DC Public Education Candidate Forum starting now

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So much of life in DC is a low level insurrection against dc government, an entrenched political “dc native” class, and public sector unions whose primary goal is to enrich themselves as much as possible while providing the lowest level of service possible. We cannot give an inch to these leeches, and people have to realize how much contempt the city of dc and its people employees have for its citizens, especially of its most productive, tax paying citizens.

You haven’t added to the discussion, except to show that you are deeply racist and ignorant.

dp - This Fall, there was a thread here with a poster ardently insisting would be racist to cut staff in Central because DCPS had been a path to the middle class for a lot of Blacks over time. I sorta get her point, but providing jobs is not the purpose of DCPS and educational considerations should be paramount.

I don't think that poster represents all DC government employees, but I do think it represents some.

Prior to Rhee, DCPS was absolutely a jobs program. There are still some fossils who remember and miss those days.

So you just refuse to acknowledge the fraud, the fact no other school district uses what she created (strange since it was ‘so good’), and that AU has found it to be bias.

It’s fine if you don’t care about teachers but you should care about children as a whole. This is not producing results. How many good MS and HS are there again for DCPS?

If Rhee did an amazing job where’s the results? Why aren’t they continuing or maybe there were almost none.

It’s easy to have results when you are at the bottom of the barrel, simply saying ‘oh the teacher evals are better now,’ is such a cop out. Is having McDonald’s everyday better than starving? What a low bar.

You're a teacher? You sound borderline illiterate. You should learn to write.

Instead of responding you try to insult, honestly it’s telling.

You don't know how to correctly punctuate a sentence.

You don’t know how to be human.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:McDuffie talks a big education game.
But his budget proposals are pretty damn tame.
He’ll cut charter funding without batting an eye.
While telling poor kids that the system’s just fine.
He’s Ward 5’s guy with a citywide seat.
But his education record is notably incomplete.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

+1

[Anonymous]

You should not be in charge of DC public and charter schools if you are unwilling to send your own kids.

That goes for Mayor and DME.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You should not be in charge of DC public and charter schools if you are unwilling to send your own kids.

That goes for Mayor and DME.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly Janice Lewis George is my pick -she is the only one who talked about actually structural changes.
My second is Gary Goodweather, who talks about classroom changes and training for teacher but to me it’s also a red flag. If you know Michelle Rhee, she did a number on DCPS and helped ruin it. Teachers don’t need MORE training, we need GOOD training and planning time.

I find it interesting McDuffie is ALWAYS declining debates involving education. I also recently discovered his plan is to get kids ‘AI ready.’ Just no, we don’t need more tech. The research clearly shows this is not the way and let’s be honest most dummies can utilize AI -to use it well should be an elective a kid in HS can take IF they are interested.

Thanks for this - what structural changes is JLG supporting?

Janeese is a vote for the status quo. She will slavishly do whatever the teacher's union wants (she was trying to re-close schools during the pandemic for months after they had finally opened for good). Her answer to every problem is throwing more money at it. Let's face it. These schools are extremely well funded. What they need are higher academic standards. She is the last person on Earth who will support making schools more rigorous.

This is what worries me too. A PP stated that JLG would be "changing who is in charge not just the chancellor but possibly deputy of education, superintendents." That's what new Mayors do but the people in consideration for those jobs by JLG are the DSA, not focused on higher standards, set. It's a real drawback IMO for her as a candidate.

She's also a sworn enemy of charters. Don't be shocked if she slashes funding for them if elected. Charters already get screwed under the current way DC funds schools.

Yea, she’s not gonna slash the great charters. Also you are an idiot. The mayor alone cannot slash ONLY charter funds, it’d be illegal.

There is a fair amount of discretion in the budget to fund charters lower than DCPS (whether you consider it slashing or not probably depends, but the mayor has room to hurt charters financially). This can happen in two main ways.

