Why is media about "good education"ONLY about firing teachers?

Today's Wash Post has an interesting piece about Rhee resignation as DC School Chancellor and her interim replacement by her own number 2 -- who apparently shares her zeal for reform but -- unlike Rhee -- is considered an honest negotiator by the teachers.

All I've ever read about Rhee has made me think she and  the "all we have to do is fire bad teachers" school of public school reformers are more arrogant and contentious than they are real change-makers.

And then the article went on to report something I DO NOT THINK I HAD EVER READ BEFORE about the work Rhee did to improve early education, especially pre-K preparation  for "high risk" kids or "wrap-around" services for middle-schoolers not doing well.  Until now, I have only heard Rhee -- and other articles pro-and-con about her -- talk about firing; not about these "outside K-12 school" support systems.

"Rhee also dramatically expanded the number of spaces in preschool, pre-K and Head Start, and opened the Early Stages diagnostic center to help flag learning disabilities in children ages 2 to 5. She piloted a program of "wrap-around" support services for at-risk middle school kids and launched a program of "themed" schools focusing on science and technology, world cultures and the arts."

Why don't we want to discuss both bad teachers and neglected children?  Why won't Americans -- and propagandists like the makers of WAITING FOR SUPERMAN -- admit that not all the problems inner-city kids have can be solved by one teacher in their classroom?  



.