After strongly implying that the reason that she fired 266 teachers was that they were sexual perverts, sadists towards children, and never came to work, Rhee has once again put a “spin” on her comments. As you have probably read elsewhere, Rhee told a “Fast Company” reporter, “I got rid of teachers who had hit children, who had had sex with children, who had missed 78 days of school. Why wouldn’t we take those things into consideration?”
In a letter to the City Council Rhee has backtracked somewhat, saying that there was exactly ONE teacher out of the 266 who had been charged with sexual misconduct; but that teacher’s case has not been brought to a conclusion one way or the other. She also said that there were a total of SIX teachers who had at one time or another served suspensions for corporal punishment. Out of two hundred and sixty-six. And TWO who were accused of having had absences without leave. Let’s see: 1 + 6 + 2 = 9, I think. (Did I get that right?) And 9 out of 266 is a little more than 3 percent.
(Keep in mind that teachers can be, and often ARE, accused of corporal punishment or sexual misconduct without any basis in fact. I have seen it happen at my school. Also keep in mind that apparently neither the sexual misconduct case, nor the abuse of leave cases, had been brought to a conclusion. I don’t know any of the facts in any of the cases, and I don’t presume anything, one way or another.)
It is really shameful of Rhee to tar all of the staff that she illegitimately fired with such a nasty brush. But it’s so typical of her; like Ronald Reagan, she is utterly convinced of the rightfulness of her cause, and she seldom lets facts get in the way of her just-so stories.
By one account, in the same letter, Rhee apparently peddled the big lie that she can never fire anybody for misconduct like the cases she alleges, because of the big bad old union contract. That is a flat-out lie. What having the union does is much like the promise behind the Bill of Rights and the theory behind American jurisprudence: accusations need to be substantiated, one is presumed innocent until proven guilty, and anybody charged needs to be accorded due process in one way or another. Can a teacher or other school staff member get fired for actual, proven sexual misconduct with a student, or for a gross instance of proven corporal punishment? Absolutely! In fact, I can’t think of an easier way for a teacher to lose his/her job.
What Rhee is really complaining about is that she doesn’t think that teachers or other school staff know anything, are pretty much all evil malingerers, and don’t deserve any rights whatsoever. Unless they have clearly hitched their wagon to hers. (I bet you get the allusion!)
There used to be a word for people who believe that workers inherently have no rights to collective bargaining, nor to due process when accused of anything. This sort of person also believes that the true Leaders are better than anybody else, and deserve to be followed no matter what. Their present-day counterparts pull out all the stops to stop any attempt at union organizing in any US factory; believe that anybody accused of ‘terrorism’ should be tortured and held indefinitely without any charges, a trial, or the right to confront their accusers. Their educational counterparts – in my opinion – would like to boil down the educational process to little more than getting a certain number of answers right on multiple-choice tests in only two subjects, and believe that teachers are not to be trusted to come up with interesting or inspiring lesson plans.
Back in the 20th century, such people were quite proud to call themselves Fascists. Although they call label themselves differently today, I don’t see a whole lot of difference. And I don’t think we need to stand for it.
GFBrandenburg's Blog 
Yes, yes, yes! Exactly!
LikeLike
I believe she made the comments in order to further justify and solidify support for her actions in RIF’ing the teachers in October. When there is an inkling of public doubt about her abilities, she fabricates more controversy to instill fear in those still in the teaching ranks.In speaking with former colleagues who work in DCPS (some brand new and some veteran), the vibe is that this is their last year here. The idea being to get out while one still can. As a newly hired teacher who was wrongfully terminated in October,just seeing the amount of power that Rhee has been given coupled with zero accountability is enough to squash my desire to return someday.
LikeLike
In all honesty, I could not recommend to anybody to take a job under the administration of Michelle Rhee.