First, facilities funding is very different for charters; the per pupil allotment they get already doesn’t keep pace with DC prices, and the three-year budget last year froze it. Because this looks so different from how DCPS facilities are funded, it is essentially decoupled and you can hurt charters here. In fact, the charter sector is extremely worried about this area for this year’s budget already.

Next, there is the fund for teacher pay above and beyond what schools can do with PPF. Now, you can argue that this bucket should only be for DCPS since it relates to the WTU negotiated contract, but last year the mayor put some money aside for charters for equity with this funding bucket for DCPS teachers. Again, the charter sector is very worried about this bucket this year already; without, they will either be at more of a disadvantage for recruitment or have to cut elsewhere. Again, regardless of what you think about this bucket, the mayor has a lot of sway depending on whether they put it on a proposed budget and it would harm charters.

So charters don’t have donors? I’m kidding we both know they do, as well as that they are businesses.

Teachers go teach at charters regardless if the pay is lower, just as some choose private schools.

So tell me what the ‘disadvantage’ is for great charters? If they are doing poorly, then the kids might as well go to the same DCPS school in their neighborhood.

+1

Charters are often monetarily mismanaged. And they are top heavy, paying very high salaries to school leaders. The successful ones or ones in a network will be fine. The ones doing poorly and mismanaging money should close. That’s part of being autonomous. If you don’t have to follow all of DCPS’s rules, you don’t get the same resources.

Yes, yes, we all know you both hate the charter sector, it’s super interesting.

But that’s not the actual question here; the question is does the mayor have the legal ability to make things harder financially for charters without making things harder for DCPS, and the answer there is yes. That’s just a fact, whether you think that’s a problem is a matter of your opinion.

I don’t hate charter schools. But I have worked in several and can tell you there seems to be very little oversight. I can also tell you they did not have to follow the same requirements as public schools- so with that autonomy comes some drawbacks. Funding being one of those according to you.

I've worked/volunteered for several as well. Each had staff dedicated to meeting compliance requirements from OSSE, PCSB, debtors, etc. Your assessment that there "seems to be very little oversight" doesn't conform to the actual facts. But, hey, it's a good story to tell.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly Janice Lewis George is my pick -she is the only one who talked about actually structural changes.
My second is Gary Goodweather, who talks about classroom changes and training for teacher but to me it’s also a red flag. If you know Michelle Rhee, she did a number on DCPS and helped ruin it. Teachers don’t need MORE training, we need GOOD training and planning time.

I find it interesting McDuffie is ALWAYS declining debates involving education. I also recently discovered his plan is to get kids ‘AI ready.’ Just no, we don’t need more tech. The research clearly shows this is not the way and let’s be honest most dummies can utilize AI -to use it well should be an elective a kid in HS can take IF they are interested.

Thanks for this - what structural changes is JLG supporting?

Janeese is a vote for the status quo. She will slavishly do whatever the teacher's union wants (she was trying to re-close schools during the pandemic for months after they had finally opened for good). Her answer to every problem is throwing more money at it. Let's face it. These schools are extremely well funded. What they need are higher academic standards. She is the last person on Earth who will support making schools more rigorous.

This is what worries me too. A PP stated that JLG would be "changing who is in charge not just the chancellor but possibly deputy of education, superintendents." That's what new Mayors do but the people in consideration for those jobs by JLG are the DSA, not focused on higher standards, set. It's a real drawback IMO for her as a candidate.

She's also a sworn enemy of charters. Don't be shocked if she slashes funding for them if elected. Charters already get screwed under the current way DC funds schools.

Yea, she’s not gonna slash the great charters. Also you are an idiot. The mayor alone cannot slash ONLY charter funds, it’d be illegal.

There is a fair amount of discretion in the budget to fund charters lower than DCPS (whether you consider it slashing or not probably depends, but the mayor has room to hurt charters financially). This can happen in two main ways.

First, facilities funding is very different for charters; the per pupil allotment they get already doesn’t keep pace with DC prices, and the three-year budget last year froze it. Because this looks so different from how DCPS facilities are funded, it is essentially decoupled and you can hurt charters here. In fact, the charter sector is extremely worried about this area for this year’s budget already.

