Subscribe via RSS Feed

Rheeism in One Quote

[ 161 ] April 18, 2013 |

Like most elite supporters of destroying public eduction unions and handing the future of education over to capitalists and flawed testing systems that make or break people’s careers, Michelle Rhee is a total hypocrite when it comes to her own kids.

In the interview, Rhee also confirmed that one of her two daughters attends a private school in Tennessee, where the girls live with their father, that state’s top education official. Rhee is now married to Sacramento Mayor Kevin Johnson.

She has previously described herself as a “public-school parent.” An aide repeated that phrase when The Times asked directly if Rhee’s children were in public or private school.

“I try to maintain some level of privacy for my kids by not divulging too much information,” Rhee said. “I say I’m a public-school parent when my kid goes to private school.

“I believe in parental choice,” she said. “I think I should be able to choose … and every parent should have that option too.”

As is the norm for so-called education reformers, Rhee advocates a form of testing for everyday children to which she would never subject her own child.

Share with Sociable

Comments (161)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. the original spencer says:

    Rhee is now married to Sacramento Mayor Kevin Johnson.

    Oh, KJ ….

  2. Shakezula says:

    “I say I’m a public-school parent when my kid goes to private school.

    “I believe in parental choice,” she said. “I think I should be able to choose … and every parent should have that option too.”

    The first quote doesn’t even make sense. It’s like saying you’re a vegetarian when you’re eating a steak.

    The second is just a disingenuous misstatement of how education works in this country and possibly on the planet. People who claim all you need to get Jr. into the private school of your choice is the cash are liars.

    • Anna in PDX says:

      Yeah, how can she even say that? Either she garbled what she meant to say or the quote was garbled by the transcriber because she can’t have MEANT to say that. Maybe it was a bit of a Freudian slip?

      • Bloix says:

        She has TWO CHILDREN. One is prvate school. One is in public school. She is the parent of a child in public school. Ergo she is a public school parent, just as all the other parents with one child in public schools are public school parents.

        I swear to God, you mention Michelle Rhee around here and people get so agitated they forget how to count to two.

        • Shakezula says:

          “I try to maintain some level of privacy for my kids by not divulging too much information,” Rhee said. “I say I’m a public-school parent when my kid goes to private school.

          OK, she was drunk.

    • One of the Blue says:

      I truly do not get it. The article says Dad has the kids, hence the custodial parent, hence presumably the primary decision-maker as too where the kids go to school. More than likely it’s not even on Rhee why the kids aren’t in public school.

      Was she too embarrassed to admit that? No excuse for the lie, though. and certainly no excuse for her lousy agenda or for what she did to DC or for what if any coverup went down there.

      • Aaron says:

        Why do you say “presumably the primary decision-maker”? That’s actually exceptionally unlikley. With two highly educated, competent parents, divorce judgments usually provide for joint decision-making on important life decisions, such as whether a child should attend a private school. Further, there’s usually an economic discussion – as somebody has to pay tuition and the custodial parent rarely wants to foot the entire bill, perhaps less so when his ex- could likely fund tuition for a year or two based on her speaker’s fee from a single event.

        Further, this is a hot button issue for Rhee. She’s the face of corporate school reform. It is exceptionally unlikely that she and her legal team sat idly by when her husband decided to enroll one of her children in private school. She would have been very concerned about her image – as evidenced by the fact that she was dissembling about the situation by calling herself a “public school parent”.

        I don’t want to speculate about why these two parents – the “state’s top education official” and Rhee – would choose private school for one of their children. Speculation is unfair to the child. Even though it is a fair question to ask of the parent, if they demurred based upon the child’s privacy I would understand. But under these facts it’s more than reasonable to infer that Rhee participated in the decision to enroll her child in private school, and was deliberately attempting to mislead the public.

        • One of the Blue says:

          Every divorce is different. You’re correct that many divorce agreements and judgments do allow for joint decision-making, but not all. and of course none of us know what Rhee’s divorce allowed for. Usually if the custodial parent wants things one way and the other wants it another way the custodial parent wins.

