DC Schools Chancellor Rhee (AKA The Broom Lady) gets the cover story in the soon to be released Decmber 8th issue of Time titled "How To Fix America's Schools". In the cover picture, Rhee appears with a broom. Sound eerily familiar to a former DC mayor Sharon Pratt Kelly who vowed to clean house with her infamous broom ? Some would argue that Rhee is on a singular mission to get rid of teachers (good and bad) and that she suffers from tunnel vision because she lacks multifaceted solutions to complex problems that plague public education and fails to include all of the stakeholders. Are you 'Yeah' or 'Nay' on Rhee's vision to save DC Public Schools ?
In the Time story, reporter Amanda Ripley reports 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..." Ripley also looks at where President-elect Obama stands on education. (This subject of what should happen to No Child Left Behind sparked interesting conversation by many on line commenters. Of particular interest to me is a comment posted by Suzie from Maryland. Suzie sums up her thoughts this way: " Rhee is right that too many crappy teachers stay way too long in some of our schools. But I think she as someone earlier said needs to get more of those involved on board. She can do that by looking at what problems other than bad teachers lead to low student achievement and working on those problems too. Her current tone and singular mission isn't the way to do it. Black and white answers to problems shaded in gray won't solve those problems."
Suzie's entire post: "Now I understand better where Dee was coming from in the previous post though I still don't agree with a lot of what she said. I'm guessing that Dee is a Rheephile..If I had to sum up everything I learned as a historian in two sentences: Very few things in history and life have one cause. Also, very few things in history and life have one solution..To get less technical, I will quote wvng and say that there's no magic pony. Very little in life is black and white. So when, according to the article, Rhee blames the lack of achievement by students in inner-city schools pretty much solely on teachers, that worries me. Yes, there are sucky teachers in schools. I taught alongside some of them. I agree that it should be easier to fire them. But teachers alone can't solve the problem, in my view, as I said the other day. A few extra thoughts: First, teaching is like any other skill. You can get better through practice and study of that skill, but some people are just naturally more talented than others. Yes, you can attract more talented teachers through pay incentives. But does Rhee really think there are enough genius-level teachers who are ALSO willing to work incredibly long hours (as would seem to be necessary, given her requirements for teachers) to staff EVERY classroom in EVERY school in EVERY city? Even at a high pay ?
Second, I will second (!) what several others have said. Rhee is going all-in on her plan. But where is the data to back up the miraculous results that she thinks will occur?
Third, she taught for three years. Three. The same number I taught for, also in an inner-city school. Obviously, I feel like I know enough to run off at the mouth about the topic on the Swampland website. But I also have many family members in education, and you won't find me anytime soon claiming that I personally know how to fix all public schools. It's hard to build a grassroots movement when you only got a glimpse of what those grassroots look like--and moreover, she seems to be more into top-down management than bottom-up leadership. Does she have any mechanism actually to help improve the skills of teachers she finds lacking, or is it simply "meet my somewhat unclear requirements, or you're fired"? Wouldn't it be somewhat less expensive in the long-run to train at least some "substandard" existing teachers to meet her standards, rather than firing all of them?
One last thing: The snide tone of much of what Rhee said was really troubling to me. The parts that particularly grated: "They bicker over small improvements such as class size and curriculum, like diplomats touring a refugee camp and talking about the need for nicer curtains." And: "In the hallway, she muttered about teachers who spend too much time cutting out elaborate bulletin-board decorations...".Here's my point: these things matter. Maybe not as much as getting rid of obviously incompetent teachers, but they do make a difference. I taught a class of twelve one semester, and another of 32. I'll give you one guess as to which group of students got the most attention to their individual needs and difficulties.
As far as those bulletin boards, my mom is a second-grade teacher whose results (which are actually provable! imagine that!) are pretty much those that Rhee wants. Mom has taken kids reading at a 1.0 level and gotten them to 3.0 by the end of the school year. And yes, she spends a lot of her own time after and before school working on bulletin boards, along with homework, lesson planning, parent contacts, etc.You know why? My mom has found that when kids--particularly young kids--have a cheerful, neat, and creative (apparently a deadly word for Rhee) environment around them in the classroom, they tend to be more orderly and excited about school. At the beginning of each year, Mom laminates cuts out a big, bright cardboard cupcake with a candle on it for each student, and puts their name and birthday on it. Silly? Maybe. But it tells each student that she cares about them as individuals, and they love it. It gives them a sense of investment in the class and in their teacher. It means something. It takes time, though--time that Rhee might say is a waste..." Friday- November 28, 2008- Picture and post courtesy of Time. (posted By The Washington Teacher).
Time story link : http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1862444,00.html
0 komentar:
Posting Komentar