Former head of the DC Am. Fed of Teachers local hops on the Ed Deform gravy train with Rhee

Exhibit A for why the AFT isn't going to do shit for teachers.... half the leadership is out for the main chance -- at best.


When they were challenging him for the leadership of the Washington, D.C. teachers union (Local 6 of the American Federation of Teachers) union activists in the opposition were publicly dissatisfied with the concessions George Parker made to D.C. schools chancellor Michelle Rhee. Parker's union contract, which eventually cost him the union presidency, was heavy on "teacher accountability", including merit pay. Especially odious, noted by many, was the fact that Rhee had purged hundreds of D.C. teachers, slandering them in the process as "bad teachers" (and in some cases, sex perverts). Throughout her brief time in D.C., Rhee's high profile media attacks on teacher unions and public schools increased in intensity.

Rhee was viewed by most of the members of the Washington D.C. local of the AFT as a racist who not only fired massive numbers of African American teachers, but slandered them in the process. Like Arne Duncan, who did the same thing in Chicago under the corporate "Renaissance 2010" program and "turnarounds", Rhee was scapegoating urban teachers for the failures of capitalist society and the economy, and since most of those teachers in D.C. were and are black, after she left the D.C. position she needed some "black cover" to continue her career. George Parker has agreed to join those who are giving it to her and her operations.

Then, in a brief period of time, Rhee's sponsor, D.C. Mayor Adrian Fenty, lost his re-election bid, mainly because of Rhee's corporate antics, Rhee left the school system she claimed she was devoted to — and formed a group — "Students First". With immediate backing from The Wall Street Journal and many of the wealthy individuals and groups that had touted her time in D.C., Rhee was again in the corporate school reform business, this time with claims she will raise a billion dollars to really finally and absolutely put Michelle Rhee's version of what's best for the nation's public school children in the forefront of the corporate agenda for "education reform."

But even George Parker's machinations as President of the Washington D.C. union didn't prepare his former supporters and friends for the May 20 announcement by Parker that he was hooking up with Rhee and becoming the African American ("I was a union president...") face of Rhee's version of school reform...

http://www.substancenews.net/articles.php?page=2273§ion=Article

Calling someone the "African American face" of something you disapprove of, and then, calling attention to the races of other participants in a negative manner?

"Interestingly, nobody has as year revealed what Rhee's group will pay Parker for joining Geoffrey Canada, Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson Sr. among the "bi-partisan" and multi-racial supporters of the union-busting, privatizing and charterizing version of corporate school reform. "

http://www.substancenews.net/articles.php?page=2273§ion=Article

What does the race of the supporters have to do with the substance of the article? Why mention it, twice, negatively?

falsely alleging that (among other things) they were sex perverts to justify her actions, and replaced them with inexperienced (and largely white/asian) TFA-ers?

What does race have to do with the fact that it's *black/hispanic* districts with high percentages of *black/hispanic* teachers that have been targeted *first* for ed deform -- i.e. for personal denigration, for firing, for attacks on seniority, wages, benefits, collective bargaining, etc.?

what does race have to do with the fact that people like *jeb bush* & institutions like goldman sachs are talking up how deeply they *care* about "civil rights" in a deeply cynical PR campaign to deskill & deunionize teachers & privatize & marketize education in the interest of corporate profit?

If you don't get what *race* has to do with urban ed deform you haven't been paying attention, or you don't care to acknowledge reality.

And I know you've been paying attention.

But you justify it by suggesting that it's okay to point out that the race of the people disagreeing with you, because these minorities are racist?

I think this a winning argument. The Socialists should make it at every opportunity.

and the article implies that high-profile minority faces are being cynically used to "sell" education deform to poor minorities, even though the major achievements of ed deform thus far =

1) increased segregation,
2) a decrease in the minority urban teaching corps;
3) no improvement or worsening of minority achievement in high-poverty urban districts (except via gaming the system).

You spin that into "pointing out the race of people disagreeing with you" because spin is what you do. I don't give a shit; same kind of cynical bullshit that sells marketization & privatization and deunionization as "civil rights" -- like this crap, which, while it never does anything so honest as "point out the race of people disagreeing with you" nevertheless cynically uses race to sell ed deform:

http://www.statebrief.com/briefblog/2011/05/16/education-freedom-is-civil-rights-issue-of-today/

myself, i prefer straightforward discussion to dishonest bullshit & cynical political 'correctness'.

education deform to poor minorities." It presumes that minority people on both ends of that transaction are not intelligent enough to see what you think is going on in their own communities. After all, why would the people in the community know what's best for it? That's what the professional left is for--to tell people how to be 'progressive.'

