"It should not, however, be an occasion for gloating,"

opines the Washington Post with respect to the D.C. Superior Court's judgement on the legality of Michelle Rhee's recent firing of some 300 teachers to close an "unanticipated" budget gap.  The Post agrees with Peter Nickles that the judgement constitutes a "slam dunk" for the city, but tempers it's enthusiasm with the recognition that the layoffs were "disruptive."

The mere fact that the Post felt tempted to gloat over the matter, and apparently feels that its readers may have been similarly inclined, tells us for whom it is writing: the business crowd that would dearly love to see all unions destroyed.   For this group, any victory over unions -- no matter how harmful to children, and no matter how damaging to the morale of those to whom these children are entrusted -- is an occassion to celebrate.

The Court held merely that Rhee's actions were legal, not that she handled the situation well.  And by any objective standard, she did not handle the situation well at all.  By this action she has further poisoned the already toxic atmosphere in DC public schools.  Any teacher who can will now flee.  Others, whose family or other commitments tie them to the community, will batten down the hatches and dispiritedly go into work every day, waiting for the evil wind to pass.

How Peter Nickles and the Washington Post editorialist can view this as a "slam dunk" is beyond me.  It is only a slam dunk for those who believe that teachers' energy, creativity, and enthusiasm are worthless, and that the teaching craft requires no more talent than assembling widgets.  But that does seem to be pretty much how teaching is viewed by the business crowd.