G.F. Brandenburg Deconstructs Rhee

14 Comments Post your own or leave a trackback: Trackback URL

1. teachingeconomisot says:

   June 1, 2013 at 11:23 pm

   Did the achievement gap get bigger because the relatively high achieves archived relatively more? If so, perhaps there was a better education for each.

   Reply
   • EdHarris says:

     June 2, 2013 at 12:16 am

     If you go to the various explanations of the data by Guy, you will see that there was not a better education for the low achievers. If you don’t believe Guy’s examinations, he links to the DC-CAS website with the test data.

     Reply
     • teachingeconomist says:

       June 2, 2013 at 12:35 am

       Was it a worse for low achieves or did the gap increase because low achieves did not improve but high achieves did improve?

     • elder_wise says:

       June 2, 2013 at 5:41 am

       You can see it all here: http://gfbrandenburg.wordpress.com/?s=NAEP+gap&submit=Search

     • teachingeconomist says:

       June 2, 2013 at 9:13 am

       It appears that nationally and in large cities both low achievers and high achievers are improving. If what we are concerned with is a better education for each, this is good news. I take it that the overriding concern for the fact that high achievers are improving faster than low achievers here means that if we are concerned with a better education for all this is not good news.

     • EdHarris says:

       June 2, 2013 at 9:16 am

       In DCPS, under Rhee and Henderson, the low ones are not improving.

   • Duane Swacker says:

     June 2, 2013 at 7:58 am

     What’s an “achieves”?

     And what does “the relatively high achieves archived relatively more” mean?

     I’m “confundido”.

     Reply
     • Alan says:

       June 2, 2013 at 8:32 am

       Another victim of autocorrect, methinks.

     • teachingeconomist says:

       June 2, 2013 at 9:05 am

       In the context of an NBA playoff series it is to win the best of seven games. In the context of these exams it is to consistently score relatively high scores.

2. elder_wise says:

   June 2, 2013 at 5:25 am

   The first lie was “We as educators”… She is not an educator. She’s a former failed TFAer and policy wonk who has been the recipient of crony appointments, such as in TNTP and as DC chancellor.

   Rhee’s StudentsFirst organization has been getting millions from the Waltons since 2011, to “shape public policy” See the Grant Reports at the Walton Foundation website for the list of recipients over the years: http://www.waltonfamilyfoundation.org/about/2012-grant-report/ Be sure to check out who else the Waltons have been supporting, including major recipients TFA and KIPP.

   Reply
3. Chiara says:

   June 2, 2013 at 8:23 am

   The part that’s amusing is how incredibly politically connected she is.
   She’s plugged in to political leaders in both Parties, many on a personal level, not to mention her popularity with wealthy media celebrities.
   It makes me laugh when reformers talk about “union bosses”. Rhee gives a directive and leaders in both Parties ask “how high”?
   Union bosses could only dream of that kind of clout.

   Reply
   • Alan says:

     June 2, 2013 at 8:35 am

     I’m wondering what this mysterious,incredibly influential and powerful teachers union is so I can join; they certainly cannot be describing the AFT or NEA.

     Reply
     • Chiara says:

       June 2, 2013 at 11:41 am

       I just think it’s fascinating how her (obvious) political connections are ignored, while there’s this droning, lockstep chorus from media and reform industry salespeople about “unions versus Rhee”

       Absolute nonsense. Rhee is as politically plugged in as a person can get. She’s got Obama, Duncan, both Bushes and half the governors taking orders.

       Again, a level of clout “union bosses” can only dream of.

   • Cosmic Tinker says:

     June 2, 2013 at 9:22 am

     I think you give Rhee more credit than she deserves. She’s the lackey serving neo-liberal capitalists in both parties and the one willing to jump when asked (and paid.)

     Reply