Subject: [big campaign] New Republic: How Michelle Rhee Misled us on Education Reform
From: Aniello Alioto <[email-masked]>
To: undisclosed-recipients:
Date: Tue, 21 May 2013 18:11:05 -0400
List-Id: <bigcampaign.googlegroups.com>

GREAT article on how Michelle Rhee misled us all (well, not all of us) on
education reform

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/113096/how-michelle-rhee-misled-education-reform#

*How Michelle Rhee Misled Education Reform*A memoir illustrates what's
wrong with her brand of school reform

BY NICHOLAS LEMANN <http://www.newrepublic.com/authors/nicholas-lemann>

   - Read Later<http://www.newrepublic.com/article/113096/how-michelle-rhee-misled-education-reform#>
   - Listen<http://www.newrepublic.com/article/113096/how-michelle-rhee-misled-education-reform#>
   - Font Size<http://www.newrepublic.com/article/113096/how-michelle-rhee-misled-education-reform#>

   - Facebook<http://www.newrepublic.com/article/113096/how-michelle-rhee-misled-education-reform#>
   - Twitter<http://www.newrepublic.com/article/113096/how-michelle-rhee-misled-education-reform#>

The other day I picked up a copy of *The Adventures of Augie
March*<http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0143039571/ref=as_li_qf_sp_asin_il_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=0143039571&linkCode=as2&tag=thenewrep08-20>.
I hadn’t remembered that Saul Bellow, writing in the early 1950s, when he
was not yet forty, about Chicago in the 1920s, had been in full sympathy
with the urban poor, as he definitely was not later in his career. There is
a hilarious bit in the early pages in which Grandma Lausch, the March
family’s boarder and a master at avoiding bills, including the rent she
owes the Marches, expertly intimidates Lubin, the neighborhood welfare
caseworker who comes for regular home visits wearing an ill-fitting suit:
“He had a harassed patience with her of ‘deliver me from such clients,’
though he tried to appear master of the situation.”

Today’s education-reform movement has something of the venerable dynamic of
American social improvement about it. We no longer have caseworkers who
inspect poor people’s apartments in person, but we definitely have members
of the same ethnic group as the very poor, doing better but not all that
much better than their clients, charged with the often exasperating job of
performing the functions of betterment: the mainly black teachers at
all-black, all-poor public schools, for example. Another category of
character in the drama, often just offstage, comprises the well-meaning
patricians who designed the system—social work and settlement houses a
century ago, charter schools and accountability regimes today—who feel some
mixture of moral outrage about “conditions,” swelling pride in the
selflessness of their intentions, and frustration over being so often
unappreciated by the objects of their largesse.

Like all significant causes, education reform bears the mark of its time.
These days we trust markets and mistrust institutions, especially of the
state, so education reform proposes to take apart the main structures of
schooling in America—a network of districted public schools and a unionized
teaching corps. It proposes, as an urgently necessary national project, to
replace them with a school system governed by metrics, choice, incentive
compensation, and personnel reductions. It is roughly the same prescription
that activist investors would apply to an industrial corporation of the
same vintage as the education system. And this is no coincidence: many of
the leaders of education reform *are* activist investors. The proselytizing
and structure-building proclivities of the social reformers of a century
ago are nowhere to be seen in education reform.

In the late aughts, Michelle Rhee, during her brief run as chancellor of
the Washington, D. C. school system, became the face of the
education-reform movement: a young, tough, impassioned, camera-ready
crusader who encapsulated the appeal of the movement for those who find it
appealing, and its horrors for those who don’t. As in the case of Lubin and
Grandma Lausch, the people she was in business to help did not appreciate
her as much as they were supposed to. As Rhee freely acknowledges in her
memoir and manifesto, the activities  that she understood to be on behalf
of poor black people in Washington caused her boss, Mayor Adrian Fenty, to
be unseated by Washington’s black voters, barely three years into her term.
That meant she lost her job, too. Rhee regrouped and founded a national
organization called StudentsFirst <http://www.studentsfirst.org/>, which
lobbies for school reform in state legislatures. Her book is meant more to
advertise the new phase of her career than to revisit the old one.

