DAPAT GAJI RP.1JUTA SATU HARI
Tidak perlu keahlian khusus, bisa dijalankan siapapun walau orang gaptek
PASSIF INCOME RP. 40 JUTA
SISTEM MESIN UANG UANG OTOMATIS, SANGAT POPULER DIJAMIN TIDAK AKAN KECEWA APALAGI RUGI
 |
| Rhee KKK Fashion Dolls |
Erasing the Rhee Miracle |
Why the Venom |
A ton of smart people have already written a lot of smart critiques of “Erase to the Top”– otherwise known as the unfolding story about testing “irregularities” in the DC Public Schools under then-chancellor Michelle Rhee. (RheeFirst has a collection of all the coverage here.) So I won’t do a whole big prose-y deal today– it’s been done. However, as far as I can tell, I am the first to tell this story in the style of Dr. Seuss. EnjoyDirect you tube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tAc6bcMetDM&feature=player_embedded
Featuring Candi Peterson, blogger in residence and candidate for WTU General Vice PresidentSeverance Pay |
Cooperation and Collaboration |
And remember how loyal she can be when her man, chicken-hawk charter school operator and Mayor Kevin Johnson, gives special tutoring to 16-year-old girls, lots of 16-year-old girls. You know when Michelle falls, she falls hard. How many other women in a position of great power would risk it all to cover up child molestation? It's the stuff of romance novels and indictments. Thankfully the one DC teacher that she said had sex with the student wasn't her betrothed and he could be let go along with 265 other teachers several months after the incident.
Are children who do well on kindergarten tests destined to do better in life, based on who they are? Or are their teacher and classmates changing them?
The Tennessee experiment, known as Project Star, offered a chance to answer these questions because it randomly assigned students to a kindergarten class. As a result, the classes had fairly similar socioeconomic mixes of students and could be expected to perform similarly on the tests given at the end of kindergarten.
Yet they didn’t. Some classes did far better than others. The differences were too big to be explained by randomness. (Similarly, when the researchers looked at entering and exiting test scores in first, second and third grades, they found that some classes made much more progress than others.)
Class size — which was the impetus of Project Star — evidently played some role. Classes with 13 to 17 students did better than classes with 22 to 25.
Peers also seem to matter. In classes with a somewhat higher average socioeconomic status, all the students tended to do a little better.
But neither of these factors came close to explaining the variation in class performance. So another cause seemed to be the explanation: teachers.
Mr. Chetty and his colleagues .... estimate that a standout kindergarten teacher is worth about $320,000 a year. That’s the present value of the additional money that a full class of students can expect to earn over their careers. This estimate doesn’t take into account social gains, like better health and less crime.
They can pay their best teachers more, as Pittsburgh soon will, and give them the support they deserve. Administrators can fire more of their worst teachers, as Michelle Rhee, the Washington schools chancellor, did last week.Ah, yes. good ole Michelle, their hero. It has nothing to do with the higher salaries of senior teachers. Shame on Leonhardt, an economics writer.
Schools can also make sure standardized tests are measuring real student skills and teacher quality, as teachers’ unions have urged.Sure, "teachers unions" - meaning ed deformer Randi Weinngarten. Does Leonhardt not know about this? Important new study about huge error rates in value-added teacher evaluation
Should our education system tolerate inadequate and ineffective teachers? Um, no. (Duh.) As a teacher I could barely tolerate inadequate and ineffective teachers...they make the jobs of rockstar teachers that much harder and do NOTHING to improve the educational outcomes for children. In fact, I'm sure some of them are subtracting opportunities and knowledge from children, but that's just a hunch.
Should teachers be held to high standards as professionals? Of course they should. We are not idiots, and we can handle high standards as we are professional individuals who not only work hard to do our best everyday in our classrooms but actively seek out ways to improve our practice.
Should all of us be treated like morons because a few of us blow? Should we be subjected to checklists of discrete skills that masquerade as the only markers of good teaching? Should we work in fear that someone is going to catch us *gasp* spending an extra ten minutes on our science lesson, thus rendering us task OFF time and, as a result and according to many Checklists of Effectiveness, INeffective?
I take issue with the system of evaluation (IMPACT) which utilizes both "value added" (buzz word alert!) test score data and classroom observation.
I will leave the discussion of "value added-ness" to my colleagues out there who enjoy discussing and tearing apart numbers (Skoolboy, care to weigh in??) and will now focus on the reliability of classroom observations.