          Who knows? Just saying that since Rhee’s not the custodial parent it very well might not have been her decision.

          • Aaron says:

            It’s fair to say “Who knows”, but it’s also fair to say that absent highly unusual circumstances Rhee will have equal say in this sort of decision. There’s absolutely nothing in the public record to indicate that this is the sort of divorce or custody case where a court would have found it necessary to deny Rhee that sort of say, nor is there any reason to believe that she and her lawyers would simply have rolled over on what, to her, was a potentially embarrassing issue and public relations problem. I’m going with the odds.

            • Marek says:

              The problem with that is that one of the parents often has the legal right to make that decision if they two can’t agree. That’s usually the custodial parent. I’m not clear why you think you are going with the odds.

        • Shakezula says:

          The private/public split could be as simple as one kid passed the admission tests and the other didn’t.

          One reason I object to the Parent Choice fluffers is they ignore the fact that enrolling Junior in a private school is a very different animal than enrolling at a public school.

  3. oldster says:

    “I say I’m a public-school parent when my kid goes to private school.”

    Didn’t we used to call that “lying”?

  4. J. Otto Pohl says:

    Before he became mayor, but after he was a famous basketball player, I used to serve smoothies to Kevin Johnson and his posse at Cafe Melange in the Curtis Park area of Sacramento. He was one of the best tippers to frequent the coffee shop. I had no idea until now that he had become mayor or that he had married Rhee.

  5. Boots Day says:

    “I say I’m a public-school parent when my kid goes to private school.

    I say I’m a globe-trotting spy who beds beautiful women around the world when I work at an Office Depot in suburban Knoxville.

  6. prufrock says:

    As is the norm for so-called education reformers, Rhee advocates a form of testing for everyday children to which she would never subject her own child.

    Hey, the drones can live off pollen. Only the children of the elite get the royal jelly.

  7. Nocomment says:

    Privitization shit is disheartening.
    I recall my first teaching years (early ’1970′s retired now) hearing the stories of those who put their asses on the line to achieve union recognition, bargaining rights and contracts. Back then everybody was union.
    Sad to say that most working teachers are so goddamn distracted by rules and legislative pressure nowadays that they tend to become indifferent to all the shit going down around them. The new hires assume the benefits they receive with employment came from the benevolence and good will of the local board….sheeeesh.
    The NEA might just as well be an adjunct of the state legislature. They are loathe to fight over much of anything.
    Where are the Albert Shanker’s and Al Fondy’s of today?
    Rant complete.

  8. Murc says:

    You know, I’m going to perhaps be overly fair to Rhee (who I hate) here, but I don’t see any hypocrisy or disconnect in advocating for public school policies you think are good while simultaneously sending your own kids to private school.

    Public school, like all public services, should serve to establish a floor; a socially-provided educational standard below which you cannot fall. It’s like… the police will (or should) provide you with a basic level of public safety regardless of your economic circumstances. If you have money, though, you can travel surrounded by armed guards. Doing so wouldn’t make you a hypocrite for advocating sound policing strategies, tho.

    Same deal with schools. I’d like for our public schools to be glittering gems, but if I had the cash, I’d be sending any hypothetical mini-Murc’s to an outstanding private. Doing so wouldn’t make me a hypocrite.

    The only way Rhee is being hypocritical here is if she thinks it would be a bad idea for the private school she’s sending her kids to to test them in the same way she advocates kids at public school are. And even then, only if whatever alternatives the private school uses for assessment are worse, not better; a place that charges exorbitant tuition per head might be able to implement evaluation methods that would be infeasible if they were being deployed from the public purse.

    • Malaclypse says:

      You know, I’m going to perhaps be overly fair to Rhee (who I hate) here, but I don’t see any hypocrisy or disconnect in advocating for public school policies you think are good while simultaneously sending your own kids to private school.

      Funny she felt the need to lie about it, though.

      • Murc says:

        Oh, no question, that part is contemptible.

        I dunno. I just… usually “lol, you say you support public schools but you send your kids to a private, HYPOCRITE” is a line of attack I see deployed by conservatives against wealthy liberals. Hell, I see it aimed at the Obama family on a semi-regular basis, and people seem to accept that it has some degree of validity. I disagree, obviously.

