Kaya Henderson has Undermined her own Leadership

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:Aaron Weiner of the Washington City Paper has an article looking at winners and losers in the recent DME school boundary process:

http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/housingcomplex/2014/08/27/zone-defense/

In response to a suggestion that some families hurt by the new school boundaries might move, DCPS Chancellor Kaya Henderson is quoted as saying:

"Even those who decide to leave, you know, this city is getting 1,000 new residents a month," she says. "And these residents will have babies."

This is outrageous. While Henderson is factually correct, retention of families that have invested in DCPS should be one of her top priorities. If her school system is causing people to leave the District, she is failing at her job. This raises a serious question as to whether Henderson is fit for the position she holds. Months ago, she publicly told a Council hearing that DCPS does not do middle schools well and suggested that maybe middle schools should be turned over to the charter sector. Now, she prefers babies over actual DCPS students. Is there anyone she actually wants to educate or is her goal to dismantle DCPS?

No school system can satisfy everyone. And no set of changes like this can satisfy everyone. You have people with choice of where to live who lose from the DME proposal, people with choice of where to live who benefit, and of course the many people with less choice whose interests still matter. I mean ultimately "You gotta do what I like cause I can MOVE" is simply not something that should stop an otherwise good plan. Its like the folks on the Hill constantly whining how their problems are hurting the Distict, even as the gentrification frontier on the Hill advances block by block by block. That does not mean their problems should not be addressed - just that there is no tax base reason for it to be urgent.

And here is where the tone-deaf comes in. What is good for the people on the Hill you say are "whining" is actually good for the school system--and the city--as a whole. If DCPS had people with experience and vision at the top, that would be obvious and the CITY ( not the Hill ) wouldn't have almost half its public school students in charters.

IIUC the majority of kids in charters are low SES kids fleeing failing schools. I do not know of any city that has successfully dealt with that kind of issue in its public schools. Please tell us what model DCPS could follow that would fix all those failing schools in low income areas.

[Anonymous]

Carolyn Reynolds, who’s lived in Crestwood for slightly more than four years, is indignant upon learning that her two children at a nearby charter school won’t be grandfathered into Deal and Wilson under the new policy. “That’s outrageous,” she says. “That’s unacceptable.”

#####

Really? Congratulations to her for being able to afford to freeride her way into the best feeder pattern, but I'm not feeling sorry for her at all.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:Loads. People want to pay less in taxes, have more money spent to solve the many problems, and still have a balanced budget. They want more rights for citizens, and less crime. They want more housing, but less impacts from more density. Parking to be less scarce, but not to have to pay more for it.

Life is full of tradeoffs. The proposed plan addressed real problems. It also created losers in the process. There is no way to have avoided that. MAYBE your proposal to delay a year till McFarland plans are fleshed out will result in fewer losers, at minimal cost. But there will STILL be losers, and yes, some of them will leave the city as a result.

Everyone has their own particular interests. For instance, unlike some other posters here, I don't have a personal stake in MacFarland. However, I may be able to help MacFarland in my own small way. But, really, not everyone can be satisfied, so should I care if MacFarland supporters are satisfied? Is it worth looking beyond my own parochial interests? Maybe those people who don't have a good middle school option should just move? New families will move in and some will have babies (new DCUM users!!!).

I don't think the message of "we want you to go to our school but don't care if you move" sells very well. In fact, it is pretty insulting.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:Carolyn Reynolds, who’s lived in Crestwood for slightly more than four years, is indignant upon learning that her two children at a nearby charter school won’t be grandfathered into Deal and Wilson under the new policy. “That’s outrageous,” she says. “That’s unacceptable.”

#####

Really? Congratulations to her for being able to afford to freeride her way into the best feeder pattern, but I'm not feeling sorry for her at all.

Oh, Ms. Reynold's house was free? Lucky her. I am not sure you understand the meaning of "freeride".

If there is one lesson I have learned from the DME process, it is that only fools feel empathy.

[Anonymous]

Not affected by changes one way or another, like the previous PP (with the possible exception of set-asides which do not bother me), but what a ridiculous statement to make!

Sure, people are moving in and some people will have babies. This is why DC Office of Tax revenue should not care if people with school-age children move out and are replaced by childless or those with infants - they will still get their taxes. But Kaya's job is all about schools! And why she thinks those who will eventually have babies here will be more inclined to go to bad schools than the people with school-age children who move out, is beyond me. I fail to see why they wouldn't do what people who are dissatisfied with DCPS do now - move (more often than not outside DC), or go to charter/private/parochial.

