (pg. 51) This comes from many program’s notion that they will “fix the situation.” Unfortunately, it doesn’t work that easy. You must get all the stakeholders to buy in what you are trying to do to “change” the situation. While, I think that programs like Kipp, Noble Street (here in Chicago), and AUSL (a little) has help stem the tide in poor communities, their success comes from the desperation of parents in the community. Desperation is NOT ubiquitous across all urban school districts and all schools.

What has Noble Street done to be successful?

Many school leaders, parents, teachers, and students are looking for precisely what Mr. Hess from ASCD is saying “a condition where excellent new providers can emerge and THRIVE.”

Here is my response to the blog post.

“I would completely concur with the writer’s assertion also. I think that Arne Duncan and President Obama are mirroring what many urban school districts have done for a long time. They grab hold a piecemeal glimmer of hope and the change that it may work to change the course of education. However, they fail to really sit down and develop a clear strategy to turn schools around. Turnaround programs typically are typically thrown onto communities with the guise of “saving/changing students.” However, it is incomprehensible to believe that any program (without involvement of the current teachers/community members) is going to change/save children. There is a well established value system present, and you will NEVER get a buy in from the teachers, principals, parents or students without a proper acknowledgment of the stakeholders.In response to Niki Hayes, while I agree with most of her response (including the successes of KIPP schools) I believe that de-unionizing schools is not the answer. I believe that one of the priorities of Arne Duncan should be trying to reform the unions so that they can become partners of school reform with the school administrators and not adversaries. At the end of the day, teachers need to feel like they are protected and that someone can speak on their behalf when they are bullied by administrators, held accountable for unattainable goals, and put under strict scrutiny for reason beyond the increased performance of the students. I am sure  that Niki has not been guilty of these things, but I am confident that it exists in schools throughout the country. “

If you would like the read the blog post by Mr. Hess please click here.

Does the MTA Affect Student Achievement for NYC Students?

Recently I was reading the New York Times. In the article it discusses how the MTA, the cities public transportation agency, plans to make cuts in the funding to help close a budget shortfall of nearly $400 million. When I was reading this article I realised that many of the things they were going to do are standard. Especially living in Chicago and dealing with the CTA. They were going to cut some routes, eliminate some lines, end the all-night services on some of the subway routes, and do this without raising fares. I can imagine that many people would be just elated to find out that they were not going to cut fares. As I kept reading, I noticed that they were going to eliminate the reduced fare rates given to students of the New York. I was absolutely appalled by this decision by the MTA. Once again, I am observing how people fail to make the connection between public policies and education.

Many students of the public school system are low-income. I remember the days of going to elementary and high school and my stepmom complaining about the cost of the reduced fare cards that we used. I think that if CTA has phased out the reduced fare program then we would have probably walked half way to school every morning, because it just would have been totally out of the budget to pay for full-fare transit cards. I can only imagine that situations similar to this represent the same paradigm that many low-income families are probably going to face. Parents will probably have to make a decision to cut into their food budgets in order to supplement the increased cost of the transportation for students. This is absolutely unacceptable.

Are students going to be automatically excluded from this 42nd Street subway?

A decision like this shows that there isn’t a thought in the stakeholders that may be affected by this cut. This decision is purely business related and fails to use a  “socially responsible” framework. Unfortunately, it seems that the education policy makers can’t make a stand and influence the politics of public transportation although they are very intertwined. Therefore, I believe this situation speaks to the reason why the drastic switch to “school choice” adds to the problem with educating our young people. The departure of the “neighbourhood school” model has placed parents in a bind to come up with bus/train fare to make sure that their child has an opportunity to get a quality education. If students could just go to their neighbourhood school and get a quality education, agencies like the MTA could be “off the hook” for making a decision like that did. However, as long as the current education policy discussion centres around sending students sometimes across the city for an “opportunity” then the policy makers from education and public transportation need to sit down and come up with a plan. A plan that will make sure that students have AFFORADABLE access to the transportation that they desperately need.

If you would like to read the article click here.