DCI Parent Petition

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I joined to genuinely try to understand more about the language and IB curriculum (we're new to DCI) but angry high school parents (not just the lamb parent) commandeered the whole event. It's really frustrating and embarrassing (seriously, no one is going to tell you why a teacher was let go and you are not entitled to know why a teacher is out).

I hope the school puts on event just for MS parents.

The point of this meeting was not to educate parents on language and the IB curriculum. It was to address the recent concerns raised by staff and parents about how Rosskamm is decimating DCI's language and IB curriculum.

You wanted it to be about the ED, but that's not how it was billed to families. You wasted my time and the time of other families that were hoping to learn about the school's approach. You made a fool of yourselves -- this was not the forum for your antics.

The session was *never* billed as an info session. Rosskamm's email last month explicitly framed the first town hall as being about "concerns raised" and "issues under my leadership". That's why parents were raising those concerns.

Go back to the actual email that announced these town halls, because the framing that parents 'hijacked' an IB information session doesn't hold up.
The email is titled 'A Community Update from Executive Director Michael Rosskamm.' It opens by referencing the board meeting, the no confidence concerns, and questions about 'whether we are fully living up to our commitments.' It explicitly frames the town halls as a response to those concerns and his words are 'these issues must be addressed directly' and 'I take responsibility.'

The first session was described as focusing on IB for All and language programs specifically in the context of concerns raised about them. That's not an academic information session, that's an accountability conversation. Parents who showed up expecting answers to the questions the ED himself raised in his own email were not out of line. They were taking him at his word.

What actually happened is that the ED used a format he controlled to talk around the concerns rather than address them which is the same pattern documented at the March 19th board meeting, and the same pattern the staff letter describes over three years of 'listening sessions' that led nowhere.

The parents who pushed back weren't making fools of themselves. They were refusing to sit through another managed non-answer dressed up as dialogue. That's not antics. That's accountability.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I joined to genuinely try to understand more about the language and IB curriculum (we're new to DCI) but angry high school parents (not just the lamb parent) commandeered the whole event. It's really frustrating and embarrassing (seriously, no one is going to tell you why a teacher was let go and you are not entitled to know why a teacher is out).

I hope the school puts on event just for MS parents.

I think the board is just as confused about what the specific issues are related to actions taken towards the curriculum as many commenters here because NO ONE IS WILLING TO WRITE A LIST.

It’s like a parents group made up of pro se litigants

FFS. Read the staff's letter. Or the post earlier in this thread that goes through the issues.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The prepared remarks were painful, as was the continued dodging and evading of questions.

Yeah I didn’t get that impression at all. They have a strategy to deal with the staff issues with the executive director. No organization will ever tell you why a staff member was let go. I was surprised at how organized and prepared some of the staff members seemed to be. Kind of embarrassing how often parents referenced their children as their main sources, but I get it. I often am not great at attending meetings at dci.

Their strategy is to still keep in involved while he's being investigated? He should be out on administrative leave. And they've hired a 3rd party firm they won't name. Super shapdy.

And if you think the staff members were "organized and prepared" that's their deliberate attempt to distract from the issues at hand. Obviously you didn't attend the board meeting where they took the same approach and made staff members show up with talking points that were not relevant.

It’s pretty clear that the aggrieved parties are unwilling or unable to actually articulate their concerns in a way that other people can understand.

Usually this involves making a list with bullet points. Are they capable of that? Have they considered trying it?

The aggrieved parties have already educated themselves on the issues by reading the letter the staff wrote. Which includes a list with bullet points. Thank you for your attention to this matter.

[Anonymous]

I will never fault parents for asking hard questions. We NEED to ask those questions. That’s our job as a parent.

That said I thought the meeting was helpful and informative.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The prepared remarks were painful, as was the continued dodging and evading of questions.

Yeah I didn’t get that impression at all. They have a strategy to deal with the staff issues with the executive director. No organization will ever tell you why a staff member was let go. I was surprised at how organized and prepared some of the staff members seemed to be. Kind of embarrassing how often parents referenced their children as their main sources, but I get it. I often am not great at attending meetings at dci.

Their strategy is to still keep in involved while he's being investigated? He should be out on administrative leave. And they've hired a 3rd party firm they won't name. Super shapdy.

And if you think the staff members were "organized and prepared" that's their deliberate attempt to distract from the issues at hand. Obviously you didn't attend the board meeting where they took the same approach and made staff members show up with talking points that were not relevant.

It’s pretty clear that the aggrieved parties are unwilling or unable to actually articulate their concerns in a way that other people can understand.

Usually this involves making a list with bullet points. Are they capable of that? Have they considered trying it?

The aggrieved parties have already educated themselves on the issues by reading the letter the staff wrote. Which includes a list with bullet points. Thank you for your attention to this matter.

I read the letter. It was light on detail and mistook emotional depth for argument. It’s not persuasive writing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I will never fault parents for asking hard questions. We NEED to ask those questions. That’s our job as a parent.