        • Malaclypse says:

          Hell, I see it aimed at the Obama family on a semi-regular basis, and people seem to accept that it has some degree of validity.

          See the not-too-clever Malkinite below.

          I disagree, obviously.

          Same here.

        • comptr0ller says:

          Democrats must show they have a stake in social programs aimed at disprivileged citizens in order to justify them (the policies on the people).

          Republicans simply ignore those people altogether unless they become personally affected, like, if their child is gay or poor or black are all of the above.

    • Dilan Esper says:

      I take the opposite tack. Liberals don’t just advocate public schools as a floor. They are also a communitarian institution, and we want rich kids in them because programs for the poor are poor programs. When liberal elites send their kids to private schools, they are saying that there is nothing wrong with rich people buying their way out of communitarian institutions.

      • Airborne Simian says:

        So you’re for outlawing private schools in the name of “communitarianism”?

        • joe from Lowell says:

          Did he say anything about outlawing them?

          Aren’t you libertoids supposed be familiar with the difference between “I don’t like something” and “I want to outlaw something?”

          • Dilan Esper says:

            Wow, Joe from Lowell and me on the same side. :)

            Yeah, I don’t want to outlaw private schools. I just think that when supporters of public schools send their kids to private schools, they are helping to undermine the case for public schools (or to shift it from the communitarian interest in educating the public towards a sort of welfare program for parents who can’t afford anything better), and that’s a bad thing. So I don’t mind criticizing liberals who do this and encouraging public school supporters to keep their kids in public schools. Jimmy Carter even did that when he was President.

          • Bill Murray says:

            No they aren’t Joe, because that is exactly how they think. If they don’t like it, it shouldn’t exist

      • Murc says:

        When liberal elites send their kids to private schools, they are saying that there is nothing wrong with rich people buying their way out of communitarian institutions.

        … probably because there isn’t?

        If a rich dude isn’t gaming the system and is paying his fair share for getting to live in a society with strong community institutions, but would prefer not to take part in them because he can spend his own money to achieve different and possibly better results, I say “fair enough.”

        • DF says:

          That’s a pretty sanitized vision of what he’s doing, though, isn’t it? If he can achieve better results sending his kids to a private institution, then the existence of a “lesser” community institution allows that rich liberal to perpetuate his class privilege by giving his kids access to something better than what the non-rich have access to. Which perpetuates the inequality of our system.

          I’m not saying we should outlaw his ability to do that. But we should express our disapproval, no?

          • Malaclypse says:

            You know, I have access to good medical insurance through my work. The fact that I don’t refuse any medical care I could not get through medicaid doesn’t make me a hypocrite. But trying to trash medicaid, like Rhee is trashing public education, would make me an asshole. And if I said I was a medicaid user, like Rhee pretty much did, I’d be a liar.

            • Dilan Esper says:

              Medicaid IS a floor. There are communitarian health care systems such as Britain’s National Health Service where participation is mandatory, and it WOULD look really bad for a die-hard NHS advocate to get treatment from private doctors.

              • Murc says:

                No, it would not.

                Unless you’re advocating the complete abolition of private property, some people are probably going to have more wealth than others, and those people are going to spend that wealth on things that are important to them.

                I am, in general, okay with someone paying obscene amounts of money for their own private health care.

                • Dilan Esper says:

                  You miss the point. The problem isn’t “people spending their money”. It’s “people using their money to opt out of communitarian, society-building institutions”. Medicaid is not one. The British NHS and American public schools, however, are.

          • Murc says:

            I’m not saying we should outlaw his ability to do that. But we should express our disapproval, no?

            I don’t think we should, no.

            Someone who makes a huge pile of money is going to spend that money on things that people who DON’T make a huge pile of money can’t afford. They’re gonna buy better educations, health care, housing, etc.

            Assuming, to badly paraphrase TR, that his wealth was honorably obtained and he isn’t spending on it things that are actively harmful, I see no reason to disapprove of him doing whatever with it.

