horrible teacher- what did you do?

[Anonymous]

I imagine that printing out this entire thread and mailing it anonymously to the principal at Murch (Brenda Lewis; 4810 36th St. NW, Wash DC 20008) might force her hand.

Unless her head is too far in the sand to pull out she'll understand that the ramifications of her failure to act are beginning to affect the reputation of the school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Perhaps the teacher has a sick parent whom she's keeping track of, or some other important and not unreasonable activity (especially not unreasonable if this tool allows her to stay in the classroom instead of making a phone call or taking time off). Yes, it's possible that she's doing something frivolous such as sending her vote to American Idol, too.

My point is that you don't know if you don't ask and try to get more information. It could turn out to be something very reasonable and then you would likely feel (and look) very badly for having been so unsympathetic and for having jumped to such unflattering conclusions.

There is NO excuse for this type of behavior. If a teacher is having a problem, they need to get appropriate coverage. Good teachers know how to manage their time. It is not the parent, or student's, responsibility to prove anything. If you have an impression that something is inappropriate then document it. You should never feel bad about expressing concern. That's your job as a parent.

The office of the school ombundsman is supposed to look into things like Murch.

[Anonymous]

Email Chancellor Rhee. She is responsive and will get back to you. I had a much less serious concern and she got back to me within a day, and then had a very competent staff member help me out. She is committed to the children and will want to fix this problem. You've already talked to the principal and the teacher-- it's Rhee's turn. She'll worry about proper procedures on your end. Just let her know. There is an email contact form on the DCPS website.

[Anonymous]

The principal at Murch has been on maternity leave and is returning shortly. I think the OP is referring to the acting principal.

[Anonymous]

OP here. Now that the school that I am talking about has been outed...- no PP, I was referring to the principal, Brenda Lewis- the problems started last year under her direction.
The assistant principal, Dr Govan, just started this fall. Dr Govan has been a bit more responsive to parental concern it seems than Ms. Lewis ever was. Ms. Lewis was supposed to start back today, so we will see what she chooses to do about this teacher. We are working through the chain of command, so we will have to see if there is any action- if not, we will take it to the top.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP here. Now that the school that I am talking about has been outed...- no PP, I was referring to the principal, Brenda Lewis- the problems started last year under her direction.
The assistant principal, Dr Govan, just started this fall. Dr Govan has been a bit more responsive to parental concern it seems than Ms. Lewis ever was. Ms. Lewis was supposed to start back today, so we will see what she chooses to do about this teacher. We are working through the chain of command, so we will have to see if there is any action- if not, we will take it to the top.

OP, I am so interested to hear this about Brenda Lewis. When we looked at Murch last year I couldn't believe how rude and unresponsive she was. She was the main reason we sent DD to a charter even though we moved in boundary specifically to get into Murch! But the parents I spoke to, and those posting here, all said they loved her and she was promoted from acting head to head unanimously. I'd love to understand what the story is if you feel like sharing.

[Anonymous]

I think there were many in the parent community who do not like Ms. Lewis, but the unanimousity of the promotion was more political (ie, we could end up with someone worse).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think there were many in the parent community who do not like Ms. Lewis, but the unanimousity of the promotion was more political (ie, we could end up with someone worse).

It's interesting that you say this about the principal selection at Murch, because I think that quite the same thing happened at Eaton. We had Principal Gartrell who at least some people thought was personally a nice lady, but had not done a highly effective job. However, many people in the selection process seemed to be more concerned that if Eaton opened itself up to a new principal named by Rhee, they might get someone even worse than Gartrell (who, to be clear, was not bad, but some felt was not great either...)

I don't know what that says about the DCPS principal selection process that parents lobby to keep mediocre leaders because they fear getting even worse.

It's also an interesting contrast to a school like Janney, which succeeded (at least several years ago) in having a great degree of parental input into their principal selection process.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think there were many in the parent community who do not like Ms. Lewis, but the unanimousity of the promotion was more political (ie, we could end up with someone worse).

