November 27, 2009
Recently I was reading Jay Matthews blog, Class Struggle, on the Washington Post online edition. It was the Jay’s post about the evaluation of Dan Goldfarb a Benjamin Banneker High School AP History teacher. One respondent had this to say, and I quote it in full:
It sounds like the evaluation form is identical to the one used by Kaplan “Higher Education” (owned by the Washington Post). I remember it, as I taught there before I got a position teaching at a real college. While these evaluations may be appropriate for corporate training, from which they were adopted, both the form and the evaluation are garbage in a real education setting. They’re based on the current education fad of student-directed learning that TFA and corporate education have embraced because it allows them to give any idiot a script and call it education, and because it allows anyone who can recite its simplistic pedagogy to become an evaluator. It does, indeed, use evaluation criteria that MIGHT be appropriate for elementary school, and it does not account for either student learning or effective teaching styles. My guess is neither the evaluator, nor anyone involved in the “creation” (by photocopy? cut and paste?) of the evaluation form could recognize an effective teacher if one hit him/her in the face. (Which may happen, if they continue with this baseless “evaluation” system.) By the way, it took Rhee and DCPS almost 3 years to “develop” an evaluation system that was plagiarized from corporate training? Haven’t we seen this sort of laziness and dishonesty from the Fenty education team before?
Indeed, where have we seen this type of thing before? If true that IMPACT bears resemblence to Kaplan’s own evaluation form I cannot say I would be at all surprised. Increasingly the Post shows itself to be uncompromising in the protection of its investment in Kaplan. When it comes to any criticism of Michelle Rhee… wait, have they included any criticism of Ms. Rhee beyond the pages of their blogs?
There needs to be an investigative article from some news organizaton into all of this mess. Why? Because there are too many ethical questions that have not been answered by Ms. Rhee. It would be one thing if there were only one lapse or even two. Human error accounts for such things. But if we look at the whole a troubling picture emerges. For example:
- inflation of resumes – Both Rhee and Jason Kamras make claims on their biographies. On her part, Ms. Rhee made unsubstantiated claims of incredible student progress during her short time as a teacher. Kamras’ bio claims that all of his math students at Sousa High School made AYP, a claim refuted by former math teacher Guy Bradenberg who demonstrates, on his blog GFBrandenburg’s Blog, that only 14% of Kamras’ students made AYP.
- holding several, conflicting positions for one organization – Ms. Rhee’s titles at the St. Hope Charter Academy boggle the mind. Were all the positions paid positions? How did she perform the duties of board member and Chief Operating Officer at the same time? As president, Chief Operating Officer and Board Member at the same time? as President, COO, board member and a consultant for St. Hope on three projects, at the same time? How did she act as a consultant for St. Hope on the New Teacher Project, an organization that supplies teachers to schools, and as a consultant for St. Hope’s Human Resource Department’s reconstruction? Did she suggest to the Human Resource consultant which applicants to hire? It must have sounded interesting.
- Why, when Rhee was apprised by St. Hope employee Jacqueline Wong-Hernandez about sexual misconduct allegations against Kevin Johnson by 3 Americorps teenage volunteers, did she not contact California State authorities she was obligated to do under California law? Was this another one of those irksome laws she sees no problem in ignoring because she “knows” better?
- As COO and President, not to mention those consulting positions, was Ms. Rhee aware of the misuse of Americorps funds and volunteers as outlined in the Investigative General’s report of August 2008? As one of the top three office holders of St. Hope it seems that either Ms. Rhee was aware and therefore particpated or that she was not aware and she was negligent in her duties or these positions were merely window dressing for her resume and padding for her bank account.
- Why did Ms. Rhee not only try to bring in St. Hope to run two DC schools but insisted that she need not recuse herself from the process despite her involvement with St. Hope and of her knowledge of the charges being investigated about St. Hope?
These are important questions that need to be answered, not dodged, not fobbed off with a comment by the DCPS spokesperson (read Rhee spokesperson) refuting the charges as old and unsubstantiated (that IG report is pretty substantial and damning). These questions need answering because the parents, teachers and children of DCPS deserve to know that the person that is leading their system is credible and has integrity.
As teachers we have heard over and over the words “trust me” or “you just have to trust me”. Recently we heard that Ms. Rhee was asking principals how to regain the trust of teachers. Leaving these questions unanswered, admitting, as she as done in countless interviews and speeches (all available online, by the way), about her willingness to disregard laws and rules she deems “bureaucratic” or “not very intelligent”; unsubstantiated claims Ms. Rhee has made both about her teaching at Harlem Park as well as the claims that her teaching there put her on the pages of the Wall Street Journal and on Good Morning America (archive searches show no mention of Rhee for that time); claims about gains in test scores despite the fact that 12 schools are being investigated for cheating (how will those scores fare if the cheating is proven to have happened?); and the recent firing/hiring/firing of DC teachers (all the while still soliciting for positions in DCPS as well as bringing in DC Teaching Fellows just after the last firing round) have done nothing to help us trust her.