DC is gentrifying and getting more expensive to live in by the day. It's not the case of newcomers who have no options but to stay where they are and take their lumps. To take the Hill situation as an example (as we used to live on the Hill so I am most familiar with it). Currently few parents in ‘good’ areas of the Hill send their kids to Jefferson/EH/SH middle schools. When their kids reach that age, these parents either move or send them to charters/private/parochial. Even if they stay in DC, it’s a DCPS failure. For every family that moves out from e.g., Brent school district, there is a family who buys their house, true. But if that family ever has children and those children reach middle school age, that family likewise will leave DCPS one way or another, unless the Hill MS improve – these families can afford to have choices. Which, once again, not a problem as far as tax revenue for the city is concerned but a huge indictment of DCPS, which is what Kaya is supposed to manage.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Carolyn Reynolds, who’s lived in Crestwood for slightly more than four years, is indignant upon learning that her two children at a nearby charter school won’t be grandfathered into Deal and Wilson under the new policy. “That’s outrageous,” she says. “That’s unacceptable.”

#####

Really? Congratulations to her for being able to afford to freeride her way into the best feeder pattern, but I'm not feeling sorry for her at all.

Oh, Ms. Reynold's house was free? Lucky her. I am not sure you understand the meaning of "freeride".

If there is one lesson I have learned from the DME process, it is that only fools feel empathy.

You understand perfectly well what it means....her kids don't attend either IB elementary school, they go to a tax payer funded charter. Perfectly fine. But no one wants to hear her crying when she loses the benefit she would have had by sending her kids IB. Get in the OOB lottery like everyone else.

[Anonymous]

DCPS isn't shedding students and losing families in DCUM-land. It's charter competition in the ungentrified east of the City. Compete there and DC keeps its numbers. Further west it's a matter of fixing feeder patterns long term.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Loads. People want to pay less in taxes, have more money spent to solve the many problems, and still have a balanced budget. They want more rights for citizens, and less crime. They want more housing, but less impacts from more density. Parking to be less scarce, but not to have to pay more for it.

Life is full of tradeoffs. The proposed plan addressed real problems. It also created losers in the process. There is no way to have avoided that. MAYBE your proposal to delay a year till McFarland plans are fleshed out will result in fewer losers, at minimal cost. But there will STILL be losers, and yes, some of them will leave the city as a result.

Everyone has their own particular interests. For instance, unlike some other posters here, I don't have a personal stake in MacFarland. However, I may be able to help MacFarland in my own small way. But, really, not everyone can be satisfied, so should I care if MacFarland supporters are satisfied? Is it worth looking beyond my own parochial interests? Maybe those people who don't have a good middle school option should just move? New families will move in and some will have babies (new DCUM users!!!).

I don't think the message of "we want you to go to our school but don't care if you move" sells very well. In fact, it is pretty insulting.

Threats tend to drain feelings of empathy. When someone honestly tries hard to reach something that works as well as possible for as many as possible, and someone says " If I dont get what I want I will do X! Ha!" at some point the person threatened is inclined to say "okay, go ahead and do X. I can take it" thats not a lack of empathy, or a desire to insult. Its simply a reality check.

The reality here is someone is going to lose from this, a few of those will move, and DC WILL continue to grow and gentrify anyway. Again, that does not mean everyone should not try to find a way to minimize the losses to anyone - but it does mean that at some point the claims that any changes will lead to disaster need to pushed beyond.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

No school system can satisfy everyone. And no set of changes like this can satisfy everyone. You have people with choice of where to live who lose from the DME proposal, people with choice of where to live who benefit, and of course the many people with less choice whose interests still matter. I mean ultimately "You gotta do what I like cause I can MOVE" is simply not something that should stop an otherwise good plan. Its like the folks on the Hill constantly whining how their problems are hurting the Distict, even as the gentrification frontier on the Hill advances block by block by block. That does not mean their problems should not be addressed - just that there is no tax base reason for it to be urgent.

Hill families aren't whining when they throw their hands in the air and move for MS because they strike out in charter lotteries and obviously can't send their kids to Eliot-Hine, Jefferson or Eastern, where most kids don't test proficient, and there are no real honors classes, or white kids for that matter.

There are tax base reasons to retain high SES parents of young children, since taxpayers replacing them, often empty nesters these days, generally will not pay as much into city coffers over time.

Vibrant cities obviously do not run on tax considerations alone. I say this as a parent who spent years lobbying DDOT for new sidewalks, alley paving, and street paving on my banged up little street, mainly to help get my family's own strollers, scooters and kid bikes around the block - DDOT came through eventually, in style. I was also involved in fund-raising to create the Stanton Park playground, with other parents.

