Hearst Principal Leaving/Washington Post

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Of course Kaya is in over her head!!! She is not qualified to run a school system.

Neither was Rhee

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it's interesting that he used that one student disciplinary issue as an excuse. We don't know the details of the case. The child may have been undergoing evaluations for his behaviors and if that is the case he CAN NOT be suspended or expelled for an issue related to the area that he is being evaluated under. So if a child has psychological issues that cause behavior problems they cannot be expelled for a behavior problem and they most certainly cannot be put out of the school. If this child was not a DC resident but moved into the district during the school year then DCPS did act accordingly. OOB seats are not given to students based upon good behavior. What's funny is that MANY principals try to push OOB special needs kids (autistic, LD, MR, etc) and kids with behavior problems out of their school and into their neighborhood school because they don't want to deal with the child or do not want to use their budget on hiring the therapists....so they research the families and try to do whatever they can to push them out. It sounds crazy but trust me it happens too often in other wards!

Obviously, you have never had your child in a class room with another child who has stabbed two other children to the point where the children were bleeding and the other children actually frightened. And these are third graders. Not to mention the canceled opportunities (field trips, special projects) because having a wild card in the class effected everyone's experience. And if your child was in this class, you would be fine with that as long as he is undergoing evaluations. And if this was your neighborhood school and you had no other options... no big deal?

Kids with oppositional stance disorder should not be in mainstream classrooms without proper support. If a principal in that situation defends the program, they are also defending the student--who should never have been put in that situation. And the negative impact on a whole class--canceled field trips, living in fear.... our system is so screwed up.

[Anonymous]

I cannot believe you guys are spending this much energy on the word "ain't." It was obviously a colloquialism, used deliberately--which I'm sure in hindsight she now wishes she hadn't, because it's driving some of you into a distracting frenzy.

"Ain't," ain't the issue. It's besides the point. Focus people!

[Anonymous]

If a student with serious behavior problems is mainstreamed (without a designated aid) then they need to be held accountable for infractions and follow the same consequences that their peers get.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Speaking of the OOB issue and dysfunctional situations -- the school is 70% OOB but has classes in trailers. I fail to understand how it is helping to keep cramming OOB kids into schools that are bursting at the seams (with or without OOB students). These schools are going downhill because they are simply too big to manage successfully in the space they have.

Firstly, I'm an IB parent at Hearst and it is not "going down hill." Far from it and it is offensive to read your comments. And the school has trailers because OPEFM is delayed, in providing the slated renovations and addition, and the school now goes to 5th grade. IB parents recently fought to have the school go to 5th grade so the children, both OOB and IB, don't have to transfer to another school, as they were required to do when the school only went to 3rd grade. They also did this to stop the cycle of IB parents bailing after kindergarten to ensure a spot for their child. Secondly, nobody is "cramming OOB kids" into Hearst. They're entering the lottery and choosing it because it is a good little school. And if more IB parents would send their children, there would be less OOB. But what continues to upset me is the code used for OOB. OOB, whether at Hearst or any other school, does not automatically equal poor, uneducated, violent, uninvolved parents/families, blah, blah, blah, or whatever else it is that scares you. Seriously.

thank you for this thoughtful first hand view. The article made it seem like parents were surprised Kerlina quit. How are the children reaccting to this? What lessons can they take away from this? The shool and the system have been stigmatized. The school's neighbors painted as racists. An authority figure who sounded like a force for good abandoned them. For cupcakes. I've seen the impact that bad press has on young kids in DCPS schools labeled by high profile issues. It would have been more constructive for the children if Kerlina had cooled off and worked with families to communicate an emotional situation in an age-appropriate way that didn't involve glaring headlines. I wish the families the best. Good luck finding a leader who will put children before personal pique.

[Anonymous]

"Good luck finding a leader who will put children before personal pique."

One might say the same thing about Kaya and Michelle.

Kerlina's departure is a loss to Hearst and the system. I'm glad he spoke out and made headlines, because this has happened over and over again under Rhee/Henderson.

The system needs good experienced administrators. Good luck finding another warm body.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"Good luck finding a leader who will put children before personal pique."

One might say the same thing about Kaya and Michelle.

Kerlina's departure is a loss to Hearst and the system. I'm glad he spoke out and made headlines, because this has happened over and over again under Rhee/Henderson.

The system needs good experienced administrators. Good luck finding another warm body.

I agree completely. "Personal pique" indeed, as if there is no other reason a principal would voluntarily leave such a screwed-up school system.

Kerlina had to know that he'd get some reaction like this, but was courageous, and perhaps desperate, enough to try to help other principals and teachers on his way out.

And to the poster deriding focus on Kaya's ain't - you seem to be in somewhat of a frenzy about it, as if it's odd for people to be upset about a school leader using bad grammar in a public statement. I know perfectly well she doesn't usually talk that way and had a choice not to in this case. Why did she say ain't? As a way of belittling the whole topic, as if losing Kerlina or any principal is of little importance to her.

[Anonymous]

If a student with serious behavior problems is mainstreamed (without a designated aid) then they need to be held accountable for infractions and follow the same consequences that their peers get.

You know where this would never happen? Murch. Lafayette. Janney.

Why? Because if there was a mentally challenged child in any of these whose mental challenges manifested themselves by him physically maiming other children, the 40% of the parents who are all attorneys would band together and file a notice of intent to sue so fast your head would spin. This would be true whether said child was OOB or IB, by they way.

