I don't know who wrote it (sometimes writers don't write the headline), or who approved it but seriously, it needs to be changed. The Washington Post ran a shockingly inaccurate, and irresponsible headline that is slated to appear in tomorrow's Post. The headline: "Rhee Says Laid Off Teachers Abused D.C. Students." The headline stems from Rhee's statement that SOME of the 266 laid off teachers, sexually, or physically abused students. If I was one of the 266 I'd be up and arms right now. I'd be seriously pissed, not necessarily, at Rhee, but at the Washington Post. I hope they change the online headline soon, and that that headline never sees print. If it does, that's (in my opinion) a serious black eye for the Post. Honestly, WOW. It just seems sensationalist.
The article was based on comments made by Rhee in an interview in the magazine Fast Company. Her comments were controversial enough in many circles, but she never suggested that all the laid off teachers were guilty of criminal acts (as the Post headline does). For the record, the article does (again, article writers, don't always write the headline) hit on some important points. For one, if DCPS knew about such offenses, why did they wait for a mass lay off to let teachers go who may have been a threat?
10 comments:
I think you are overreacting here. I don't read the headline and presume they are talking about every laid off teacher and if you read the first sentence of the article it explicitly states that they are not.
The story is clear, but people often just see headlines. I think this one is pretty misleading.
I read that headline. Thought it odd but I didn't assume it meant that Rhee was saying ALL teachers were doing these things. That'd be quite a conclusion to reach from a simple headline.
And I find the WTU histrionics a bit amusing, but sad. These are the same fine folks that presided over 40 years of DC students getting one of the worst educational experiences in the nation.
Plus, let's not forget the WTU embezzlement scandal, while they were out spending millions on furs and handbags, instead of fighting for DC students.
So they got zippo credibility in my book. In fact, they are one of the main reasons DC schools are so bad.
I'm no fan of the teacher's union at all but in fairness the members were not the ones doing the embezzling it was the woman in charge. Using their dues to pay for furs and Ferragamos..That was a doozy of a scandal!
The headline may misrepresent Rhee's statements but wow to drop a bomb like that in an interview?
They need to do some quick explaining, had these abusive teachers already been through disciplinary procedures or were they waiting for the budget crisis to lay them off?
another reason I love my kids' charter school...teachers who hit kids, are bad teachers or are just plain crazy can be fired.
"I'm no fan of the teacher's union at all but in fairness the members were not the ones doing the embezzling it was the woman in charge."
True, the rank and file members weren't stealing money.
Only the leaders.
There's simply no way the WTU leadership didn't know, or shouldn't have known.
You don't just 'lose' five million dollars.
Aside from that, WTU has been at the forefront of providing substandard education despite having literally boatloads of taxpayer cash to spend for, what, forty years now?
At what point do we call them what they are - worse than useless?
Damn shame, though, as there are surely some good rank and file members.
I have a slightly different take-away here and more so a question to the readers here.
Assume for the moment that Rhee & Co. let SOME teachers go because of physical or sexual abuse allegations, does the City not have a major obligation to pursue such allegations? Should each accusation not be forward to the police for investigation and prosecution, if in fact true? And if not found to be true, does she not have an obligation to re-seat these teachers in their classrooms?
We seem to be dealing with Unions here and not with the City obligation to protect and pursue justice for all.
Or am I just missing the point of City vs. Unions being so very important?
M
This is the quote from Rhee: "I got rid of teachers who had hit children, who had had sex with children, who had missed 78 days of school," Rhee says. "Why wouldn't we take those things into consideration?"
Put aside your anti-union feelings and think about this as a taxpayer. Do you really want city officials saying this sort of thing when there's no proof (at least at this point) about the veracity of her assertions?
If I were one of the laid off teachers and innocent of these charges, I'd file a slander suit against the city. This is irresponsible stuff for a government official to be saying.
rhee might want to learn how to be more diplomatic when speaking to the media.
how does such a quote benefit the education of our children?
teacher morale is said to be low by some, this certainly can't help
If you read Rhee's comment, you can tell quite clearly she is citing examples... every single one didn't sexually abuse, physically abuse and miss 78 days of work.
Anon 4:20, as a Taxpayer, I am very happy she has stood up and given us examples of the TYPES of reasons that people were let go. If she didn't give reasons, the unions would drop the race card or argue no cause. She can't release each individual incident and tie to to the specific teacher or the union would really go apeshit.
The thought of a slander suit is ridiculous and if you actually read what was said there is zero basis for the allegation. Perhaps a call to the Post ombudsman because the headlines sucks, but that is it.
It wouldn't surprise me that there would be sexual abusers in the school system that they knew were hitting on the students, but were unable to prove it.
Post a Comment