Jan 27, 2010

Rhee's Slanderous Statements Of Teachers Leads DC Council To Seek Hearings

On January 27, 2010 DC Council member Marion Barry and other council members held a press conference at 2:30 p.m. to call upon Chairman Gray to conduct a hearing immediately into Chancellor Rhee’s claims against fired DCPS teachers, to express outrage over Chancellor Rhee’s recent comments e.g. “had sex with children” hit them or had unapproved excessive absences and to demand that Chancellor Rhee comes forth with names and actions taken against alleged abusers. Stay tuned as this story continues to unfold.


lodesterre said...

How very lame are her excuses. Absolutely no sense of the gravity of what she has done to these people. There is such the air of the petulant child about her - as if she were defiantly sticking out her chest and saying "WELL, They DESERVED it!" How often have we faced children in just this situation - caught in the act yet refusing to admit they've done anything wrong and even feeling justified and righteous about their actions. Pathetic.

Lindsey said...

This woman is out of control! She has been able to get away with murder...says what she wants to say, does what she wants to do......at any and all expense to teachers and students. I am sick of it!

I want the City Council, the WTU, and parents to hold her accountable, take her to task for her off color comments she made thinking no one would see them.
She is only able to do this because she is not being handled!

BTW, I saw Saunders quote about Rhee made the AOL.com (News Slide #1-Nationwide yesterday). At least that is one victory for teachers.....

Anonymous said...

lodesterre said it all. I agree.
This woman is a-moral, child-like, and very silly. She is a product of private school, and an Ivy league education, but she sounds-and-acts like a fool. This is what unqualified sounds and acts like. Where, oh, where is Clifford Janey?

Anonymous said...

MR get your broom and ride to Sacramento! KJ is the only one who wants you! LOL!

Anonymous said...

What the Post doesn't want you to read.
This was available Wednesday evening around 7:30, but gone after 9
Jo-Ann Armao, Rhee's main squeeze at the Post, was probably unhappy:
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.

Anonymous said...

the rest of the story:

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?


Anonymous said...

But she is still getting away with her lies. The Post is still supporting her and the general public is still buying the lies, we are mainly preaching to the choir on this blog. So even though this one seemed like the one to bring her down, she is still standing and the teachers are still suffering. Also, since more and more TFAs are getting good scores with IMPACT they are all happy and don't want to rock the boat. It's back to veteran vs newbie again.

Anonymous said...

Companion to comments 4&5, if they ever get posted:
The article is back on the Post with a telling edit:

Perestroika verison:
Jo-Ann, on the other hand, sits on an editorial board whose support for the chancellor has been steadfast, protective and, at times, adoring.

Kremlin version:
Jo-Ann, on the other hand, sits on an editorial board whose support for the chancellor has been steadfast.

Anonymous said...

She is not here to do right or did you guys not get that yet.
Stop crying and moaning and do something about it or SHUT UP!

Fenty is told what to do by a person of interest in New York. He was told to hire Rhee by a person of interest in New York.