Damm Michelle Rhee! - Gabriel

So I'm reading an article in Time that's about how Michelle Rhee, the Superintendent of D.C. schools. I have some serious problems here. So we're early in this blog and it's worth mentioning that I was an urban school teacher and administrator for six years and am a doctoral student in educational leadership.

The author, Amanda Ripley, explains that "Rhee has promised to make Washington the highest-performing urban school district in the nation, a prospect that, if realized, could transform the way schools across the country are run. She is attempting to do this through a relentless focus on finding--and rewarding--strong teachers, purging incompetent ones and weakening the tenure system that keeps bad teachers in the classroom."

Holding teachers accountable? Getting bad teachers out of school? These are new ideas that are going to transform education? OHHHH! Have good teachers instead of bad ones?

The best part is the explanation of how Rhee is going to get it done. Ripley's description of Rhee's leadership style. "Rhee is, as a rule, far nicer to students than to most adults. In many private encounters with officials, bureaucrats and even fundraisers--who have committed millions of dollars to help her reform the schools--she doesn't smile or nod or do any of the things most people do to put others at ease. She reads her BlackBerry when people talk to her. I have seen her walk out of small meetings held for her benefit without a word of explanation."

So I get it, the key to better schools-->Leadership by self-centered meanness and being rude to people. What I want in a school leader, after all, is some one who isn't interested in learning from others. Reads her phone in meetings? She's the head of a school district not a ninth grader. I love how she models good behavior for all her compliant, testable students to follow. Not to mention her teachers.

Also, "She says things most superintendents would not. "The thing that kills me about education is that it's so touchy-feely," she tells me one afternoon in her office. Then she raises her chin and does what I come to recognize as her standard imitation of people she doesn't respect. Sometimes she uses this voice to imitate teachers; other times, politicians or parents. Never students. "People say, 'Well, you know, test scores don't take into account creativity and the love of learning,'" she says with a drippy, grating voice, lowering her eyelids halfway. Then she snaps back to herself. "I'm like, 'You know what? I don't give a crap.' Don't get me wrong. Creativity is good and whatever. But if the children don't know how to read, I don't care how creative you are. You're not doing your job.""

Ok, I like this. Students need to learn to read. I totally agree. It depresses me. I try to make sure that the teachers I work with are helping students read. Does anyone actually think that a relentless focus on standardized testing will help. This is such a confusion of ideas.

Being mean to people does not equal getting the best teachers. She struggled her first year. By her own standards, she would not have remained an educator. In fact, the description in the article notes that her only success came when she had the same students for two years. Now that actually is a novel, interesting idea. A shame that she doesn't promote it.