Rhee was born in 1969 and grew up mainly in Toledo, the child of Korean
immigrants; by her account, she got her social concern from her father and
her run-you-over personality from her mother. She describes a year she
spent back in Korea as a child, in a large classroom in which every student
was numerically ranked against the others every day, as a season in
paradise, because it taught her “that it was not only okay but essential to
compete.” (Later on she grouses that her daughters have too many soccer
medals and trophies even though “they suck at soccer,” which is an example
of the way in which “we’ve gone soft as a nation.”) After college she
joined Teach for America <http://www.teachforamerica.org/>, which placed
her in an inner-city elementary school in Baltimore, and then she enrolled
in the Kennedy School at Harvard. Rhee makes a big impression on people.
One of them was Wendy Kopp, the founder of Teach for America, who asked her
to start a new organization that would supply school districts with new
teachers in numbers beyond what Teach for America itself (whose magic in
the elite universities where it recruits comes from its being highly
selective) could generate. Rhee called that organization the New Teacher
Project <http://tntp.org/>.

In her account of her years in Teach for America, the lesson Rhee wants to
impart is that success in the classroom takes time to achieve and depends
mainly on discipline and toughness. In her first year she failed miserably:
she was a nervous wreck who couldn’t control her classroom. But on the
first day of her second year, she writes, she took a new approach: “I wore
my game face. No smiles, no joy; I was all thin lips and flinty glares.”
She describes making her students line up and walk into the classroom four
times, until they had achieved a state of perfect order. “My mistake the
first year was trying to be warm and friendly with the students, thinking
that my kids needed love and compassion. What I knew going into my second
year was that what my children needed and craved was rigid structure,
certainty, and stability.” Once we get past the glorification of the
drill-sergeant approach to life, which with Rhee always takes a while, we
learn that it also helped that she was guided by other teachers into using
different and more effective (more hard-ass and less progressive,
naturally) reading and math curricula, and mastering the best ways to use
them.

But as soon as she becomes head of an organization, and a voice in public
debates, and (perhaps most importantly) a regular fund-raiser among the
very rich and their foundations, Rhee’s story begins to change into one in
which everything wrong with public education is attributable to the malign
influence of the teachers’ unions. Rhee is a major self-dramatizer. As
naturally appealing to her as is the idea that more order, structure,
discipline, and competition is the answer to all problems, even more
appealing is the picture of herself as a righteously angry and fearless
crusader who has the guts to stand up to entrenched power. She is always
the little guy, and whoever she is fighting is always rich, powerful, and
elite—and if, as her life progresses, her posse becomes Oprah Winfrey,
Theodore Forstmann, and the Gates Foundation lined up against beleaguered
school superintendents and presidents of union chapters, the irony of that
situation has no tonal effect on her narrative. Again and again she gives
us scenes of herself being warned that she cannot do what is plainly the
right thing, because it is too risky, too difficult, too threatening to the
unions, too likely to bring on horrific and unfair personal attacks—but the
way she’s made, there’s nothing she can do but ignore the warnings and plow
valiantly ahead.

RHEE’S STORY BEGINS TO CHANGE INTO ONE IN WHICH EVERYTHING WRONG WITH
PUBLIC EDUCATION IS ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE MALIGN INFLUENCE OF THE TEACHERS’
UNIONS.

Rhee’s confrontations, especially with Randi Weingarten, the president of
the American Federation of Teachers, brought her to the attention of new
patrons, chief among them Joel Klein, then the New York schools chancellor.
When Fenty was elected mayor of Washington, he decided that he needed his
own Joel Klein, and Klein, among others, steered him to Rhee. As Rhee
observes, Washington in the 1950s became the first black-majority American
city, but on Fenty’s watch it was on its way to becoming white-majority
again, as middle-class blacks decamped to the suburbs and middle-class
whites moved back into the city. This meant that white public schools were
overcrowded and many black public schools were half-empty. But the black
schools were often just about all their neighborhoods had left, as
institutions and as employers, so they
engendered fierce loyalty.