Next, there is the fund for teacher pay above and beyond what schools can do with PPF. Now, you can argue that this bucket should only be for DCPS since it relates to the WTU negotiated contract, but last year the mayor put some money aside for charters for equity with this funding bucket for DCPS teachers. Again, the charter sector is very worried about this bucket this year already; without, they will either be at more of a disadvantage for recruitment or have to cut elsewhere. Again, regardless of what you think about this bucket, the mayor has a lot of sway depending on whether they put it on a proposed budget and it would harm charters.

So charters don’t have donors? I’m kidding we both know they do, as well as that they are businesses.

Teachers go teach at charters regardless if the pay is lower, just as some choose private schools.

So tell me what the ‘disadvantage’ is for great charters? If they are doing poorly, then the kids might as well go to the same DCPS school in their neighborhood.

+1

Charters are often monetarily mismanaged. And they are top heavy, paying very high salaries to school leaders. The successful ones or ones in a network will be fine. The ones doing poorly and mismanaging money should close. That’s part of being autonomous. If you don’t have to follow all of DCPS’s rules, you don’t get the same resources.

Right and no DCPS schools are monetarily mismanaged.

https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/pr/former-district-columbia-public-schools-official-found-guilty-bribery-scheme
https://dcist.com/story/23/05/11/dcps-unlawfully-awarded-contracts-worth-270-million/
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2025/oct/6/ethics-board-fines-former-dcps-superintendent-taking-nearly-170000/
https://www.washingtoninformer.com/in-dcps-procurement-scandal-black-owned-small-business-weigh-in/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You should not be in charge of DC public and charter schools if you are unwilling to send your own kids.

That goes for Mayor and DME.

People should weigh whether a politician sends their kid to public or charter school when they pick who to vote for but having it be legally disqualifying is just flat unconstitutional.

That being said what dc pols have kids in public school? I think Bowser’s kid is still in her school, but typically they go to St. John’s.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You should not be in charge of DC public and charter schools if you are unwilling to send your own kids.

That goes for Mayor and DME.

People should weigh whether a politician sends their kid to public or charter school when they pick who to vote for but having it be legally disqualifying is just flat unconstitutional.

That being said what dc pols have kids in public school? I think Bowser’s kid is still in her school, but typically they go to St. John’s.

They don’t go there lol Why would it be unconstitutional in a city with mayoral control? It’d be different if we had a school board. How can a mayor be allowed to run public schools without any stake in them or experience?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You should not be in charge of DC public and charter schools if you are unwilling to send your own kids.

That goes for Mayor and DME.

People should weigh whether a politician sends their kid to public or charter school when they pick who to vote for but having it be legally disqualifying is just flat unconstitutional.

That being said what dc pols have kids in public school? I think Bowser’s kid is still in her school, but typically they go to St. John’s.

No one's saying it's unconstitutional. But it's definitely unprincipled and classist!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You should not be in charge of DC public and charter schools if you are unwilling to send your own kids.

That goes for Mayor and DME.

People should weigh whether a politician sends their kid to public or charter school when they pick who to vote for but having it be legally disqualifying is just flat unconstitutional.

That being said what dc pols have kids in public school? I think Bowser’s kid is still in her school, but typically they go to St. John’s.

No one's saying it's unconstitutional. But it's definitely unprincipled and classist!

The comment I literally replied to said it was. C’mon now…

And how, can you explain your thoughts?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You should not be in charge of DC public and charter schools if you are unwilling to send your own kids.

That goes for Mayor and DME.

People should weigh whether a politician sends their kid to public or charter school when they pick who to vote for but having it be legally disqualifying is just flat unconstitutional.

That being said what dc pols have kids in public school? I think Bowser’s kid is still in her school, but typically they go to St. John’s.

No one's saying it's unconstitutional. But it's definitely unprincipled and classist!

The comment I literally replied to said it was. C’mon now…

And how, can you explain your thoughts?