Now I know I am only a sample of one, but in my experience, observations have been canceled at the last minute, scheduled at the last minute, absently watched and blatantly hi-jacked. Let's see, there was the time that my administrator suggested that I post a chart that she was sitting in front of at the time. (Way to go powers of observation!) Then there was the time I was told, "Let's just skip it all together. You're fine." Or the time when my suggestions for follow up were cut and pasted out of another colleague's observation report, AND considering we taught different grades and were observed in different subjects, were less than relevant or helpful. Ooo! How about the time I begged for feedback on my teaching and was told, "No."
Can we please base my salary and job security on that? 'Cuz it seems like fun. Like a big old carnival game or something. But more rigged and with no stuffed prize at the end.
ied to run a convenience store much less the DCPS. It's hard to believe they're all wrong but I will cling desperately with the Washington Post to a time, not so long ago, when things were not so clear about the capabilities and competencies of our Michelle of Arc.Dear Unconflicted Readers:
As I wrote in the last issue of themail, apologists for Schools Chancellor Michelle Rhee argue that there was no conflict of interest or self-dealing when she negotiated agreements with foundations that donated millions of dollars to the DC Public Schools, and allowed the foundations to condition those gifts on the requirement that the leadership of DCPS not change — in other words, that she keep her job. The first defense of Rhee is that she didn’t personally negotiate the agreements with the foundations that guaranteed her job. That’s factually wrong. Bill Turque’s useful description of the prolonged negotiations between DCPS and the Washington Teachers Union (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/dcschools/2010/06/on_the_road_to_a_deal_gridlock.html) contains this passage: “After a seven-hour meeting in mid-December [2009] ended with handshakes and high-fives, the talks were over in earnest. But the tentative agreement wasn’t complete because Rhee had to sell the deal to the private foundations needed to help finance the contract’s rich financial package, including a 21.6 percent raise and the performance pay plan. In 2008, Rhee said the commitments were firm. But the length of the talks had taken a toll. ‘Apparently [the foundations] were a little more difficult than she anticipated,’ Schmoke said. Rhee said that because of confidentiality agreements, she was limited in what she could tell private funders at the Broad, Robertson, Walton and Arnold foundations about the talks while they were ongoing. ‘The donors were waiting for a long time. They thought we were going to do this in July of 08,’ Rhee said. By the time a deal was finally at hand, she said, the funders didn’t feel compelled to rush.” Obviously, some part of the negotiations with the foundations may have been carried out by Rhee’s subordinates, but just as obviously Rhee was in charge of those negotiations for DCPS. If she objected to a clause that guaranteed her continued employment, she could have had it removed.
The second defense is that the foundations’ agreements contained nothing of personal value to Rhee. That can’t be taken seriously. Guaranteed employment is of value. The agreements may not have contained clauses that called for a raise in Rhee’s pay, but they contained clauses that were of greater personal value to her than a raise would have been — the threat that the millions of dollars the foundations were promising DCPS would be withdrawn if Rhee were fired. If someone approached your employer and guaranteed it millions of dollars of business on the condition that it continued to employ you, wouldn’t that be of value to you?
The third defense of Rhee is that this kind of job guarantee clause is common in grant agreements, that “everyone does it.” There are two responses to that. The first is simple: prove it. Show us the agreements that the DC government has entered into with foundations, nonprofit organizations, or corporations in which a gift to government is conditional on the government administrators of a department or agency remaining in their jobs. If there are such agreements, we need to have them exposed; we need to know what other government officials are negotiating that benefit themselves. The second is that even if other government officials have negotiated such deals in their own interest, it is still wrong. Public officials are supposed to deal in the public’s interests and on the public’s behalf, and not to benefit themselves.
The final defense of Rhee is that the agreements with the foundations were actually signed by the DC Public Education Fund, rather than by DCPS. But the Public Education Fund acted solely as a pass through, and not as an independent dispenser of the funds. DCPS was the designated beneficiary of the funds; there was no chance that the DC Public Education Fund would give them to another organization; there is no evidence that it acted in any way independently of DCPS or Chancellor Rhee. Rhee and Fenty created the DC Public Education Fund, and the director of the Fund is a close personal friend of Rhee’s, who even hosted Rhee’s engagement party.
In the end, the argument that the Office of Campaign Finance has no reason to investigate the charge that Chancellor Rhee had a conflict of interest or acted in a self-dealing way in negotiating the foundations’ gifts with these conditions fails — unless it is means simply, “We like Rhee; don’t question anything she does.”
Gary Imhoff
themail@dcwatch.com
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