That said I thought the meeting was helpful and informative.

What was the info conveyed?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What is the ED spouses' background? why was she paid ?

https://www.hendyavenue.com/team-spotlight-meet-sarah-rosskamm/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I will never fault parents for asking hard questions. We NEED to ask those questions. That’s our job as a parent.

That said I thought the meeting was helpful and informative.

What was the info conveyed?

It is too long to recap but they’ll be sending out a recap, including answers to questions posted in the chat in coming days.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is the ED spouses' background? why was she paid ?

https://www.hendyavenue.com/team-spotlight-meet-sarah-rosskamm/

She was paid because Rosskamm hired his wife, from Achievement First, to consult at an IB school. That’s one sentence and four problems: nepotism, conflict of interest, suspect credentials, and a philosophical mismatch with everything DCI stands for

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is the ED spouses' background? why was she paid ?

https://www.hendyavenue.com/team-spotlight-meet-sarah-rosskamm/

She was paid because Rosskamm hired his wife, from Achievement First, to consult at an IB school. That’s one sentence and four problems: nepotism, conflict of interest, suspect credentials, and a philosophical mismatch with everything DCI stands for

In the meeting it was discussed that an outside firm was handling this. I feel this is appropriate.

[Anonymous]

Also just saying I’m not defending Rosskamm but I also think letting the staff fire an executive director is not good precedent either. Being an executive director is not a popularity contest. My first priority is my kids and their education. If the outside firm finds him to be unethical, I’ll be happy if he’s removed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Also just saying I’m not defending Rosskamm but I also think letting the staff fire an executive director is not good precedent either. Being an executive director is not a popularity contest. My first priority is my kids and their education. If the outside firm finds him to be unethical, I’ll be happy if he’s removed.

The staff aren’t firing anyone. They submitted a formal no confidence letter to the board and asked the board to act. That’s the correct process. The board is the accountability mechanism and the question is whether they’ll use it because right now it doesn’t look like they’re stepping up the way they should.

And this goes beyond popularity. The letter documents potential legal liability around IEP compliance, a financial arrangement that effectively cut pay for the lowest-paid staff while the ED took a $30K bonus, a nepotism concern, and a pattern of retaliation that’s been documented over three years. These aren’t vibes, they’re governance failures.

If your kids’ education being the priority that’s exactly why this matters. 37 SPED staff gone since 2023. The MYP coordinator gone with no succession plan. The DP coordinator not being renewed. An IB re-evaluation coming in 27-28. The mission is eroding in real time.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is the ED spouses' background? why was she paid ?

https://www.hendyavenue.com/team-spotlight-meet-sarah-rosskamm/

She was paid because Rosskamm hired his wife, from Achievement First, to consult at an IB school. That’s one sentence and four problems: nepotism, conflict of interest, suspect credentials, and a philosophical mismatch with everything DCI stands for

In the meeting it was discussed that an outside firm was handling this. I feel this is appropriate.

You should do more due diligence.

The fact that an outside firm is involved sounds reassuring on the surface, but the lack of any details should concern everyone, including people who think process matters. There’s no detail on which firm or scope of the investigation.

We don’t know:
- Which firm it is. Is it independent, or does it have a prior relationship with the board, the ED, or his wife’s network? Rosskamm has close relationships with a number of firms. Conflict of interest alert.

- What the scope is. Are they investigating the no confidence vote specifically? The nepotism concern? The IEP compliance failures? The pay structure? All of it? None of it?

- Who hired them. The board, or the ED himself?

- Who they report to, and whether that report will be made public

- What the timeline is

- What authority they have to compel documents or interviews

Without answers to these basic questions, ‘an outside firm is handling it’ is not accountability. It’s the appearance of accountability. It’s a way to tell concerned parents like you that ‘this is being handled’ without any obligation to show how, by whom, or to what end

You should want greater accountability.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I joined to genuinely try to understand more about the language and IB curriculum (we're new to DCI) but angry high school parents (not just the lamb parent) commandeered the whole event. It's really frustrating and embarrassing (seriously, no one is going to tell you why a teacher was let go and you are not entitled to know why a teacher is out).

I hope the school puts on event just for MS parents.

The point of this meeting was not to educate parents on language and the IB curriculum. It was to address the recent concerns raised by staff and parents about how Rosskamm is decimating DCI's language and IB curriculum.

You wanted it to be about the ED, but that's not how it was billed to families. You wasted my time and the time of other families that were hoping to learn about the school's approach. You made a fool of yourselves -- this was not the forum for your antics.

The session was *never* billed as an info session. Rosskamm's email last month explicitly framed the first town hall as being about "concerns raised" and "issues under my leadership". That's why parents were raising those concerns.

Go back to the actual email that announced these town halls, because the framing that parents 'hijacked' an IB information session doesn't hold up.
The email is titled 'A Community Update from Executive Director Michael Rosskamm.' It opens by referencing the board meeting, the no confidence concerns, and questions about 'whether we are fully living up to our commitments.' It explicitly frames the town halls as a response to those concerns and his words are 'these issues must be addressed directly' and 'I take responsibility.'

