Buh-Bye Michelle Rhee, We Won’t Miss You

FILE - This Tuesday, April 24, 2012 file photo shows StudentsFirst Founder and CEO Michelle Rhee speaking in San Jose, Calif. The education funding bill that Ohio Gov. John Kasich unveils the week of Jan. 28, 2013 is... FILE - This Tuesday, April 24, 2012 file photo shows StudentsFirst Founder and CEO Michelle Rhee speaking in San Jose, Calif. The education funding bill that Ohio Gov. John Kasich unveils the week of Jan. 28, 2013 is likely to bear the marks of several of America’s highest profile, if not universally popular, school reformers. Among big names who have shared ideas with the Republican governor as he’s crafted the proposal are: education finance pioneer Eric Hanushek; former Washington, D.C., schools chancellor Rhee; and Sebastian Thrun, a digital education innovator at Google. (AP Photo/Jeff Chiu, File) MORE LESS
Start your day with TPM.
Sign up for the Morning Memo newsletter

And just like that, she’s gone. Michelle Rhee is stepping down as head of Students First, a group that she started to aggressively lobby for and back candidates who support an education reform agenda. The apogee of her influence had already been waning by the time the organization got started — soon after she lost her post as the chancellor of Washington, D.C.’s schools. But now she’s pretty definitively leaving the front lines of the fights plaguing American education.

While Rhee was at Students First, she remained a proxy for broader debates over structural reforms to public education. To agree with Michelle Rhee meant to agree with a certain approach to education policy, to accept that improving teacher quality can improve students’ educational outcomes, and that these things can be reliably measured. To disagree with her meant to stand up for the preexisting view of American education, a view that measures teacher quality by so-called “inputs”—whether teachers have advanced degrees or a bevy of years in the classroom—and throws up its hands at the notion that these could ever be expected to yield tangible results.

At her peak, Rhee sparked such fury in her opponents that she became a sort of strawwoman incarnate. They used her to tar all other reformers — she became the face of some heretofore unheard of “corporate reform” movement. For example, her apparent callousness about firing a Washington, D.C. principal on camera was tirelessly cited as proof that all accountability reforms must be a guise for the broader education reform movement’s secret hatred of educators.

But if Rhee’s departure feels like a surrender, her critics have badly misunderstood the state of American education debates. There are many ways to interpret her fall, but it’s hard to see it as a body blow to the project of education reform. That’s sort of how a proxy works: Rhee’s departure doesn’t so much alter the country’s education dynamics as remove a lightning rod.

For her admirers, Rhee was a tough ally. At her best, she was an unflinching advocate for the nation’s poor and underserved children. At her worst, she brought a tin political ear and Boeing-grade rhetorical baggage. The trouble wasn’t that she was sometimes one or the other—Rhee was always both. Her strengths and flaws stemmed from the same evangelical core: she brought conviction and passion and stubbornness and unapologetic focus, all of which worked to build and destroy her public capital.

But Rhee’s weaknesses were also serious assets in part because her story reveals the utter cynicism of powerful interests controlling the status quo in public education today. Rhee initially appealed to so many because she promised that American schools suffered from a simple accountability problem. That line of argument has been potent for decades in the United States, and it’s only become more powerful in recent years. She gave voice to frustrated educators, parents, and administrators who had become cynical after years of watching a stultified education system assign miserable teachers to its most vulnerable students. Which is simply to point out that Rhee’s forceful style was celebrated because it was a wholly logical response to brutal, obvious injustice. Dramatic, longstanding inequities demand clarion calls — not subtlety.

That is, the defenders of this system got in Rhee the opponent they deserved. She was a credible answer to their own intransigence. Upon hearing of Rhee’s decision, American Federation of Teachers President Randi Weingarten told Politico, “While I respect Michelle Rhee’s passion and tenacity, I don’t agree with her approach to education.” Which is the sort of thing that Weingarten could only say on the occasion of Rhee’s sunset. She certainly wouldn’t have offered such conciliation during the period when the AFT was secretly funding a website attacking Rhee’s character and motives. If Rhee was inflammatory, if she was willing to raise the rhetorical tenor and transform education debates into a war, Weingarten and her allies willingly matched her blow for blow.

Indeed, as Rhee’s star faded, her critics quickly trained their sights on other education reformer — dismissing parent advocates to “a special place in hell,” accusing former CNN anchor Campbell Brown of being too pretty to be taken seriously on education issues, equating Rahm Emanuel’s attempts to renegotiate Chicago’s teacher contract with Scott Walker’s attacks on collective bargaining itself. Rhee may be leaving, but her opponents aren’t about to stop scorching the earth between them and education reformers.

That’s their prerogative — and somewhat predictable, given the state of education politics in 2014, but it seems like a tactic out of place. Very few of today’s reformers bring Rhee’s bluntness. It’s one thing to attack her naïveté after appearing on the cover of Time with a teacher-sweeping broom. It’s quite another to attack, say, frustrated parents stuck in permanently failing schools, or experts explaining carefully-crafted accountability models.