This attitude is not surprising--I find your lack of support for civil-rights lawsuits by minorities regarding their education to be part and parcel of the attitude expressed by many elites toward minorities. This attitude seems to be that only self-proclaimed intellectual elites can dictate to the masses what proper 'reform' is.

So, I think this is a winning strategy for the Socialists---tell minorities how they are doing it wrong. And how they aren't smart enough to realize that people like President Obama are racist. It's a good meme.

But right in line with your typical tactics, i.e. attacking the person rather than the substance.

And as I am neither an "elite," nor a spokesperson for "the socialists," nor part of any "professional left" (speaking of dog-whistles, and right-wing whistles to boot), nor do i have any power to "dictate" anything to anyone, nor did i say or imply anything like "people like Obama are racist," you can stick your spin where the sun don't shine.

No, "people like Obama" are aligned with the ruling and monied class.

But I get your point: if I point out that black/hispanic teachers are the main ones being denigrated & fired under the banner of "civil rights," I'm a racist.

And if I post an article which points out that the black former leader of the majority black DC *teachers union,* who helped sell the Rhee program of mass firings to his members, is now out shilling for ed deform with Rhee -- I'm a racist.

And per you, a lawsuit initiated by ed deformers in order to bust seniority protections in urban schools is a "civil rights" lawsuit, even though its major effect will be to decrease the number of experienced minority teachers -- because they found 5 minority parents who would sign on.

One can't talk about race in regard to ed deform, even though it's being sold on that basis.

Later for that spin.

Race does matter, but it may be the race of the chancellor more than the race of the teachers.

for the next year.

and she was able to do so because of a system that wasn't in effect when janey was in office.

so -- link?

And I'm sick of people outside of the District assuming they understand what goes on here. But, fine... off to Google

care what you're sick of, nor does your sickness mean you can make any claims you like & not have them challenged.

and as i've often seen you comment on political/social events/issues outside dc, maybe you should practice what you preach if you're so sick of it.

however, it appears that at DU most people don't share your feeling that the only people who can legitimately discuss regional political/social events = residents of the region.

Which was where most of them happened... I'll look for actual numbers, still (unlike Rhee, Janey had the sense not to brag about number fired as if it were a good thing.)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/25/AR2006112500841.html

And actually now that I think about it there's some double billing here, as it were, since Rhee's first round of firings was a confirmation of Janey's.

no firings discussed there.

fenty got rid of janey in 2007.

but you keep looking.

I was at the council hearings where the near-riot happened over it.

however, there is no discussion of teacher firings in the link you provided.

there is a discussion of replacing principals.

in most districts, it's my understanding that principals aren't part of collective bargaining agreements; they're management, and as management, they have always been subject to firing/replacement as per that status.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/08/AR2006070800719.html

King has a good post-Rhee column attacking the mythologizing on both sides:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/15/AR2010101505195.html

Also, IIRC that's the same 750 both put on notice (once again double-billing)

uncertified teachers are probationary employees contingent on completing certification within a given time frame. continuing to retain them short of that = violation of federal conditions for nclb funding & violation of local regs as well.

***


About 290 of the teachers had been hired since 2000. Most of the teachers, who had provisional licenses, failed to complete the college coursework needed for full certification, officials said.

The Washington Teachers' Union is disputing about 15 of the firings, according to union Vice President Nathan Saunders.

"When we look at the facts, we see errors which we question," Saunders said. "We're going through the process with human resources to rectify these issues."

**


the majority of rhee's firings (about 70%) were to *certified* teachers. i'd assume the same of those she put on notice.

Rhee fired 241 teachers, the vast majority of whom received poor evaluations, and put 737 additional school employees on notice.<28> Of the dismissed teachers, 76 were dismissed in accordance with the No Child Left Behind Act because they lacked proper teaching certification.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelle_Rhee

***

according to the articles you link, janey was persuaded not to dismiss other undertified teachers because it would be too hard to replace so many. they were given a year to finish the certification process.

however, rhee's "750" are said to be on notice because they received poor evaluations.

so i see no evidence it's the same people.



not to mention that her first round of firings was found by a judge to be "arbitrary & capricious".

I claimed (accurately) he fired more teachers, and did so much more quietly.

whatever they are, there was nothing arbitrary about their dismissal. nor were they covered by collective bargaining absent fulfillment of the requirements.

For that matter, blaming Fenty's loss mostly on Rhee is the nation at large projecting its own fights here; there isn't much daylight between Fenty and Gray on education.