            • Dilan Esper says:

              The problem is that if you buy the communitarian argument for public education, private schools ARE actively harmful. They shouldn’t be illegal, but they are harmful, because they destroy the universality of a system that is supposed to mix people of different social strata and backgrounds and expose them to a common core of secular ideas.

              Put another way, I don’t think there would be too much argument here that the really socially conservative sectarian schools that don’t teach evolution or sex education and which spread homophobia are harmful.

              Well, more typical private schools don’t do that, but they do pull rich kids out of the system, segregate them, and perpetuate the idea that there is a moneyed elite that can buy their way out of communitarian institutions. Again, that doesn’t mean they should be illegal, but they are harmful.

            • DF says:

              I suppose that’s where I disagree. In an unequal society, even if the rich man is not cheating the system, his wealth isn’t entirely honorable. He made that wealth because of his participation in a system that confers different rewards for no good reasons.

              So he takes his greater reward and he uses it to make sure his kids continue to reap its benefits, while denying those benefits to others, because they can’t afford them.

              I don’t have a huge problem with rich people buying a bunch of worthless shit with their pile of money. If they want gold plated champagne bottles, knock themselves out. But I do have a problem with wealth allowing for class privileges to be maintained. That’s anathema to meritocracy, which we at least pretend in this country to support.

              • brewmn says:

                Very well put.

              • Murc says:

                He made that wealth because of his participation in a system that confers different rewards for no good reasons.

                We all participate in that system. It seems unfair to demand that people abstain from doing so in order to be considered morally upright.

                So he takes his greater reward and he uses it to make sure his kids continue to reap its benefits, while denying those benefits to others, because they can’t afford them.

                … how is using his reward to benefit his kids denying those benefits to others who weren’t so lucky?

                I am moderately privileged individual. My parents were able to afford to send me to a good pre-school and make sure my life was enriched through very expensive summer activities. They considered private school for my sister, but decided against it.

                I am curious as to how you think them spending this money on their children equates to them somehow denying it to other children who were not so lucky.

                I would expand this to say that I feel telling people “you must provide to your children less than the best you can afford, or you are a bad person” is both awful and counterproductive. Good people are going to react to that with a hearty “fuck you, I will give my kids the best I can and all y’all can go to hell.” And they’d be right to do so.

      • mpowell says:

        That’s fine for you to hold that view of what people should be doing, but since there isn’t a single national level political leader I’m aware of who actually advocates communitarianism, it certainly isn’t hypocritical of them to send their kids to private school. The charges of hypocrisy are totally unjustified.

      • LeeEsq says:

        Liberalism, in its classical or modern varieties isn’t necessarily about communitarianism. Communitarianism is a value in the various socialist and left-anarchist schools of thought. Liberalism is basically about individuals and their freedom to act.

        The difference between Classical liberals, usually called libertarians today, and modern liberals is that modern liberals agree with FDR’s statement that a “necessitous man is not a free man.” There needs to be a base minimal life-style that everybody is entitled to simply because they are human in order for them to be free.

    • Vance Maverick says:

      I agree with you up to the point where she (apparently) tries to justify calling herself a “public-school parent”.

    • Barry says:

      Since Rhee is pursuing policies designed to destroy public schooling, it is hypocritical of her.

  9. Dilan Esper says:

    I don’t mind the “public school advocates should send their kids to public schools” arguments, though it is worth noting a lot of liberal elites don’t like it.

    But lying and saying you are a public school parent is inexcusable.

  10. Fighting Words says:

    Slightly off topic, but I remeber seeing Michelle Rhee interviewed by (I think) Charlie Rose on some panel, where the topic was “something to change America” or “individuals who are changing America” (or something like that). Her topic was something along the lines of “American parents keep coddling their children and heap praise on them without criticizing them” or something along those lines. As an example, she was talking about how her 5 year old child “sucked at soccer,” and how nobody tells them that.

    I was watching this with my parents. My father, who was Teacher of the Year in his district, taught for 40 years, and was a loud and proud member of the teacher’s union, said, “Sure, Michelle, tell your 5 year old she sucks at soccer. See how far that will get you.” I am pretty sure that Michelle Rhee never told her kids they “suck at soccer.”