Rhee is not one for exquisite sensitivity. She closed schools, fired
teachers, and (though she assures us that “I had never sought the
limelight”) became famous. She was on the covers of
*Time*<http://www.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,20081208,00.html>
(holding
a broom) and *Newsweek*<http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2010/12/06/why-michelle-rhee-isn-t-done-with-school-reform.html>,
and was one of the stars of *Waiting for
Superman*<http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B004JPVDQ2/ref=as_li_qf_sp_asin_il_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=B004JPVDQ2&linkCode=as2&tag=thenewrep08-20>.
It is usually a fundamental rule of politics that a department head isn’t
supposed to do anything to make her boss unpopular or to upstage him. Rhee
did not follow this rule. She has a special scorn for “politics” and often
praises Fenty for not considering it when making decisions, but this is
both un-self-aware (Rhee’s policies were very good politics in white
Washington) and impractical. We live in a democracy, so officials have to
contend with public opinion and with groups organized to promote their own
interests. Many American politicians over the last generation, including
all of the last five presidents, have been able to push education policies
in the same realm as Rhee’s in a way that kept their coalitions together. *
That *is what Rhee and Fenty were unusually bad at doing, and Rhee’s
insistence that “politics” is a terrible thing that only her opponents
practice was surely a big part of the reason why.

StudentsFirst, Rhee’s post-Washington organization, lobbies state
legislatures around the country to pass education-reform measures. Although
it began in a series of meetings in Washington among the influential
friends Rhee had made as chancellor—the names she drops in telling of its
founding include Rahm Emanuel, Eli Broad, the Aspen Institute, the Hoover
Institution, and McKinsey, and her initial requests for philanthropic
funding are at the $100 million level—she insists that it is a grassroots
organization, “a movement of everyday people.” What this really means is
that StudentsFirst has used the latest top-of-the-line Internet-marketing
technology to generate a notional membership of more than a million. They
do not pay dues and they are not organized into local chapters that hold
regular meetings, but when there is an important vote in a state capitol,
StudentsFirst can generate turnout to demonstrate that it is engaged in a
grand battle between powerless parents and rich unions.

StudentsFirst represents the next step in the journey Rhee has been taking
all along. All policy and no operations, it frames education reform
exclusively in anti-union terms, and ramps up the rhetoric even higher than
it was during Rhee’s chancellorship in Washington. (“No more mediocrity.
It’s killing us.”) Rhee actually does know what life is like in a public
school, but she either openly or implicitly removes from the discussion of
improving schools any issue that cannot be addressed by twisting the dial
of educational labor-management relations in the direction of management.
She gives us little or no discussion of pedagogical technique, a hot
research topic these days, or of curriculum, another hot topic owing to the
advent of the Common Core standards, or of funding levels, or class size,
or teacher training, or surrounding schools with social services (which is
the secret sauce of Geoffrey Canada’s Harlem Children’s
Zone<http://www.hcz.org/hcz-home.php>),
or of the burden placed on the system by the expensive growth of
special-education programs.

Rhee simply isn’t interested in reasoning forward from evidence to
conclusions: conclusions are where she starts, which means that her book
cannot be trusted as an analysis of what is wrong with public schools, when
and why it went wrong, and what might improve the situation. The only
topics worth discussing for Rhee are abolishing teacher tenure,
establishing charter schools, and imposing pay-for-performance regimes
based on student test scores. We are asked to understand these measures as
the only possible means of addressing a crisis of decline that is
existentially threatening the United States as a nation and denying civil
rights to poor black
people.1<http://www.newrepublic.com/article/113096/how-michelle-rhee-misled-education-reform#footnote-1>

Some of the specific causes of Rhee’s early career, such as giving
principals the right to accept or reject teachers being transferred into
their schools, or not requiring that layoffs be made solely on the basis of
seniority, are perfectly reasonable. The mystery of the education-reform
movement is why it insists on such a narrow and melodramatic frame for the
discussion. You’d never know from most education-reform discourse that
anybody before the current movement came along ever cared about the quality
of public education. (Remember that the reason both Bill Clinton and George
W. Bush became president was that, as governors, they successfully
established teacher-accountability regimes that were accomplished in ways
that got them reelected and established them as plausible national figures.
Rhee treats Clinton as someone who doesn’t have the guts to embrace the
cause, and doesn’t even mention Bush.) You’d never know that unionization
and school quality are consistent in most of the country (including
Washington’s affluent Ward 3) and the world. You’d never know that the
research results on charter schools are decidedly mixed. You’d never know
that empowered and generally anti-union parents’ and employers’
organizations have been around for decades. (Bush’s education secretary,
Margaret Spellings, was once an official of the Texas Association of School
Boards.)

