My suspicion is that they know very little of the other side of the arguemnts. Why would Fenty be an expert on the “nuts and bolts” of education? Rhee strikes me as an extreme example of a true believer who is absolutely convinced of the righteous of her cause.

But regardless – and I’m no expert on the motives of a person who I never met – if you play out the chess game, it is hard to imagine a beneficial outcome to her current approach. Let’s just say that she wants a fair evaluation system. Then, she should remember that actions speak louder than words. Given her public stance, how many administrators would naturally conclude that “scorch and burn” is the preferred path to career advancement. Let’s just say that 1/5th or 1/4th (or any other percentage of administrators),evaluate teachers in a trustworthy manner, while a comparable percentage reacted by attacking teachers, and the rest came out somewhere in between? Ask the same question about a teaching force split in a comparable way? Do you want the poison of slash and burn politics and of manipulating data and the extreme stress of an “accountability culture” to create a civil war in buildings full of school children?

On the other hand, let’s just say that her fortitude has created circumstances where she was willing to negotiate. What if she engaged in a discussion of methods for creating fair evaluations? Rhee, the D.C. union, and national unions, and Rhee big pocket donors would have every incentive to proceed in good faith. (And Kevin, given your commitment to accountability you should support such a “give and take” process. You don’t want all forms of data-driven accountability to replace NCLB as the most tarnished brand in education.)

If Rhee was willingly to listen to people who are equally sincere and to compromise, she would have so much more support in the union, including support from Baby Boomers like me.

Regardless of Rhee’s motives and regardless of the source of her energy, I’d love to be in the same coalition. I’d love to be working with her for a full range of compromises that could inform the Obama Ed Dept. I hate having to fight Dems, especially ones that are to the Left of me. But I’ve seen the damage done to my kids, and my first priority, tied with several others, is to resist the accountability regimes that are so alien to my values, as well as damaging to so many poor students.

I don’t deny that her approaches to accountability make sense to her in her efforts to help the urban kids she has seen in her career. Why can’t she listen to people with different experiences? Why can’t she see the benefits of compromise?

john thompson

I’m curious, is it that you think Fenty and Rhee genuinely want to improve the school system, but are just misguided in how to do so? Or do you think they’re pursuing another agenda? If so, what?

Here you have a mayor and schools chancellor who’ve staked their careers and reputations on turning around the school system. To do that, it’s vitally important for them to hire, retain, and support good teachers. It would, therefore, be shockingly dumb to start arbitrarily firing good teachers or otherwise treat them unfairly. Fenty and Rhee have every incentive to make sure their evaluation process is sound.

So, why not put the evaluation process down on paper? If this was a good faith offer, then Rhee would have every incentive to work out a fair evaluation system in advance.

You are absolutely right in arguing that:

But when there’s real accountability and public scrutiny, the incentives change, and policies like tying teacher pay to performance, defined in part by managerial judgment, start to make a lot more sense.

If that is what you want, then urge Rhee to adopt that negotiating goal. If that was her goal, she would get it done. If Rhee were to offer persuasive evidence that she is trustworthy, teachers would be idiots to reject her offer. But if her real goal is a “sound” evaluation system, her tactics are not rational.

Your refusal to acknowledge this basic dynamic of Human Relations 101 leads to another blind spot. Human being and systems of human beings are not completely rational.

You guys who worship accountability – as opposed to considering accountability as one characteristic of education – are so incestuous in re-enforcing your HYPOTHESES that you haven’t played the chess game out. If Rhee got what she’s asking for, and did not also change her approach to evaluating people, it would rip the district apart. Yes, She and Fenty would loose their jobs, but there would be no guarenatee that public education in D.C. – which already is in such horrible shape -could recover.

That gets back to the recurring complaint that you refuse to address. There is no law in Heavan that says that our high poverty neighborhood urban schools can’t crater. If NCLB II prompted more of the destructive responses that were prompted by NCLB I, then many urban districts might never recover.

I have no doubt that most of your friends and co-workers support a data driven accountability system that is similar to yours, and that might explain why you don’t understand why supporters of accountability are so steadfastly opposed to your accountability approaches. But I know hundreds of educators, and I don’t think I know a single one personally who supports NCLB. Are we all deluded?

We are just as smart as you. We are just as sincere. Why won’t you even consider the possibility that we have a vast body of practical knowledge of systems, and that you should listen to our experience?