    This person has been full of BS for a while, and has probably done a lot of damage to a lot of people (students, teachers, their families, etc.). I am starting to feel that more and more people are starting to catch on to her fraud.

    • Cody says:

      Shorter Michelle Rhee: If you’re bad at something, just stop trying, you suck at it!

      (Explains why she stopped trying to actually fix schools – assuming she ever was actually doing that)

  11. Airborne Simian says:

    When will Obama be enrolling his daughters in public school?

    • Malaclypse says:

      Did he need to lie about where they go?

      • Airborne Simian says:

        Obma claims to support public schools with strong, activist unions.

        So why do they go Sidwell-Friends?

        Don’t say security reasons–Amy Carter attended DC public schools. Carter to his credit put his money where his mouth was on that issue.

        • Malaclypse says:

          So why do they go Sidwell-Friends?

          Because the school is better, and they can afford to send their kids there, and unlike Rhee, they presumably see no reason to lie about either of those things.

          • Airborne Simian says:

            Rhee didn’t lie. She was saying she sends her kids to private school but supports public school. Just like Obama.

            Why does Obama get to send his kids to private school but poor families in DC no longer get vouchers to do they same? The Democrat Congress ended them, and Obama signed the bill into law.

            • DF says:

              You’re being intentionally obtuse. Were it up to the commenters here, I imagine we’d mostly agree that Obama should send his kids to public school. As should everyone else, though I’m sure there would be exceptions here and there, and I don’t think we should outlaw that. We should make public school attractive enough that everyone wants to send their kids there.

            • Malaclypse says:

              She was saying she sends her kids to private school but supports public school.

              Cracker, please.

            • comptr0ller says:

              He never said he was a public school parent. He is the POTUS, meaning, his job (part of which has to do with dealing with the country’s education system) allows for contradictions with his personal life.

              Rhee’s fame/notoriety/job/existence is about public schools and she pretends to be a stakeholder in the policies she and her powerful lobbying arm push for.. and it isn’t surprising that her opponents balk when she claims to be a “public school parent”

            • Murc says:

              The Democrat Congress ended them, and Obama signed the bill into law.

              I am unfamiliar with this Democrat Congress of which you speak.

            • oldster says:

              “Rhee didn’t lie. She was saying she sends her kids to private school but supports public school.”

              Thanks for telling us everything we need to know about you.

            • RedSquareBear says:

              [Rhee:] “I say I’m a public-school parent when my kid goes to private school.”

              Nope. Sorry. Try again.

              Or even better, don’t try again. Just leave.

            • joe from Lowell says:

              Rhee didn’t lie. She was saying she sends her kids to private school but supports public school.

              No, she didn’t say she “supports public school.” She said she was a public school parent.

              Liars defend liars; news at eleven.

          • Shakezula says:

            You can add used to dealing with the not fun of having SS details all over the place.

        • joe from Lowell says:

          Obma claims to support public schools with strong, activist unions.

          So why do they go Sidwell-Friends?

          Because the extra security concerns that hosting the children of the President imposes on a school are extremely expensive and disruptive to a public school, while a wealthy private school that is already designed to cater to high-maintenance kids can accommodate those needs relatively easier.

          Jimmy Carter sent his kids to DC public schools for a while, and it was a massive headache.

          • rea says:

            And beyond that–the president and his or her kids aren’t free agents when these kinds of decisions must be made. Except in a few very unusual circumstances, they ought to do what the Secret Service tells them to do, because otherwise, they can get people killed. So, Obama’s kids go to a school at which the Secret Service feels comfortable protecting them. That ought to be the end of the discussion.

          • Shakezula says:

            I was in school near Hardy and even I recall much kvetching. The students didn’t like it, teachers didn’t like it, people in the neighborhood didn’t like it. Poor Amy.

            The adults at my school felt it was a personal diss (Why not send her here?), so we thought it was pretty cool.

            I still think it was cool.

        • Shakezula says:

          But Jimmy Carter is HISTORY’S GREATEST MONSTERRRR!

