By The media attention around Korean-American and Washington, DC school superintendent Michelle Rhee has increased even further as she is now featured on the cover of TIME magazine:
Excluding the Asia edition, Koreans have graced the cover five times. Former South Korean president Syngman Rhee appeared on the cover in 1950 and in 1953 as the “Father” of a country mired in the Korean War. In 1987, former South Korean president Chun Doo-hwan appeared as a leader in crisis following the upheaval caused by the killing of student activist Park Chong-chul. Former North Korean leader Kim Il-sung appeared on Time’s cover in 1994 and his son Kim Jong-il in 2003, both due to their nuclear brinkmanship.
Michelle Rhee, the Korean-American education chancellor, appeared on the cover of the Dec. 8 edition holding a broom inside a classroom alongside the caption: “Can Michelle Rhee save our schools?” The photo encompasses hopes that Rhee will rid Washington’s public schools of inept teachers. The article lauded her as having achieved in 17 months what it took 5 years for others to do.
When the 37-year-old Korean-American woman with no experience of running education institutions was appointed to take over the region’s public schools, Time reported her appointment had been criticized as “the worst pick on the face of the earth.” But now, 17 months later, Rhee has emerged as the savior of America’s public school system, which is mired in crisis. [Chosun Ilbo]
I did a profile of Michelle Rhee myself a few months back and her name also came up during a US Presidential debate. I don’t know if she the “savior” of America’s schools but I do like how she thinks outside the box and is motivated give children in Washington, DC the best education possible.
3:56 pm on December 1st, 2008 1
The beatification of Michelle Rhee worries me. She doesn’t need national media coverage; rather, it is support from all stakeholders, including teachers, that will determine whether she succeeds or fails in her reforms. Magazine covers will inspire jealousy and back-biting.
Reply
4:33 pm on December 1st, 2008 2
I hope Obama reads Time and appoints her Secretary of Education.
Reply
6:08 pm on December 1st, 2008 3
Give credit where credit is due. She has done well and accomplished much in a system that consistantly resists reform. Were she to stop tommorrow she will have made a difference.
Reply
6:18 pm on December 1st, 2008 4
It remains to be seen whether President Obama will be fighting for Rhee the Reformer while he’s in the White House, but one thing is certain: Obama’s kids will be exercising the age-old policy of School Choice for the Rich by attending Sidwell Friends.
Reply
6:20 pm on December 1st, 2008 5
She has been set up for failure – you can’t teach someone who doesn’t want to learn
Reply
8:42 pm on December 1st, 2008 6
Obama only supports her for his campaign purposes but will not send his girls to DC public school. Even Mayor Fenty send his twin boys to private school until last august. Due to political pressure, the mayor had to switched to DC public school for his twin boys. BTW, Ms Rhee sends her daughters to DC public school.
Reply
9:30 pm on December 1st, 2008 7
But all we really want to know is: Does she like mad-cow, I mean, U.S. beef?
Reply
9:35 pm on December 1st, 2008 8
I don’t even have an issue with the Obamas sending their kids to private school. My issue is that people without their means are forced to spend $13K a year of their money to support a failed system AND send their kids into it. Why can’t other kids get the same opportunity the Obamas’ kids get?
Reply
10:48 pm on December 1st, 2008 9
Where does that 13K a year figure come from? I thought public schools through high school were tuition free. If you are talking about the cost to the average tax payer, maybe? But I don’t think many of the families “without their [the Obamas] means” pay enough in taxes to cover the cost of their one or more kids.
Reply
8:06 am on December 2nd, 2008 10
#9: Whether or not the family is paying the full amount is irrelevant. That’s what taxpayers are collectively paying on their behalf. That’s what it’s costing us. And that’s what, in my opinion, they’re entitled to have and spend in tuition at whatever school they want, public or private.
Mind you, I’m not complaining about how much they pay. I’m complaining about how little they get for all that money and how they have no choice but to feed a broken system with not just their money but their kids’ future.