Wut? Reading comprehension is key.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You should not be in charge of DC public and charter schools if you are unwilling to send your own kids.

That goes for Mayor and DME.

People should weigh whether a politician sends their kid to public or charter school when they pick who to vote for but having it be legally disqualifying is just flat unconstitutional.

That being said what dc pols have kids in public school? I think Bowser’s kid is still in her school, but typically they go to St. John’s.

They don’t go there lol Why would it be unconstitutional in a city with mayoral control? It’d be different if we had a school board. How can a mayor be allowed to run public schools without any stake in them or experience?

It would constitute a very clear religious test under even a pretty liberal court. You might not even have to get there as a restraint of freedom of association.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly Janice Lewis George is my pick -she is the only one who talked about actually structural changes.
My second is Gary Goodweather, who talks about classroom changes and training for teacher but to me it’s also a red flag. If you know Michelle Rhee, she did a number on DCPS and helped ruin it. Teachers don’t need MORE training, we need GOOD training and planning time.

I find it interesting McDuffie is ALWAYS declining debates involving education. I also recently discovered his plan is to get kids ‘AI ready.’ Just no, we don’t need more tech. The research clearly shows this is not the way and let’s be honest most dummies can utilize AI -to use it well should be an elective a kid in HS can take IF they are interested.

Thanks for this - what structural changes is JLG supporting?

DP- overall? The debate was pretty short.
But universal childcare (little kids), more aftercare slots,actually addressing truancy and how kids get to school. As well as how we can address challenging behaviors.
Changing who is in charge not just the chancellor but possibly deputy of education, superintendents.
More listening to what teachers, parents, and students are saying.

I think no one is offering the huge changes teachers and parents would really want.

But I also agree that of all the candidates Janice and Gary are the best but Gary’s answers were way less polished and he admitted he has no expertise in running education. I know I will not be voting for McDuffie either, I do need the next mayor to not just care about businesses and crime (well I’d like them to actually care about crime more) but also education.

I'm always surprised when people here rip JLG on education because she has been incredibly engaged on education during her time on Council. People see DSA and lose their minds but she's from Ward 4, went to Deal and Wilson, and she and her staff have shown up and pushed for school improvements even outside of just her constituents. I'm sure there are things we disagree on but the blanket "she's DSA and hates standards" is so reductive.

I also believe she may be in favor of relinquishing mayoral control of DCPS which would be huge and one of Bowser's worst decisions. It makes everything at the school level, even small things, a political fight which is not how we should view education.

I agree. I'm not sure what baggage people have that cause them to be negative about her but Janeese understands what's going on and can speak to the issues competently. It's refreshing compared to the usual political hacks that are just trying to tell us what we want to hear but clearly don't understand the issues.

Janeese would be a major step down from Bowser. At least Bowser is willing to stand up to the teachers union. We remember how hard Janeese fought to keep schools closed during the pandemic, even after they had been open for months. We also know how adamantly she opposes raising academic standards or any form of accountability with schools. Nobody cares or should care about this nothing burger she's selling re: mayoral control of DCPS. It's meaningless.

For the benefit of those who don't "remember how hard Janeese fought to keep schools closed," care to enlighten us with receipts?

She backed legislation in 2022 that would have forced schools to re-close if they didn't meet impossible-to-meet coronavirus metrics. She said it was to ensure schools were safe. This was at a time when schools had already been open for five months, after closing for 18 months. The teachers union wanted virtual learning to go on forever and Janeese was doing the teachers union's bidding with the bill, per usual. She will do anything the union tells her. All she cares about is getting elected. The other members of the city council forced her to drop the idea.

JLG has sold her soul to the teachers union.

But why would she do that? Honest question. I would assume fewer than half of DCPS teachers live in DC, so why would she worry about people who aren’t her constituents?’

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You should not be in charge of DC public and charter schools if you are unwilling to send your own kids.

That goes for Mayor and DME.

People should weigh whether a politician sends their kid to public or charter school when they pick who to vote for but having it be legally disqualifying is just flat unconstitutional.