If the kid wasn't drawing blood routinely but was causing cancelled "specials" like field trips, the parents would -still- band together at Murch, Janney, Lafayette and make. it. stop. They would.

Sometimes, "pushy" parents do have the greater good in mind, and not just protecting their own Little Snowflake. I've seen it happen first-hand.

[Anonymous]

Hmm. . . We have plenty of attorneys at Hearst too. I happen to be one of them.

[Anonymous]

You have to get up above that 40% mark.

Then everyone is on the same, litigious page without even having to discuss much.

Seriously, though, you take my point? This out-of-state resident / violent child / hurting classmates thing would not continue at a Murch. It just doesn't, and IMO it's not because the principalS are so much better than Kerlina was.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"And to the poster deriding focus on Kaya's ain't - you seem to be in somewhat of a frenzy about it, as if it's odd for people to be upset about a school leader using bad grammar in a public statement. I know perfectly well she doesn't usually talk that way and had a choice not to in this case. Why did she say ain't? As a way of belittling the whole topic, as if losing Kerlina or any principal is of little importance to her.

I can't speak to your perception of her dismissiveness. If that's your perception, then it's real for you.

With regard to her use of the word "ain't". There's a difference between incorrect grammar and the use of a colloquialism. I think we can all agree that she knew exactly what she was saying and that she purposefully chose those words (she didn't say "ain't" because she wasn't aware of the proper verb to use). What she did not forsee was how ill-received her use of an obvious colloquialism would in the "new" DC. It was a mistake because it offended some people and set off a distracting firestorm. For that, she should extend her mea culpas so that we can all move on and get back to the business of improving the school system.

But understand, her using a colloquialism with the word "ain't", just "ain't" that deep for everyone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ugh. Why is Kaya saying "ain't"?

Wonderful spokesperson; yikes! Is she trying to be 'just folks'? Not the right moment in a situation meriting a serious, reasoned response.

--former DCPS teacher who give thanks every day for my good fortune in escaping....

So many take-aways in this article. Good on the Principal for putting his real thoughts out there.

That said, when I read "ain't" coming out of the Chancellor's mouth in an on-the-record interview with the Post, my first thought was: she should be fired just for that.

Can you imagine a CEO being interviewed in, say, the WSJ, about a key executive's departure and hearing the word "ain't" in her answer. Please!! Just ridiculous. Standards are set from the top. What a joke.

You can usually tell the folks who are insecure about their education, since they always tend to focus on the wrong things. "The Schools Chancellor said aint! There goes all DCPS' credibility!!"


Why, can you imagine a CEO being interviewed in a major publication and using the word "ain't"? The idea!!!

http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2010/11/aig_ceo_this_ship_aint_going_t.html

Reminds me of the non-scandal from a few years ago where some grant-writing team repurposed some standard boilerplate in their grant, and all the semi-educated folk got up in arms about "plagiarism". "What will our children think!!!!"

Whatevs.

Ha! I predicted on another thread here that central office would start looking for other dignitaries who said "ain't." I figured they'd try for V Gray or K Brown, but apparently they could only find a 2010 quote from the CEO of AIG in NY Magazine.

Your tax dollars at work!

More trifling ghetto bullshit from folks insecure about their own education. And, no, I'm not a "central office" employee. Some douchebag asked "What would happen if a CEO used such uneducated language!?!" and I simply pointed out that if white male CEOs do it all the time. No one shits themselves over it as several screeching harpies have here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Of course Kaya is in over her head!!! She is not qualified to run a school system.

Exactly! The only folks qualified to run a school system are burnt-out 60 year old veteran DCPS teachers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If a student with serious behavior problems is mainstreamed (without a designated aid) then they need to be held accountable for infractions and follow the same consequences that their peers get.

I don't think you understand IEPs very well. They're individualized legal contracts between the school district and the student. A diagnosis such as ODD suggests the child should have a BIP (Behavior Improvement Plan) in place (if the SpEd team is remotely competent, which it probably is not). The BIP should contain detailed information about what triggers the student, what the target behavior includes, how it is to be addressed with respect to escalation, and much more.

You can't simply declare a policy that student should suffer the same consequences as everyone else, you have to actually follow the law.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

If a student with serious behavior problems is mainstreamed (without a designated aid) then they need to be held accountable for infractions and follow the same consequences that their peers get.

You know where this would never happen? Murch. Lafayette. Janney.

Why? Because if there was a mentally challenged child in any of these whose mental challenges manifested themselves by him physically maiming other children, the 40% of the parents who are all attorneys would band together and file a notice of intent to sue so fast your head would spin. This would be true whether said child was OOB or IB, by they way.

If the kid wasn't drawing blood routinely but was causing cancelled "specials" like field trips, the parents would -still- band together at Murch, Janney, Lafayette and make. it. stop. They would.

Sometimes, "pushy" parents do have the greater good in mind, and not just protecting their own Little Snowflake. I've seen it happen first-hand.

You're right that it wouldn't happen at JKLM, but you're wrong as to the why. The difference is that for DCPS, they're considered pro-active with respect to special needs and they have lower caseloads. They have respectable SpEd teams (especially Murch, which should have some real in-house talent because of its autism classroom), who would have identified the student and put the structural supports in place to address the risk of injury.