LikeLike
Also note that she doesn’t explicitly say that all nine were teachers – she often uses the word “employees”in her letter to the Council – which could mean support staff – as some of them were RIFd too
LikeLike
The Post pulled this Monday night:
One newspaper, two stories
Many of you may have noticed something more than a tad odd Tuesday morning in our coverage of Chancellor Rhee’s now immortal comments to “Fast Company.” My story, which appeared on the front of the Metro section, said that Rhee had yet to explain or elaborate, and that there would be no comment until later in the day. My Monday evening blog entry said pretty much the same thing.
The editorial page told a different story. Citing “information released by the chancellor’s office on Monday,” it said that of the 266 teachers laid off in October, six had served suspensions for corporal punishment, two had been absent without leave on multiple occasions, and one was on administrative leave for allegedly having sex with a student.
So, after asking DCPS about this since Friday–and being promised a response all day Monday–I read the answers in an editorial. Channel 4’s Tom Sherwood also had Rhee’s explanation on the air Monday.
But it’s the disconnect between the editorial page and the news section that I feel requires some kind explanation. So let me try.
The news and opinion columns of The Post are wholly separate and independent operations. This assertion frequently draws a torrent of skepticism, but if this episode does nothing else, it should give the lie to the notion that there is some sort of sinister linkage. I have little-to-no contact with Jo-Ann Armao, who writes The Post’s education editorials (full disclosure: Jo-Ann hired me in 2002 when she was the assistant managing editor for metro news; but we’re all allowed a lapse of judgment now and then). About the only time we cross paths is at news events involving District education. Jo-Ann is a dogged journalist who pursues her own information.
That includes talking to Chancellor Rhee. And while I don’t have their call sheets in front of me, I would wager that the Chancellor talks to Jo-Ann more than she does to me. (After a well-documented period of silence, the Chancellor started taking my calls and e-mails again last summer)
That’s fine. Chancellor Rhee can obviously talk to whoever she wants about whatever she wants. While some of my colleagues don’t agree, my view is that Jo-Ann isn’t responsible for watching my back journalistically any more than I would be expected to align my reporting with her points of view.
The chancellor is clearly more comfortable speaking with Jo-Ann, which is wholly unsurprising. I’m a beat reporter charged with covering, as fully and fairly as I can, an often turbulent story about the chancellor’s attempts to fix the District’s public schools. The job involves chronicling messy and contentious debates based in both politics and policy, and sometimes publishing information she would rather not see in the public domain.
Jo-Ann, on the other hand, sits on an editorial board whose support for the chancellor has been steadfast, protective and, at times, adoring.
That’s what editorial boards do. They form opinions and write about them. People can buy in.
Or not.
Where this gets complicated is that board’s stance, and the chancellor’s obvious rapport with Jo-Ann, also means that DCPS has a guaranteed soft landing spot for uncomfortable or inconvenient disclosures–kind of a print version of the Larry King Show. This happened last September during the flap over the out-of-boundary admission of Mayor Fenty’s twin sons to Lafayette Elementary in Chevy Chase.
The chancellor repeatedly sidestepped questions about whether policies and procedures had been followed to place the kids in the coveted school. A few days after the dust settled, an editorial offered, without attribution, an “innocent explanation”: the Fentys neighborhood school, West Elementary, had only one fourth grade class. Lafayette’s multiple fourth-grade sections made it possible to separate the twins, which studies show is developmentally desirable.
Are Fenty and Rhee gaming the system by using the editorial page this way? Of course. Is this a healthy thing for readers of The Post? Probably not. Is it going to keep me from doing my job effectively?
Nope.
Follow D.C. Schools Insider every day at http://washingtonpost.com/dcschoolsinsider.
For all the Post’s Education coverage, please see http://washingtonpost.com/education. Or follow us on our Facebook fan page, or on our Twitter feed “PostSchools”.
LikeLike
I think that Bill Turque and Valerie Strauss are both doing an excellent job covering the ins and outs and scandals of education in the District of Columbia, and in not just falling for the nonsense peddled about Rhee being such a staunch reformer.
Often, telling the truth has consequences.
