News

Michelle Rhee dismisses 241 teachers from DC public schools

Leave a comment

From the ultra left-wing Washington Post. (H/T Wes Widner)

Excerpt:

D.C. Schools Chancellor Michelle A. Rhee announced Friday that she has fired 241 teachers, including 165 who received poor appraisals under a new evaluation system that for the first time holds some educators accountable for students’ standardized test scores.

[…]Dismissals for performance are exceedingly rare in D.C. schools — and in school systems nationwide. Friday’s firings mark the beginning of Rhee’s bid to make student achievement a high-stakes proposition for teachers, establishing job loss as a possible consequence of poor classroom results.

The Washington Teachers’ Union said Friday that it will contest the terminations.

[…]Although the teachers dismissed for poor performance represent only about 4 percent of the city’s 4,000-member corps, Rhee also announced Friday that 737 other instructors were rated “minimally effective.” Under IMPACT, they have one year to improve their performance or face dismissal. Rhee declined to speculate on how many might be sacked next year. But she said that over the next two years, “a not-insignificant number of folks will be moved out of the system for poor performance.”

[…]…few tenured educators have faced dismissal for poor performance. Rhee said that according to her staff’s research, no teachers were fired for lack of effectiveness in 2006, the year before she was named chancellor.

[…]The great majority of teachers routinely received evaluations showing that they met or exceeded expectations. At the same time, the District compiled one of the weakest academic records of any urban school system in the United States.

I wrote about Michelle Rhee before here. You need to understand that teacher unions are the backbone of the Democrat party. Every vote for a Democrat politician is a vote against quality education for children.

Must-see videos on education policy

Related posts

News

New study on open relationships in the gay community

1 Comment

Story from the San Francisco Chronicle. (H/T Andrew)

Excerpt:

A new study released this week by the Center for Research on Gender & Sexuality at San Francisco State University put statistics around what gay men already know: Many Bay Area boyfriends negotiate open relationships that allow for sex with outsiders.

[…]”I think it’s quite natural for men to want to continue to have an active and varied sex life,” said 50-year-old technology consultant Dean Allemang from Oakland, who just ended a 13-year-open relationship and has begun another with a new boyfriend.

“I don’t own my lover, and I don’t own his body,” he said. “I think it’s weird to ask someone you love to give up that part of their life. I would never do it.”

Hoff, who just received a $3.5 million grant from the National Institute of Mental Health to continue the study for five more years, initially started her research based on findings that HIV infection is on the rise among male couples.

“So much of the HIV prevention effort is aimed at a different set – men in dance clubs or bathhouses having anonymous sex,” she said. “HIV prevention might want to expand its message to address relationships; we have to look at risk in a greater context.”

In her study of gay couples, 47 percent reported open relationships. Forty-five percent were monogamous, and the remaining 8 percent disagreed about what they were.

Another researcher quoted in the story explains how same-sex marriage is compatible with an “open relationship”, and that this interpretation of marriage would be a redefinition of traditional marriage.

Comments will be strictly filtered in accordance with Obama’s laws restricting free speech.

News

Canadian federal government reviewing affirmative action policies

1 Comment

Story from the National Post.

Excerpt:

The Conservatives have ordered a review of federal government affirmative action policies, saying the public service should hire based on merit, not race or ethnicity.

Cabinet ministers Stockwell Day and Jason Kenney announced the review of the Public Service Employment Act, along with any related practices and policies, on Thursday. “While we support diversity in the public service, we want to ensure that no Canadian is barred from opportunities in the public service based on race or ethnicity,” Mr. Day, the Treasury Board President, said in a statement.

Mr. Kenney, meanwhile, was more blunt in his calls for a meritocracy.

“I strongly agree with the objective of creating a public service that reflects the diversity of Canada, and with fair measures designed to reach that goal. But we must ensure that all Canadians have an equal opportunity to work for their government based on merit, regardless of race or ethnicity,” said the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism.

Under the current policy, the federal government targets four “employment equity groups” identified in the Employment Equity Act as being reflective of Canada’s wider diversity: visible minorities, aboriginals, people with disabilities and women.

And consider this editorial about the review.

Excerpt:

A cursory review of the federal public service job website reveals that all positions contain the following statement on their application:

The Public Service of Canada is committed to building a skilled, diverse workforce reflective of Canadian society. As a result, it promotes employment equity and encourages candidates to indicate voluntarily on their application if they are a woman, an Aboriginal person, a person with a disability or a member of a visible minority group.

This statement appears whether you are applying for work as a cabin inspector, a financial officer, a telephone interviewer, or an administrative assistant.  While it is intended to promote the hiring of “disadvantaged groups”, it has the effect of discriminating against other groups, even when those groups are, ironically, underrepresented in the positions that are being filled.

Indeed, for certain jobs, and even overall, it appears that affirmative action would need to be applied in the opposite direction, at least where the sexes are concerned.   In the federal civil service, 54.7% of employees are female, as were 57% of employees hired in 2008/09. But only 51% of the population is female.  It would thus appear that men need help, not women.

The opposition parties (the socialist Liberals and the communist New Democrat Party) oppose the review because they’re racists. They judge people based on the color of their skin, not on the content of their character.