November 4, 2009

The Case Against Michelle Rhee

Posted by Aaron Tang at 1:16PM

• 3 Comments
• Email
• Print
• Reprints
• Share

Amid calls for critically-acclaimed Chancellor of Schools Michelle Rhee to defend her decision to fire 266 teachers last month, the national headquarters for the city's teacher union issued an interesting advertisement in Friday's Washington Post (full ad pictured below; click on it for a zoom-able view).

The conflict over Ms. Rhee's leadership decisions is a debate about style as much as it is about substance; most of the hard questions from D.C. council members at a hearing last Thursday reflected a concern over her autocratic decision-making process and not about her goals and intentions. Which is what makes the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) advertisement so interesting.

If you look at the ad, the first thing to notice is that the message is not readily apparent -- it takes at least some careful inspection to decipher the specific meaning and criticism against Rhee. In today's era of fast-paced media I wonder how many people even bothered to figure out the whole meaning of the ad.

But setting that aside, one has to wonder about the merits of the point that the AFT is making, on at least two fronts.

First, is the AFT saying that the only thing stopping D.C.'s students from making significant progress is that Rhee and the district's administrators are not collaborating with teachers in a respectful manner? If that's the case, one has to wonder whether the AFT would describe the city's schools as successful in the pre-Rhee years, when more union-friendly school chancellors like Clifford Janey, Arlene Ackerman and others were at the helm.

An honest response from the AFT would have to concede that the schools were no better during those years where collaboration and respect existed. It simply cannot be the case that the fate of student learning rises and falls with how nicely superintendents treat teachers and their union reps. As a simple example, a district would be remarkably "collaborative" and "respectful" if it cut teacher work hours in half and refused to fire any teachers even if they were negligent -- but it's hard to see how students would benefit from those changes.

Second, and perhaps more important, I think the AFT ad ignores the fundamental question in regards to D.C. student achievement -- and in doing so, it accidentally sends a boomerang attack at Rhee that bounces back with equally forceful criticism against the union itself.

You see, Michelle Rhee isn't autocratic and stubborn in her interactions with teachers just for heck of it; she's not taking a hard-line position with the union just to give them a hard time. Relations are strained because Rhee and the union disagree about key areas of policy concern. Should chronically bad teachers be fired? Should good teachers be paid more than bad ones? Should the city allow teachers who are inspiring remarkable learning gains among their students to earn in excess of six figures?

Rhee says yes to all of these questions; the union so far has said no. And therein lies the problem: "collaboration" and "respect" are a two-way street. In identifying the D.C. public school reform equation as lacking the two ingredients of teacher collaboration and respect, the AFT national office is as much criticizing D.C. teachers for failing to meet Rhee halfway in a respectful manner as much as it is criticizing Rhee!

The problem for the union, of course, is that this hide-the-ball advertisement is more palatable than a straight up response to Rhee's substantive policy suggestions. An AFT full-page ad saying, "All teachers should be paid the same regardless of how well they teach" would not win over many hearts and minds...