The first session was described as focusing on IB for All and language programs specifically in the context of concerns raised about them. That's not an academic information session, that's an accountability conversation. Parents who showed up expecting answers to the questions the ED himself raised in his own email were not out of line. They were taking him at his word.

What actually happened is that the ED used a format he controlled to talk around the concerns rather than address them which is the same pattern documented at the March 19th board meeting, and the same pattern the staff letter describes over three years of 'listening sessions' that led nowhere.

The parents who pushed back weren't making fools of themselves. They were refusing to sit through another managed non-answer dressed up as dialogue. That's not antics. That's accountability.

The email on April 3 said those listening sessions you're describing were canceled. The email regarding yesterday's town hall said: We are hosting the first of our two Town Halls tonight, Tuesday, April 7 from 5:00–6:00 p.m. via Zoom. This session will focus on our core programming – specifically IB for All and our language programs – and will follow the same format as our recent safety town halls.


I wanted to hear more about IB for all and language programming and the questions other parents had about the program. But you hijacked the meeting to demand that school leaders disclose HR info or to talk at length about your kids. It's still not clear to me what you're all riled up about. That a popular teacher was let go? That teachers have the audacity not to tell parents why they are calling out? That your kids are not getting homework? My kid doesn't even have a locker ffs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I joined to genuinely try to understand more about the language and IB curriculum (we're new to DCI) but angry high school parents (not just the lamb parent) commandeered the whole event. It's really frustrating and embarrassing (seriously, no one is going to tell you why a teacher was let go and you are not entitled to know why a teacher is out).

I hope the school puts on event just for MS parents.

The point of this meeting was not to educate parents on language and the IB curriculum. It was to address the recent concerns raised by staff and parents about how Rosskamm is decimating DCI's language and IB curriculum.

You wanted it to be about the ED, but that's not how it was billed to families. You wasted my time and the time of other families that were hoping to learn about the school's approach. You made a fool of yourselves -- this was not the forum for your antics.

The session was *never* billed as an info session. Rosskamm's email last month explicitly framed the first town hall as being about "concerns raised" and "issues under my leadership". That's why parents were raising those concerns.

Go back to the actual email that announced these town halls, because the framing that parents 'hijacked' an IB information session doesn't hold up.
The email is titled 'A Community Update from Executive Director Michael Rosskamm.' It opens by referencing the board meeting, the no confidence concerns, and questions about 'whether we are fully living up to our commitments.' It explicitly frames the town halls as a response to those concerns and his words are 'these issues must be addressed directly' and 'I take responsibility.'

The first session was described as focusing on IB for All and language programs specifically in the context of concerns raised about them. That's not an academic information session, that's an accountability conversation. Parents who showed up expecting answers to the questions the ED himself raised in his own email were not out of line. They were taking him at his word.

What actually happened is that the ED used a format he controlled to talk around the concerns rather than address them which is the same pattern documented at the March 19th board meeting, and the same pattern the staff letter describes over three years of 'listening sessions' that led nowhere.

The parents who pushed back weren't making fools of themselves. They were refusing to sit through another managed non-answer dressed up as dialogue. That's not antics. That's accountability.

The email on April 3 said those listening sessions you're describing were canceled. The email regarding yesterday's town hall said: We are hosting the first of our two Town Halls tonight, Tuesday, April 7 from 5:00–6:00 p.m. via Zoom. This session will focus on our core programming – specifically IB for All and our language programs – and will follow the same format as our recent safety town halls.


I wanted to hear more about IB for all and language programming and the questions other parents had about the program. But you hijacked the meeting to demand that school leaders disclose HR info or to talk at length about your kids. It's still not clear to me what you're all riled up about. That a popular teacher was let go? That teachers have the audacity not to tell parents why they are calling out? That your kids are not getting homework? My kid doesn't even have a locker ffs.

The board-led listening sessions were cancelled pending the investigation. DCI-led sessions, meaning sessions run by Rosskamm himself, were allowed to continue. And that is exactly what happened last night. The ED ran his own town hall, on his own terms, while an investigation into his conduct is actively underway.

Think about what that means. The person who is the subject of an investigation was permitted to host a community meeting, control the agenda, frame the narrative, and speak directly to families about the very issues being investigated. Without being placed on administrative leave.

This is not how investigations are supposed to work. In any functional governance structure, the subject of an investigation is removed from positions that allow them to influence the process or the people involved. That is the entire reason admin leave exists.

So when people ask why the meeting was chaotic, why parents were frustrated, and why the IB programming conversation got overtaken by governance concerns, the answer is simple. The board cancelled their own oversight process but left Rosskamm in charge of running his. Parents showed up expecting accountability and got a managed presentation instead.
That is not a parent problem. That is a governance failure.