>So the cheating scandal under Rhee that Rhee helped >bring about, that Rhee rewarded, that Rhee would not >investigate, and that Rhee fled 3000 miles to escape...
...is but a paltry imitation of the truly massive fraud that is being perpetrated by the Education Mafia on American society.
>is actually the fault of the shadowy "Education Mafia." >But Rhee herself is not a member of that Mafia.
That is entirely your opinion. To run her business, Michelle Rhee needs American public education to be structured exactly as it is. If she has an interest in actually reorganizing public education, I have never heard of it.
>How is it that she's not? Well, she's anti-union, for >starters...
You made that up. You cannot cite a single non-speculative source to support your fabrication. It is true that Rhee wanted to renegotiate some elements of the contract, but everybody does that. Even the wondrously ideological mayor of Chicago, the former chief of staff to the most socialist president in American history, had to endure a strike by his teachers union in order to implement any change at all. If Michelle Rhee is anti-union, so is Barack Obama.
>...as is evident by his attempts to defend the >indefensible and justify Rhee's greed, self- >aggrandizement, and corruption as everyone's fault >except for her own),
The only person defending greed and corruption is you. My one and only point, perfectly clear to anyone who reads above the 7th grade, is that Rhee's corruption is indistinguishable from the corruption of the Education Mafia---except that the Education Mafia have been doing it longer and larger than Rhee could ever hope to imagine. You are very keen to vilify Rhee. I don't care. But I wonder that you are so tolerant of the massive corruption that is SOP in American public education.
>hold any sway with Guy, me, or lots of other folks who >aren't about to turn a blind eye to cheating, regardless >of who is responsible, regardless of what political >party is involved, or anything else except whether >there's something clearly rotten in Denmark.
If that were actually meaningful, we would be allies and you would be first in line to torch the schools of education. Instead, you shill for the Education Mafia and the status quo.
>My deepest concerns are with the overarching philosophy >of education, attitudes towards children, and vision of >what the aims of public education are and should be.
Bravo! And always, always, always, when you are done with your "Vision Thing", the end result is always the same: No Change. Truly, I am underwhelmed.
>The so-called "Education Mafia" is not the real problem. >It is merely the face of the problem, a symptom of the >problem, while the real perpetrators sit well-behind the >scenes...
Man! And you call the Education Mafia "shadowy"?
>Never mind that their models don't even work in their >ostensible areas of expertise or that the research >within education suggests...
Research? What research would this be? Is this the research that never ever reveals its data? Never duplicated? The research that is like playing tennis without a net? I.e., no rules of evidence, logic, or proof?
Michael, do you understand that, for decades, young children have been passing through the DC public schools, at great expense to themselves and to society, and learning nothing? Do you not care, at all?