I’ve consciously used the past tense here, which makes this read like an epitaph. Perhaps that’s premature. Perhaps Rhee will find a new perch that renders her central to education arguments once again. (She was appointed to the board of Scotts Miracle-Gro Co. — a move teachers were already protesting last week.) Or perhaps because American education debates are evolving beyond her. Whatever Rhee’s flaws, she moved the debate from “reform or not” to “which reforms will we have.” Whatever her virtues, she couldn’t be a leader in that new conversation. Are her most ardent opponents nimble enough to adjust their own tactics?

Conor P. Williams, PhD is a Senior Researcher in New America’s Early Education Initiative. Follow him on Twitter: @conorpwilliams.

Latest Cafe

Notable Replies

  1. Boy, this is one of those weird situations where the tone of the headline has no relationship with the tone of the piece itself. I expected an anti-Rhee screed (ScRhee-d?) after reading the link header, but the article (opinion piece, actually) takes a very sympathetic view of MR’s career as a champion of education reform. I’m not sure that the piece moves the discussion forward very far, as it is so clearly slanted against anyone who isn’t on the side of the reformers, even as it identifies the false dichotomies that have defined the battle lines in this long war with no end in sight.

  2. This is one of the worst pieces of propaganda I’ve seen on Talking Points Memo. Horrible piece. I have no idea why it is front-paged.

    The completely facile and dishonest characterization of the criticism of Campbell effing Brown, rightwing operative and rightwing tool, destroys your credibility and should relieve any reader of the inclination to give your arguments any further hearing.

  3. The fact she was and is a fraud is irrelevant?

  4. Thank you for not delivering the reflexive anti-Rhee, pro-teacher union screed the first two commenters on this article expected. Parents in failing schools did not need her nor Campbell Brown to tell them that they and their kids are getting a raw deal, and teachers unions cannot consider themselves winners of some battle with Rhee’s departure. The larger problem is the failure of most state legislatures to value education over corporations, choosing short term benefits bought by tax relief over long term investment in schools. Good schools bring value in educated populaces, enhanced property values, and the commerce and quality of life they bring, which do not expire or move overseas when tax breaks end. They have the potential to raise everyone, and not just shareholders in hedge funds.

  5. Yep, this article definitely doesn’t square up with the headline, and the whole thing is tilted. The level of vagueness is also odd – you have to already know Rhee’s career in some detail to begin to make sense of the article; the author makes no effort to lay out the what/when/where of what she did…but lots of trafficking in ‘why’ and the style of the ‘how’. Is that helpful? I don’t think so.

    The overall framing of the article is, “Rhee is a mixed bag–some bad, lots of good.” OK, I can listen to that. But consider the specifics we’re offered in the article: broad-brush positive statements about Rhee (“tough ally,” “unflinching advocate”, “gave a voice to frustrated parents,” etc.) with one tangible example of stepping in the poop (firing someone on camera). No specific positive actions, only one specific negative action. Rhee’s critics, on the other hand, receive negative broad-brush statements (“intransigence”, “scorching the earth”) and have their own mis-steps pointed out in greater detail (anti-Rhee websites, a petty criticism of Campbell Brown, idiotic condemnation of parent advocates). Message: Whatever Rhee’s blemishes, her opponents are monsters. (Even Randi Weingarten’s polite statement is framed as, "Yeah, but here’s what she REALLY thinks!!)

    So what’s the real upside to Rhee’s tenure as a wrecking ball in the world of education? Here the author really loses me: Rhee’s big accomplishment is moving “debate from ‘reform or not’ to ‘which reforms will we have.’” Really?? First, I don’t think this was ever in question–the cycles of American education policy mean that we’re ALWAYS due for ‘reform’ at one point or another. (Unfortunately, the current cycle is all about economic austerity, meaning that ‘reform’ is usually a stalking horse for downsizing.) Second, there HAVE to have been other people who had a far more positive impact than Rhee in promoting reforms. For example, I don’t love KIPP (edit: Teach for America! D’oh! She founded TfA; KIPP came from two TfA grads), but I have far more respect for Wendy Kopp. Or Ted Sizer and the Essential Schools movement – hugely compassionate, very inspirational. But again, the author is using this faint praise for Rhee as framing for getting in another dig at her opponents: “Are her most ardent opponents nimble enough to adjust their own tactics?” Yeah, I hope so. But let’s take a moment to hope that Rhee’s departure from education to greener pastures (literally! Extra fun irony) means she’s gone for good. The headline writer got it right, the author is doing a weird spin job.

Continue the discussion at forums.talkingpointsmemo.com

83 more replies

Participants

Avatar for paulw Avatar for gilroy0 Avatar for pac Avatar for tomblue Avatar for UnfadingGreen Avatar for msaroff Avatar for cinesimon Avatar for DrDrx Avatar for carlosfiance Avatar for ethelthe Avatar for blueberrytomatosoup Avatar for just2stressed Avatar for reino Avatar for mrblifil Avatar for captaincommonsense Avatar for jopo Avatar for jimgroom Avatar for stiggy Avatar for bailiwick Avatar for Crowseven Avatar for emilianoelmexicano Avatar for seedeevee Avatar for meta Avatar for monkeyclaw

Continue Discussion
Masthead Masthead
Founder & Editor-in-Chief:
Executive Editor:
Managing Editor:
Associate Editor:
Editor at Large:
General Counsel:
Publisher:
Head of Product:
Director of Technology:
Associate Publisher:
Front End Developer:
Senior Designer: