My review addresses if this is a good book and worth reading, rather than to air my own political and social views. This is always difficult with a work that covers a controversial topic or a controversial figure. When, say, Glen Beck or Anne Coulter on the right and Michael Moore or Bill Maher on the left launches a book, there will be a flood of reviews from supporters or opponents of their views and it then becomes difficult to assess the book rather than the issue.
The questions I try to answer in my review are:
1. Is this a good book? Definitely 4 stars here. It is judicious in its judgments and clear in its analysis and conclusions. It's well crafted. One of the elements I most like is that while it is strongly supportive of Rhee, as it progresses and he has established her as a real and caring person, he adds layers of criticism and queries about how she operated. He lets Rhee express herself with him as the shrewd observer and doesn't try to build her up or give his own picture. It's very well done.
2. Is it reliable? Yes. I live twenty miles outside DC and, being an ex-elementary school teacher and ex-DC resident, followed the Fenty-Rhee story fairly closely. The book seems very accurate and balanced in its details and does enough justice to all the parties to provide an informed and sound narrative. It holds back a lot on the seamy aide of DC politics. Mayor Gray, who could have been portrayed as the villain of the piece, is perhaps too fairly treated. Within just months of his becoming mayor, there has been a nonstop flood of scandals, police investigations, accusations of bribes and diversion of funds, vote-buying, and all the regular mess of the city. It does deal what appears to be a breakdown in the editorial direction of the Washington Post, several of whose outstanding Metro columnists came after Rhee big time, with often dubious portrayal of events and some vey one-sided opinionating. If anything, the author's downplaying of the DC open air political lunatic asylum helps bring out the issues of education - he avoids colorful sidetracks and melodrama that could have made the book more of a popular best seller and "controversial." It makes the book quite low key, reasoned and reasonable, all of which are distinctive merits.
3. What makes it special? This could have been a local story of conflicts and personalities at one extreme or a dreary policy wonk-laden tome on education. It is well-positioned as a story and definitely makes one think. It's resonant and convincing - this is the world of our kids ion a system that just about everyone agrees has become more and more dysfunctional. Rhee took a clear and bold stand. Though she was dumped - sorry, she resigned - she made some major changes and much of what she put in place has been continued. Since the book was published, her successor who has been her long-time and closest colleague has continued just about all her major initiatives and just last week laid off over four hundred teachers for poor performance, mostly under the IMPACT program agreement Rhee put in place two years ago. 300 teachers rated as highly effective for two years in a row are being given base salary raises of up to $25,000 and are eligible for bonuses of another $20,000. Chancellor Henderson looks very effective, with two frequent comments being made in the media: Rhee's initiatives seem to have taken hold and maybe if Rhee had had her tact and patience perhaps she would still be there.
Michelle Rhee is certainly controversial and she brings out strong reactions. Mine are positive but the rights/wrongs of her controversial term as Chancellor of one of the worst school systems in the nation is not a reason either to read or ignore the book. It raises questions that are important regardless of where you stand. In particular, it poses the core issue of whether the problem is the kids and their background or the teachers and their unions. She took over the position through what was very much a go for broke move by the new mayor, Adrian Fenty, who won his election on the promise of a fresh face, new generation leadership and so on. He ran into many problems largely of his own making - losing tough with the community and being labeled as arrogant and dismissive - and his support in the community eroded badly. Rhee became both the lightning rod for much of this opposition and the core of the next mayoral campaign, which he lost. The winner had made it clear, albeit elliptically in public statements, that Rhee would have to go. She resigned and has moved on to a national stage as an advocate for school reform.
At the core of her plans was and remains her belief that the problem in schools is not the children and the culture of poverty, gangs and unemployment they live in. the far deeper cause is the resignation of so many principals that nothing really be done and that the best the schools can do is get by. DC is not exactly known for clean government and the schools plus the massive bureaucracy it has created has for long been a source of patronage jobs and notorious inefficiency and corruption. Even basic administration is a mess, with buildings in chaos, a lack of even basic record keeping even on attendance records and employee levels, waste and diversion of Federal funds, and in many instances schools in a state of semi-chaos. It also has a very strong teacher's union, opposed to teacher evaluations and dismissal for poor performance.
Rhee built her turnaround with a very tough personal style that is often seen as the main reason for the opposition to her. She is clearly an aggressive leader who engenders strong loyalty, and she built a dedicated team. She sought out and promoted new principals and held them accountable, often brutally so. There was very much a my way or the highway flavor to her relationships with principals who faced a daunting task and in some instances were just not quite strong enough to win through; she seems to have left some of these to sink or swim and didn't provide a lifejacket. She put scores on standardized tests at the center of her planning, monitoring and rewards. She went after the bad teachers, of whom there are many. She tried to win support from the unions for her firings and school reorganization by negotiating a contract that gave very substantial merit raises to the best performers; an agreement was eventually reached. She was decidedly not tactful in her public positions as she became a national figure with raves from Oprah, a documentary film and the infamous magazine cover of her as the witch with a broomstick. A major and still ongoing debate is whether she was on the right track but with the wrong personality. DC test scores improved, though again there are many people who question the data, even to the extent of accusations that Rhee herself "manipulated" the figures that first brought her to attention as a teacher in Maryland. DC politics is dominated by a rich of racial and social issues and both Fenty and Rhee were seen as favoring the white liberal elite at the cost of a community that has many valid complaints about gentrification, a right to the city jobs that keep them afloat - and the schools. Some of these were used, inexcusably in my view, as weapons against her.
All in all, this is a strong 4-star rating, not quite a 5 only because many readers may not be interested in the local DC issues. But this could be a tale of Chicago or other cities with somewhat dubious politics and major needs for school reform. Is Rhee the talisperson (is that a real word?) for leadership in school reform but it is worth reading the book just to answer that question. In many ways, if Rhee couldn't turn the system around it is very unlikely others could. Do our schools need radical reform and if so does that demand an aggressive rather than consensual campaign? This book may help you decide.