11:39 here. Ugh, how frustrating. As they say in Swahili--pole sana. Well, I'm glad at least to hear that I wasn't completely crazy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP here. Now that the school that I am talking about has been outed...- no PP, I was referring to the principal, Brenda Lewis- the problems started last year under her direction.
The assistant principal, Dr Govan, just started this fall. Dr Govan has been a bit more responsive to parental concern it seems than Ms. Lewis ever was. Ms. Lewis was supposed to start back today, so we will see what she chooses to do about this teacher. We are working through the chain of command, so we will have to see if there is any action- if not, we will take it to the top.

quote=Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think there were many in the parent community who do not like Ms. Lewis, but the unanimousity of the promotion was more political (ie, we could end up with someone worse).

11:39 here. Ugh, how frustrating. As they say in Swahili--pole sana. Well, I'm glad at least to hear that I wasn't completely crazy.

Unfortunately, DCPS has many poorly performing DCPS teachers. No doubt there are quite a few Principals who would like to get rid of them if they could. Current procedures, laws and contracts make it virtually impossible for a Principal to fire a poorly performing teacher. And if they are successful at doing so, they may receive a reject from another school as a replacement.

Any poster here who blames a DCPS principal for not firing such a teacher is ignorant as in all but the most egregious cases the Principal's hands are tied in terms of taking any disciplinary or job termination action.

I have kids at Murch, and I can tell you that we've had a difficult time over the past few years hiring good staff for some of the specials slots. But in my experience, this is because the pool from which to choose is so poor, not due to poor Principal judgment.

Every interaction I have had with Ms. Lewis has been very positive and Murch is a better school because she is there. Ms. Lewis has the overwhelming respect and endorsement of the teaching staff at Murch, which includes some of the most highly-regarded and capable teachers within DCPS. And we are very fortunate to have so many outstanding teachers. No Principal is going to satisfy every parent all the time. We've got our share of dilletante parents - apparently some who post here - who think that the Principal at Murch can fire or discipline teaching staff at will.

If or when Ms. Rhee is able to re-negotiate the contract with the teacher's union, DCPS principals and admin staff may be given more discretion in dealing with poorly performing teachers. But we don't live in that world, yet.

[Anonymous]

". No Principal is going to satisfy every parent all the time. We've got our share of dilletante parents - apparently some who post here - who think that the Principal at Murch can fire or discipline teaching staff at will. "

I have no thoughts that the Principal can fire teachers at her will. My complaint is that Principal Lewis did not take the appropriate steps to file the proper documentation for our children's safety. She did not file reports with the Office of School Security, as she should have, after 2 major incidents- in spite of being asked directly by parents if she did, and her assuring them that she had.
When the Office of School Security found out what transpired, they had to pursue her to get her to file the reports so that the incidents could be investigated. The investigations are ongoing and I believe are in (or close to) the hands of the legal part of DCPS who decides what happens now.
It is not in Ms. Lewis' purview to determine if a teacher is fired. It IS in her job description to have the safety of the children as her utmost concern, and as such, promptly refer incidents to the Office of School Security. She failed to do so.
And of this " Ms. Lewis has the overwhelming respect and endorsement of the teaching staff at Murch"-- I would not be so sure anymore.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:". No Principal is going to satisfy every parent all the time. We've got our share of dilletante parents - apparently some who post here - who think that the Principal at Murch can fire or discipline teaching staff at will. "

I have no thoughts that the Principal can fire teachers at her will. My complaint is that Principal Lewis did not take the appropriate steps to file the proper documentation for our children's safety. She did not file reports with the Office of School Security, as she should have, after 2 major incidents- in spite of being asked directly by parents if she did, and her assuring them that she had.
When the Office of School Security found out what transpired, they had to pursue her to get her to file the reports so that the incidents could be investigated. The investigations are ongoing and I believe are in (or close to) the hands of the legal part of DCPS who decides what happens now.
It is not in Ms. Lewis' purview to determine if a teacher is fired. It IS in her job description to have the safety of the children as her utmost concern, and as such, promptly refer incidents to the Office of School Security. She failed to do so.
And of this " Ms. Lewis has the overwhelming respect and endorsement of the teaching staff at Murch"-- I would not be so sure anymore.

Well, OP, I am glad we agree the Principal's and Chancellor's hands are tied in terms of disciplinary action they can exercise. I am sure you would also agree that when they do initiate disciplinary action they must have legitimate and reasonable grounds for doing so.

You seem to be surprised that kindergarden kids were "locked out of the building, having been sent on an errand for her". This tells me that your are unaware of the normal routines at the school.