But in fact, I was wrong. The cost to the DC taxpayer per student this year is $24,606. (Total budget in 2007-2008 was $1.216 billion. Divide this by the 49,422 students and you have cost per student.)
The average private school tuition in DC is $14K.
You do the math.
Reply
10:15 am on December 2nd, 2008 11
Now she is going to fix all American schools?
I just see another hwang woo suk.
Reply
11:33 pm on December 2nd, 2008 12
She can start by getting rid of tenure. Then allow parents to choose the school, not the limiting them to their district. Incompetent teachers has got be weeded out, although the union tends to protect the bad apples.
She apparently supports merit based pay, so she’s on the right track.
Reply
12:29 pm on December 16th, 2008 13
Chicago politics prevail.
Reply
6:28 am on June 9th, 2009 14
Remember that our parents or people around us always said get a good education, so that you can get a good job or start a successfull business, and take care of your family. Many chose not to listen, and decided upon another route — perhaps dropping out, or not advancing themselves as far as possible. Many people who did not listen to the encouragement to do better now work in lower- income jobs in lower income communities with bad schools. There is nothing wrong with this actually; it does not mean that a person does not want the best for their children. They just did not envision earlier that it would take more money and social capital to achieve these goals. However, don’t blame the president and his wife for doing the work to earn more and to provide more options to their children. Of course they will not send their children to DC public schools; they are the worse in the nation, albeit the media claims that Rhee is making such a big difference. It would potentially be dangerous for the Obama children at this time and we already know that the quality of education provided there would be lower, which is why so many DC families without sufficient money to send their children elsewhere are angry and are having difficulty getting their kids out, though they are trying desperately to leave. I am an educational administrator who has seen Teach For America and various new principal and superintendent prep programs come and go. Always, their graduates are merited with special powers not provided to other educators, yet in the end you are left with a lot of media hype and no significant change in student outcomes. I also know the history of DC public schools. Rhee, I am afraid to say is a fad. She has brought some good people with her who actually know education and like any new district administrator has had some traction. I wish her well, however, superintendents in large urban districts generally do not stay long enough to follow the change process through (usually 5 – 7 years). A new superintendent will come in with new ideas and policies and the district will be off in that direction. It will take a mighty-will to fix the broken DC system. No outsider will be able to do it really — particularly one with limited knowledge of education or the community that he or she is dealing with. The people have to decide that they want a quality education for DC schools and begin to work for it, in collaboration with the district leader, the Mayor, etc. Parents will need to take the lead(like in Milwaukee, Chicago, and San Diego). Rhee can use the support — any superintendent can. The Mayor of DC is in charge of the schools there. He has little excuse for sending his children to private schools, except that he has every right to do what is best for his children — who plays with their children’s future. Because he is committed to improve DC schools, does not mean that they are at a place at this time where he would send his children.
Reply
6:43 am on June 9th, 2009 15
I started and ran a charter school between 2001 and 2005 which provided students with rigorous instruction, close academic monitoring, highly trained teachers, numerous supports,and enrichments (i.e. technology and foreign language classes in kindergarten through 12th grade, access to quality math, reading and science labs and resource-rich classrooms)and did so with an allotment of $5,000 per pupil and a whole lot of soliciting pro-bono services and donations of supplies and materials. My school was voted the top school in the region where there are numerous quality schools – public and private. Oh, what I could have done with $14,000 per student, even today. Research has proven time and again that it is not how much money you spend on students that solely makes the difference, success in schooling also has as much to do with the utilization of funds in ways that promote achievement and school success, and a range of other leadership factors. I find it hard to believe that DC children are being funded to the tune of $14,000 per pupil, but the community is seeing less than half of the results. What’s up with that?
Reply
5:57 pm on June 9th, 2009 16
There is a lot of corruption in the DC school system.
Reply