    • Shakezula says:

      Dear Lord, can we get this comment a Handicapped tag?

    • DF says:

      Does Obama also being a hypocrite about public education matter, in regards to Rhee? I might agree, to an extent, that both he and Rhee are hypocritical on this point. What’s your point? Obama is the President; most Democrats and liberals who don’t hold public office in Washington hate his education proposals. We voted for him in spite of them (and in spite of other issues we don’t like about him).

      Rhee’s entire public life is about education. If she’s a hypocrite on this one point, which is her entire reason for notoriety, do you know not understand that that’s a far bigger problem for her than Obama’s hypocrisy is for him?

      Or could you perhaps just be trying to score a cheap point because politics is all a game to you and you just want your side to win?

    • MAJeff says:

      Jenny, Jenny, Jenny…never one to miss being pointless.

  12. Airborne Simian says:

    Show of virtual hands: how many commentators here would send their kid to public schools if they lived in Detroit or Baltimore?

  13. DF says:

    There are twin problems with Rhee’s lying.

    #1- She’s claiming to be a stakeholder in the reform process she’s advocating. The implicit message is that she just wants what’s best for her kids and for everyone else’s. If she really believes this is the best way to educate, then she should subject her kids to the same policies she’s advocating. She instead sends them to a private school that I have no doubt uses different methods to educate her own children. This suggests that she doesn’t actually think this is the best way to educate children, but rather that her motivations are different from the ones she publicly claims.

    #2- Her posturing as a stakeholder obscures the fact that she is the spokesperson for a corporate movement that seeks to place blame for the problems in education as far from themselves as possible. They don’t want to talk about, and they don’t want anyone else talking about, the possibility that structural issues of inequality in our society are causing these problems, and only structural changes can fix them. I have no doubt these reformers sincerely believe in their diagnosis of the problem, but that’s their class privilege on display.

    • oldster says:

      “I have no doubt these reformers sincerely believe in their diagnosis of the problem,”

      Show of virtual hands: how many have one or more doubts?

      • DF says:

        I’m not saying that’s a good thing. Just that it’s quite easy for privileged people to decide that their own self interest coincides exactly with the needs of society at large.

        In the end, though, it doesn’t matter what they believe. They’re wrong, no matter what their justification.

      • quercus says:

        I’ve got some doubts about the sincerity of ‘reformers’. I mean, if they really, really believed in their prescriptions were what’s best for kids, they’d send their kids to schools run according to those prescriptions, right?

        Which is of course, how we got here. I can guarantee that Rhee’s kids are not subject to huge levels of standardized testing and that their teachers are not summarily fired (or rewarded) based purely on results of standardized testing by their students.

        So yeah, I think it’s pretty reasonable to have doubts about these “reformer’s” sincerity.

        • Wapiti says:

          Yup. And the selling points of the private schools typically include better teacher:student ratios than public schools, and special programs for bright students that can’t be funded in public schools.

        • Barry says:

          And I’ll bet that their school is not run by a for-profit firm. And especially not a for-profit firm which has a half-dozen or more shell corporation layers between themselves and any accountability (e.g., Ohio).

    • Airborne Simian says:

      Liberals love “structural problems” because the “solution” is their favorite hobby horse, namely, redistribution of other people’s money administered by a vast, centralized beaurocracy.

  14. Unhinged Liberal says:

    Let’s face it…anyone who can sends their kids to private school because no matter how you want to reform them, private schools, on the whole, are simply superior.

    Obama does it….all who can do it.

    And they, too, have ideas as to how best to reform the schools.

    So what?

    • comptr0ller says:

      anyone who can sends their kids to private school

      False. My parents had the means to. I went to public school instead. 40% Hispanic 30% White 30% Black. Even while attending I knew that some classes (see: freshman year English) were a waste of time (me, a white male with very involved parents in a classroom with people who just emigrated from Colombia or came from broken households) … sure. Did I get a huge amount of ‘life’ experience learning and making friends and playing soccer with kids who came from different backgrounds as myself? Definitely. Am I a better, more well-rounded person as a result. Definitely? Was I less prepared than other private-prep-schoolers when I started undergraduate, fer sure!