I certainly hope you are both able to keep it up, and to keep your jobs!
LikeLike
At first, I thought Bill Turque was posing as Edmund Harris and posting his column here because he was pissed at his bosses for deleting it. No such glory, not so much drama. I got it wrong. Edmund Harris just posted the column that the WaPo took down (and apparently now has put back up, ‘sanitized’.)
LikeLike
Also, here’s an article about 2 DC area teachers falsely accused of abue:
False Accusations Make Teacher’s Life a Nightmare
http://articles.latimes.com/2000/mar/26/news/mn-12749
His reputation sullied, teacher commits suicide
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/02/15/his_reputation_sullied_teacher_commits_suicide/
LikeLike
Bill Turque’s blog is back up.
Original version:
Jo-Ann, on the other hand, sits on an editorial board whose support for the chancellor has been steadfast, protective and, at times, adoring
New, airbrushed version:
Jo-Ann, on the other hand, sits on an editorial board whose support for the chancellor has been steadfast.
LikeLike
The fact that the Post Editorial Board took the story down and “edited” it to make it sound more pleasing to the power-players in DC politics…what a disgusting thing to do and then call yourself journalist.
LikeLike
The count and details should be irrelevant. It is unfortunate that you make them so.
A Chancellor with integrity would have insisted on answering questions about such accusations by saying something like this.
“If there were ongoing charges of misconduct by severed employees, they were and must be separate from the RIF. I will not answer any questions about an overlap; and I don’t want to even know whether there was an overlap. I have no reason to believe so. I have separately released the criteria which were used in the RIF, which, you will recall, was caused by under – enrollment at some schools, and a smaller than expected budget. I thank those teachers who were RIFfed for their service, and sincerely regret having been forced to sever employment without the best evaluation practices, ones which we are, in my third year here, putting into place.”
LikeLike
As is often the case, Harry, I do not understand your point at all.
LikeLike
First off, Rhee made the public comment, “I fired teachers (PLURAL—repeat—PLURAL) who had sex with students. At the risk of being graphic, that means one party (a teacher) making oral, genital, and/or anal contact with another party’s (the student’s/s’) oral, genital, and/or anal parts.
Keep that in mind when evaluating Rhee’s quote.
Also, you should amend your comment “there was exactly ONE teacher out of the 266 who had been charged with sexual misconduct”.
Even this term “charged” should be downgraded to “accused”. The world “charged” implies sufficient evidence for a police arrest, booking, etc.
This could mean that a student “accused” a teacher, and the teacher was questioned by the police, but the matter was dropped, or still pending. Students have made been known to make false accusations against teachers for various ignoble reasons.
Also, the nature of the accusation “sexual misconduct” could mean inappropriate comments to the students—off-color joking, etc..
Also, there’s a rumor of a D.C. teacher having sex with a maintenance person. While that’s pretty out-there behavior—remember George Costanza on Seinfeld, “Hey, if I’d only known that was wrong, I never would’e done it… ” — such an act hardly fits the “had sex with students” quote from Rhee.
Again, “sex with students” means one party (a teacher) making oral, genital, and/or anal contact with another party’s (the student’s/s’) oral, genital, and/or anal parts.
In short, Rhee is — to borrow a phrase from Louis May Alcott — “a lying c*nt.”
LikeLike
There’s likely no helping it from me, Guy. But, I’ll repeat that your role in continuing the damage would have been greater had this not been played so well. Did WaPo sue to get a release of a large count of (unfounded) claims? Students of leaks recognize this pattern, while you did not. Rhee’s claim drew attention, most of it negative toward teachers with the public she cares about. Quibbles over even a factor of three (one offender or three?) were trumped with a blast not just to the reputations of those laid off, but to whole teaching corps.
Finally, I simulated an honorable response from a good Chancellor.
You were suckered, Guy. You may not agree, but now do you get my point? You fell for the false premise trick, answered when you stopped beating your wife.
LikeLike
There you go again, Harry.
LikeLike