That being said what dc pols have kids in public school? I think Bowser’s kid is still in her school, but typically they go to St. John’s.

No one's saying it's unconstitutional. But it's definitely unprincipled and classist!

The comment I literally replied to said it was. C’mon now…

And how, can you explain your thoughts?

Wut? Reading comprehension is key.

Yes, it is. I can recommend a good tutor for you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly Janice Lewis George is my pick -she is the only one who talked about actually structural changes.
My second is Gary Goodweather, who talks about classroom changes and training for teacher but to me it’s also a red flag. If you know Michelle Rhee, she did a number on DCPS and helped ruin it. Teachers don’t need MORE training, we need GOOD training and planning time.

I find it interesting McDuffie is ALWAYS declining debates involving education. I also recently discovered his plan is to get kids ‘AI ready.’ Just no, we don’t need more tech. The research clearly shows this is not the way and let’s be honest most dummies can utilize AI -to use it well should be an elective a kid in HS can take IF they are interested.

Thanks for this - what structural changes is JLG supporting?

DP- overall? The debate was pretty short.
But universal childcare (little kids), more aftercare slots,actually addressing truancy and how kids get to school. As well as how we can address challenging behaviors.
Changing who is in charge not just the chancellor but possibly deputy of education, superintendents.
More listening to what teachers, parents, and students are saying.

I think no one is offering the huge changes teachers and parents would really want.

But I also agree that of all the candidates Janice and Gary are the best but Gary’s answers were way less polished and he admitted he has no expertise in running education. I know I will not be voting for McDuffie either, I do need the next mayor to not just care about businesses and crime (well I’d like them to actually care about crime more) but also education.

I'm always surprised when people here rip JLG on education because she has been incredibly engaged on education during her time on Council. People see DSA and lose their minds but she's from Ward 4, went to Deal and Wilson, and she and her staff have shown up and pushed for school improvements even outside of just her constituents. I'm sure there are things we disagree on but the blanket "she's DSA and hates standards" is so reductive.

I also believe she may be in favor of relinquishing mayoral control of DCPS which would be huge and one of Bowser's worst decisions. It makes everything at the school level, even small things, a political fight which is not how we should view education.

I agree. I'm not sure what baggage people have that cause them to be negative about her but Janeese understands what's going on and can speak to the issues competently. It's refreshing compared to the usual political hacks that are just trying to tell us what we want to hear but clearly don't understand the issues.

Janeese would be a major step down from Bowser. At least Bowser is willing to stand up to the teachers union. We remember how hard Janeese fought to keep schools closed during the pandemic, even after they had been open for months. We also know how adamantly she opposes raising academic standards or any form of accountability with schools. Nobody cares or should care about this nothing burger she's selling re: mayoral control of DCPS. It's meaningless.

For the benefit of those who don't "remember how hard Janeese fought to keep schools closed," care to enlighten us with receipts?

She backed legislation in 2022 that would have forced schools to re-close if they didn't meet impossible-to-meet coronavirus metrics. She said it was to ensure schools were safe. This was at a time when schools had already been open for five months, after closing for 18 months. The teachers union wanted virtual learning to go on forever and Janeese was doing the teachers union's bidding with the bill, per usual. She will do anything the union tells her. All she cares about is getting elected. The other members of the city council forced her to drop the idea.

JLG has sold her soul to the teachers union.

But why would she do that? Honest question. I would assume fewer than half of DCPS teachers live in DC, so why would she worry about people who aren’t her constituents?’

Some people say this because teachers are backing her for mayor. McDuffie refused to answer the teacher’s questionnaire or join the debate. Also some BS about covid. Blue states ALL opened later than red, even though it’s very easily verified that these states aren’t doing better because they opened earlier.

Even with this, it does not equate to selling her soul. She did not answer every question exactly the way we would have wanted. Yet we endorsed her because she is the only one with a track record and cares about public schools. Not just big businesses.

Regardless of who you vote for know that McDuffie does not care about education at all.