      But despite my horrible parents subjecting me to the horrors of suburban public schools, I graduated with honors from an Ivy League university. huzzah

      • Anna in PDX says:

        Yeah a lot of wealthy people in Portland send their kids to public schools. So do welathy people everywhere else. I seem to remember that that Chris Hayes book about meritocracy had several chapters on that public school in NY that is hard to get into and that wealthy people are investing in test prep so they can go to it. So this is just stupid and wrong on its face.

    • DrDick says:

      I have a fun story for you. I grew up in Bartlesville, OK, in the 1950s and 1960s. It was the corporate headquarters for Phillips Petroleum Company and up through the 60s, the CEOs sent their kids to the public schools. Unsurprisingly, we had world class schools. Then in the 1970s, a new CEO decided he wanted to send his kids to private school and the school system has declined steadily since.

      • wengler says:

        The quality of public education in that town can be mapped by where the Phillips’ employees live. It is most dramatic on the elementary school level, but by middle school we still didn’t have basic things like the uninhibited use of a copier. We had to use notebook paper and every teacher used a classroom set of copies.

        It’s not like that town couldn’t pay for better schools. They just didn’t want to.

    • Shakezula says:

      Uh-huh. Because there are so many private schools that they have the space.

      Wait lists? Enrollment tests? Never heard of ‘em.

  15. Bitter Scribe says:

    Ordinarily, this “you’re a hypocrite for sending your kids to private school” stuff is the most tiresome, trite, annoying form of gotcha in existence.

    But when Rhee says things like “I say I’m a public-school parent when my kid goes to private school,” she’s just begging for criticism.

  16. DrS says:

    So, Rhee’s terrible, obviously.

    Her ex is no prize either. The state of Tennessee’s top education official doesn’t use their public schools? Eat your own dog food, guys.

  17. somethingblue says:

    Coming in late here, but as I understand it from this earlier article, one of her kids goes to public school and one doesn’t. So when she’s asked if her kids go to public school and responds “I am a public school parent,” she’s being a weasel, rather than a liar.

    I can’t account for the quotation Erik highlights, but it’s so transparently nonsensical that I think it must have gotten garbled in editing. (I notice that there’s no close quote in the original article.)

    None of this is intended to defend Rhee on the charge of general loathsomeness.

    • L2P says:

      I’m going with liar. The statement “I’m a public school parent” means something like “I’m committed to the public school systems and I’m not using private schools.”

      For example, I have friends who send their kids to public school for exactly two weeks every year, at the beginning of the Fall semester, because they need the childcare before they start homeschooling. If one of them said “I’m a public school parent,” I’d laugh at them. Same here.

  18. Barry says:

    In addition to everything else, Rhee has been caught lying and being a dishonest POS quite a bit. The whole DC scandal happened because she ignored ETS reports about cheating, and accepted dubious statistics which were generated by people who needed to generate them to keep their jobs. Furthermore, her whole testing scheme there was set up so that it was easy for people to cheat on the tests.

  19. [...] Media Melts Down Over Reports Of Boston Suspect What if all those times really were different? Rheeism in One Quote The Violence We Live With Share this:TwitterFacebookStumbleUponRedditDiggEmailPrintLike this:Like [...]

  20. James E. Powell says:

    I don’t really care where Rhee’s children go to school, nor do I care where Obama’s daughters go to school. I do care that they are both advocates of turning public schools into corporate schools because I am adamantly against doing that.

    The case against Rhee is that she is a fraud. She did not teach long enough to gain more than a cursory understanding of teaching or public education. She has no objectively verifiable record of success as a teacher. Her record as an administrator has nothing to recommend it. The policies that she advocates are unsupported by research or experience.

    She is a highly skilled and polished propagandist for the corporate ruling class. She is exactly the sort of person who we should expect to emerge from Harvard’s graduate school for public policy.

  21. [...] Rheeism in One Quote – Lawyers, Guns & Money : Lawyers, Guns & Money [...]

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.