Since my kids have been there and long before, it has been a standing practice for teachers in the Kaufman Wing (the trailiers where the kindergaten and pre-K's are located) to send kids on necessary errands to the main building. Each week, for example, a child in my kids classes was assigned the responsibility to be the runner from the auxilliary classrooms to the main office for necessary errands.

So, it is not surprising to me that children were sent on an errand by the specials teacher as this is/was a common practice at the time by all teaching staff located in the auxilliary buildings (where the teacher in question is assigned) pre-dating Ms. Lewis' arrival. Neither is it surprising that the children may have encountered difficulties with the buzzer system or a delay in the response by the main office assistant who must now buzz them (and other visitors) in, since DCPS has recently installed a buzzer controlled security lock/camera on the door to the main building with which they may not have been familiar.

Given the foregoing, it is perfectly understandable why the Principal may have chosen to not elevate this non-incident to a formal security report. I don't know what was said between her and the complaining parent, and unless you were there you do not either. Even so, based on what you've related, it would appear the Principal had no reasonable grounds for pursuing any action against the teacher on this matter. In fact, had she done so, and subsequently there was actual grounds for a reasonable action to be made, her having initiated a previous action based on a trivial non-incident would prejudice the subsequent case!

Before elevating this 'incident' to the status of a formal security complaint with downtown, you might have first familiarized yourself with the long-standing practice of all teachers in the auxilliary classrooms using children as runners for the last couple decades. Indeed, had the teacher in question left the other 20 - 25 or so students alone in the classroom to deliver the attendance sheet (or whatever errand was being accomplished), that would have been the basis for a legitimate complaint.

Based on what you have related in this thread, I think you owe the people who have read it an apology for misleading them. Not to mention the Principal and the school's reputation which you seem to have have baselessly damaged in a public forum.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:". No Principal is going to satisfy every parent all the time. We've got our share of dilletante parents - apparently some who post here - who think that the Principal at Murch can fire or discipline teaching staff at will. "

I have no thoughts that the Principal can fire teachers at her will. My complaint is that Principal Lewis did not take the appropriate steps to file the proper documentation for our children's safety. She did not file reports with the Office of School Security, as she should have, after 2 major incidents- in spite of being asked directly by parents if she did, and her assuring them that she had.
When the Office of School Security found out what transpired, they had to pursue her to get her to file the reports so that the incidents could be investigated. The investigations are ongoing and I believe are in (or close to) the hands of the legal part of DCPS who decides what happens now.
It is not in Ms. Lewis' purview to determine if a teacher is fired. It IS in her job description to have the safety of the children as her utmost concern, and as such, promptly refer incidents to the Office of School Security. She failed to do so.
And of this " Ms. Lewis has the overwhelming respect and endorsement of the teaching staff at Murch"-- I would not be so sure anymore.

Well, OP, I am glad we agree the Principal's and Chancellor's hands are tied in terms of disciplinary action they can exercise. I am sure you would also agree that when they do initiate disciplinary action they must have legitimate and reasonable grounds for doing so.

You seem to be surprised that kindergarden kids were "locked out of the building, having been sent on an errand for her". This tells me that your are unaware of the normal routines at the school.

Since my kids have been there and long before, it has been a standing practice for teachers in the Kaufman Wing (the trailiers where the kindergaten and pre-K's are located) to send kids on necessary errands to the main building. Each week, for example, a child in my kids classes was assigned the responsibility to be the runner from the auxilliary classrooms to the main office for necessary errands.

So, it is not surprising to me that children were sent on an errand by the specials teacher as this is/was a common practice at the time by all teaching staff located in the auxilliary buildings (where the teacher in question is assigned) pre-dating Ms. Lewis' arrival. Neither is it surprising that the children may have encountered difficulties with the buzzer system or a delay in the response by the main office assistant who must now buzz them (and other visitors) in, since DCPS has recently installed a buzzer controlled security lock/camera on the door to the main building with which they may not have been familiar.

Given the foregoing, it is perfectly understandable why the Principal may have chosen to not elevate this non-incident to a formal security report. I don't know what was said between her and the complaining parent, and unless you were there you do not either. Even so, based on what you've related, it would appear the Principal had no reasonable grounds for pursuing any action against the teacher on this matter. In fact, had she done so, and subsequently there was actual grounds for a reasonable action to be made, her having initiated a previous action based on a trivial non-incident would prejudice the subsequent case!