The Post’s ownership of Kaplan Testing Services makes their coverage and claims for Ms. Rhee invalid. They have ceased to be a newspaper that investigates and reports and have stepped over the line into being a publicity department for Adrian Fenty and Michelle Rhee. Without a full, comprehensive investigation that gives us all the information and allows us to make an honest, informed judgment, the question of trust will remain open. In the words of Sophocles “Trust dies but mistrust blossoms.” In Washington DC our garden is in full bloom.
November 27th, 2009 at 3:08 pm
This is an insightful entry and one that should be forwarded to lawmakers in DC. At that point perhaps the City Council members would be able to take a genuine, honest step toward doing the right thing!
November 27th, 2009 at 3:56 pm
I wish people would quit downing the IMPACT evaluation system and instead describe an evaluation system that really WORKS for teachers. The problem I have with the anti-Rhee side is that people complain and diss everything she does but offer no alternatives. My fear is that if and when she leaves, which I hope is not soon, that people will get comfortable again and go back to the same old same old (because they have no new ideas to replace the same old, same old).
November 27th, 2009 at 5:08 pm
Why is the cry always “what do you have that’s better?” whenever anyone has some criticism about Michelle Rhee and, more currently, impact? All of us have a right to informed criticism. It is by such processes that we can make things better. I would prefer that to blind acceptance, which seems to be this administration’s choice, of any idea simply because it comes from Rhee and associates. I happen to feel that IMPACT is no better than what we had. The subjectivity is there just as much as the last. I have witnessed it at my own school when teachers who have been evaluated by both our principal and the Master Educators have compared notes. Michelle Rhee’s complaint was that the PPEP was invalid because so many teachers were rated as “exceeds expectations” and yet our students did so poorly. But IMPACT is being used in the same subjective manner as PPEP – if the principal likes you than you score higher, if not you get average or below average. Add that with a total stranger walking into your room for 30 minutes and assessing you on such things as how many students are staring at you while you teach and I see a system as fraught with problems as the last.
Montgomery County’s evaluation system has been garnering pretty good reviews from the teachers in Maryland. It is considered to be a positive experience and one in which teachers are helped and respected, as opposed to how IMPACT makes most of the teachers I talk to feel. There are better alternatives out there but they are alternatives that require time and effort and are not a quick fix. Given MR’s stated infatuation with such things as merit pay, paying the students for showing up, and IMPACT, it seems to me she is more given to the idea of quick fix than a real fix. All three of the afore mentioned programs have had poor runs elsewhere – merit pay in Texas is considered a failure, paying the students has not panned out anywhere it has been implemented, and IMPACT failed when used in Fairfax. There are good programs to emulate, that are successful in the communities where they have been tried, but our leader keeps hitching her wagon to dying stars.
November 27th, 2009 at 11:11 pm
You wonder about how many of Kamras’s students made AYP? Good grief! “Students” can’t make AYP. Students are proficient, or not, and schools make AYP, or not. How can I practicing teacher not know this?
On top of that, Kamras was the NATIONAL TEACHER OF THE YEAR. Are you really questioning his abilities?
November 28th, 2009 at 1:33 am
I was paraphrasing from Kamras’ bio when I used the term “making AYP”. Mea culpa, however, for I should have been more clear in what I wrote. As a practicing teacher I allow myself to make mistakes for, as I tell my students, mistakes happen. As for Teacher of the Year, I consider it to be as much a farce as the dog-and-pony shows that many a lousy teacher successfully put on when they were being observed. Having worked with a couple of different TOTY’s I have come to have less respect for this title. It seems to be something that the self-promoting type goes after, gets, and then quits teaching to join the lecture circuit. Some deserve it, many have people shake their heads in disbelief. Instead of relying on this designation I look to how these people are as teachers in the school. This tells me so much more than anything else. I watched Kamras on the Charlie Rose show with 3 other TOTYs. To their credit the other three were still teaching in the classroom and when they made their observations and recommendations for what education needs they sounded credible, reasonable, and with a logic based in experience. Kamras simply rolled out the edubabble about human capital and the great good that standardized testing does for us. Am I questioning his abilities? Well, his bio says one thing and Sousa’s actual scores say another – so I am left wondering what is the truth, as I have with many aspects of this administration. I never saw the man teach but I can say that I have listened to him talk and I have been less than impressed, Princeton and Harvard degrees notwithstanding.
November 28th, 2009 at 2:36 am
Keep up the great work. I love your blog. I have placed a link to your site on my blog under blog links. I wished I knew about it sooner.
I think that you are touching on some key points that DC insiders have the expertise to address. Keep on doing what you are doing and don’t worry about the naysayers. It goes with the territory ! ;–)
http://thewashingtonteacher.blogspot.com/