Surely one reason that the education-reform movement comports itself in
this strident and limited manner is that it depends so heavily on the
largesse of people who are used to getting their way and to whom the
movement’s core arguments have a powerful face validity. Only a tiny
percentage of American children attend the kind of expensive, non-sectarian
private schools where many of the elite send their children. It is worth
noting that these schools generally avoid giving their students the
standardized achievement tests that state education departments require,
making the results public, and paying teachers on the basis of the scores,
and that they almost never claim to be creating hyper-competitive,
commercial-skills-purveying environments for their students. Sidwell
Friends, of presidential-daughter fame, says it offers “a rich and rigorous
interdisciplinary curriculum designed to stimulate creative inquiry,
intellectual achievement and independent thinking in a world increasingly
without borders.” That doesn’t sound like it would cut much ice with
Michelle Rhee.

But if the world of the more than fifty million Americans who attend or
work in public schools is terra incognita to you, then the narrative of a
system caught in a death spiral unless something is done right now will be
appealing, and the reform movement’s blowtorch language of moral urgency
will feel like an unavoidable and principled choice, given the
circumstances. It is a measure of the larger social and economic chasm that
has opened in the United States over the last generation that the movement
has so little ability to establish a civil interaction with public-school
teachers, a group made up of millions of people mainly from blue-collar
backgrounds, some of whose leadership (such as Albert Shanker, Randi
Weingarten’s mentor) was working aggressively and decades ago on the issues
that concern education reformers now. The quasi-essentialist idea that
teachers are either “great” or should be fired, which pervades Rhee’s book
and the movement generally, may be emotionally satisfying, but it utterly
fails to capture what would really help in an enormous system. Making most
good teachers better, in the manner of Rhee when she was teaching, would be
far more useful than focusing exclusively on the tails of the bell curve.

Rhee recounts a crucial moment in her rise, during the early days of the
New Teachers Project (TNTP), when, to inspire her staff, she told them the
story of a brave group of Korean fighters against the Japanese occupation:
“In order to prove their loyalty, they each bit off the top of their pinkie
and wrote their name in blood on a banner. When TNTP was entering into a
new three-year strategic plan I told the senior management team they all
had to bite off their pinkies and sign up for three years.” One flaw Rhee
does not have is inauthenticity: she really is the character she plays on
television and in the movies. The troubling question is why she has become
what the education-reform movement is looking for in a standard bearer.

*Nicholas Lemann is dean of the Columbia Graduate School of Journalism and
the author, most recently, of *Redemption: The Last Battle of the
Civil War<http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0013TJ02Q/ref=as_li_qf_sp_asin_il_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=B0013TJ02Q&linkCode=as2&tag=thenewrep08-20>
* (Farrar, Straus and Giroux).*

share this article on
facebook<http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=http://www.newrepublic.com/article/113096/how-michelle-rhee-misled-education-reform>
 or twitter<http://twitter.com/share?text=How%20Michelle%20Rhee%20Misled%20Education%20Reform&url=http://www.newrepublic.com/article/113096/how-michelle-rhee-misled-education-reform>

-- 
Aniello Alioto
National Political Director
[email-masked]

CA: Courage Campaign
CO: ProgressNow Colorado
FL: Progress Florida
GA: Better Georgia
IA: Progress Iowa
MA: ProgressMass
MI: Progress Michigan
MN: Alliance for a Better Minnesota (ABM)
MO: Progress Missouri
NC: Progress North Carolina
NE: Bold Nebraska
NH: Granite State Progress
NM: Progress New Mexico
NV: ProgressNow Nevada
OH: ProgressOhio
PA: Keystone Progress
TX: Progress Texas
UT: Alliance for a Better Utah
VA: Progress Virginia
WA: Fuse Washington
WI: One Wisconsin Now (OWN)

Twitter: @ProgressNow
Facebook: ProgressNow

www.ProgressNow.org

-- 
-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "big campaign" group. Moderated by Aniello, Lori and Sara. 

This is a list of individuals. It is not affiliated with any group or organization.
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "big campaign" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email-masked].
To post to this group, send email to [email-masked].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.