Before elevating this 'incident' to the status of a formal security complaint with downtown, you might have first familiarized yourself with the long-standing practice of all teachers in the auxilliary classrooms using children as runners for the last couple decades. Indeed, had the teacher in question left the other 20 - 25 or so students alone in the classroom to deliver the attendance sheet (or whatever errand was being accomplished), that would have been the basis for a legitimate complaint.

Based on what you have related in this thread, I think you owe the people who have read it an apology for misleading them. Not to mention the Principal and the school's reputation which you seem to have have baselessly damaged in a public forum.

My children love being the runner/errand assistant, etc. The joy of their week!

[Anonymous]

" I am sure you would also agree that when they do initiate disciplinary action they must have legitimate and reasonable grounds for doing so.

You seem to be surprised that kindergarden kids were "locked out of the building, having been sent on an errand for her". This tells me that your are unaware of the normal routines at the school. "
----------------------------------------

The disciplinary action has been initiated and the teacher has been out of the classroom for 2 months. The incident was elevated to the status of formal complaint with downtown and they took it very seriously. I am not going to argue with you about that- the process is working.

What happened in my description was not a normal routine at the school.
Please, prospective parents, know that aides are supposed to be it K and preK kids in the auxillary buildings because they(4 and 5 yos) are not supposed to be out walking across the playground and blacktop unaccompanied by an adult.

My intent was never to name the school (if you look back in this thread you will see others did that based on recognition of the teacher/principal/situation.

The good news is that we have gotten really great news last week about our new Assistant Principal to-be. Murch is a wonderful school and we will once again have the leadership that befits our great school. If you look at posts about Murch, others have voiced major concerns about the principal by name before and after this thread began.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:" I am sure you would also agree that when they do initiate disciplinary action they must have legitimate and reasonable grounds for doing so.

You seem to be surprised that kindergarden kids were "locked out of the building, having been sent on an errand for her". This tells me that your are unaware of the normal routines at the school. "
----------------------------------------

The disciplinary action has been initiated and the teacher has been out of the classroom for 2 months. The incident was elevated to the status of formal complaint with downtown and they took it very seriously. I am not going to argue with you about that- the process is working.

What happened in my description was not a normal routine at the school.
Please, prospective parents, know that aides are supposed to be it K and preK kids in the auxillary buildings because they(4 and 5 yos) are not supposed to be out walking across the playground and blacktop unaccompanied by an adult.

Your statement that "what happened in my description was not a normal routine at the school" is absolutely false as anyone who has had a kid in the auxilliary classrooms at Murch will tell you. K kids would regularly run necessary school-related errands from the auxilliary buildings, unescorted by an adult.

What a waste of resources to now require an aide - who is supposed to be an IN-CLASS resource, or the teacher, to now have to leave the classroom to run the attendance sheet to the main office or escort a kid to the main office to meet a parent who must take the kid to a Doctor's appointment, or a kid who needs to attend a counseling session, etc.... I guess we have you and your friend to thank for that.

As I noted earlier, the practice of having K (and now older children in the new auxilliary classroom) act as runners has been routine at Murch for decades. Every Kindergaten teacher has done so there for the last couple decades.

I do not know the status of the complaint or action in this instance (though the teacher is not now in the classroom). We are not likely to know much more as these are usually confidential personnel matters.

However, what I do know is that Kindergarden kids have been used as runners in the exact manner you describe by every single teacher in the auxiliary buildings for at least the last two decades. Now, if this is the sole reason why this particular teacher has been placed on admin leave (or whatever her current status is) pending resolution of the complaint, or because she has been ordered out of her classroom for 2 months, then she has been made a scapegoat by you and DCPS.

OR, there is some other matter at issue which you are unaware. But since we only know what YOU know about this we can be sure that if she was booted out of the classroom for the reasons you relate then she has been railroaded.

I can readily imagine the Chancellor and downtown admins thinking of the headline... "Two 5-year olds locked out of DCPS school building - Chancellor rebuffs parents complaint."

Given the recent politicization of the Chancellor's position, and her ongoing struggle with the teacher's union, it's not difficult to imagine downtown taking the easy path: take the teacher out of the classroom for a couple months.