Define urgent. You're with DCPS in wanting to wait decades until we have decent neighborhood middle schools? Why should the city wait?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Loads. People want to pay less in taxes, have more money spent to solve the many problems, and still have a balanced budget. They want more rights for citizens, and less crime. They want more housing, but less impacts from more density. Parking to be less scarce, but not to have to pay more for it.

Life is full of tradeoffs. The proposed plan addressed real problems. It also created losers in the process. There is no way to have avoided that. MAYBE your proposal to delay a year till McFarland plans are fleshed out will result in fewer losers, at minimal cost. But there will STILL be losers, and yes, some of them will leave the city as a result.

Everyone has their own particular interests. For instance, unlike some other posters here, I don't have a personal stake in MacFarland. However, I may be able to help MacFarland in my own small way. But, really, not everyone can be satisfied, so should I care if MacFarland supporters are satisfied? Is it worth looking beyond my own parochial interests? Maybe those people who don't have a good middle school option should just move? New families will move in and some will have babies (new DCUM users!!!).

I don't think the message of "we want you to go to our school but don't care if you move" sells very well. In fact, it is pretty insulting.

Threats tend to drain feelings of empathy. When someone honestly tries hard to reach something that works as well as possible for as many as possible, and someone says " If I dont get what I want I will do X! Ha!" at some point the person threatened is inclined to say "okay, go ahead and do X. I can take it" thats not a lack of empathy, or a desire to insult. Its simply a reality check.

The reality here is someone is going to lose from this, a few of those will move, and DC WILL continue to grow and gentrify anyway. Again, that does not mean everyone should not try to find a way to minimize the losses to anyone - but it does mean that at some point the claims that any changes will lead to disaster need to pushed beyond.

I don't think any of the proposed changes will lead to disaster - worst case scenario is that the few good schools remain good but no additional schools will improve. Which is the situation we have now, so the overall picture will not get worse. If they keep the whole 'Crestwood is out of Deal' thing for example, it's not going to wreck Deal, whether or not it will actually make the future Crestwood IB MS any good or not. Same thing with Hill MS and HS options - they aren't good but they weren't good before either. It's not going to make Eastern any worse, for example.

But Kaya's statement is still politically tone deaf. Also, insofar as it implies that new parents would be more willing to go to underperforming schools than old parents, it is, I am pretty sure, untrue. So not only does it antagonize people, it does not reflect reality either. Which is what I think people are calling her out on.

--PP who thinks the boundary revisions are fine as they are, but that Kaya Henderson needs to learn how to be halfway decent at PR and how to work on actually improving schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Not affected by changes one way or another, like the previous PP (with the possible exception of set-asides which do not bother me), but what a ridiculous statement to make!

Sure, people are moving in and some people will have babies. This is why DC Office of Tax revenue should not care if people with school-age children move out and are replaced by childless or those with infants - they will still get their taxes. But Kaya's job is all about schools! And why she thinks those who will eventually have babies here will be more inclined to go to bad schools than the people with school-age children who move out, is beyond me. I fail to see why they wouldn't do what people who are dissatisfied with DCPS do now - move (more often than not outside DC), or go to charter/private/parochial.

DC is gentrifying and getting more expensive to live in by the day. It's not the case of newcomers who have no options but to stay where they are and take their lumps. To take the Hill situation as an example (as we used to live on the Hill so I am most familiar with it). Currently few parents in ‘good’ areas of the Hill send their kids to Jefferson/EH/SH middle schools. When their kids reach that age, these parents either move or send them to charters/private/parochial. Even if they stay in DC, it’s a DCPS failure. For every family that moves out from e.g., Brent school district, there is a family who buys their house, true. But if that family ever has children and those children reach middle school age, that family likewise will leave DCPS one way or another, unless the Hill MS improve – these families can afford to have choices. Which, once again, not a problem as far as tax revenue for the city is concerned but a huge indictment of DCPS, which is what Kaya is supposed to manage.

Not to mention the multi-million dollar investment in beautiful Eastern High School. Everyone wants that school to thrive and reach its goals of being a top-notch high school. Eastern will continue to struggle if DCPS keeps kissing off wave after wave of families who leave the system at 3rd, 4th, 5th grade. When the top brass indicates that they couldn't care less ( Kaya Henderson, John Davis for starters ) and demonstrates an inability to seriously improve the middle school sector quickly, and complains that it is all because of charter schools, this hurts THE SYSTEM, and our city and our most vulnerable students and our tax investments. Not the individuals who are able to find other paths to a decent education.

[Anonymous]

Or lets put it this way. Follow me

Catania wins in November. He prevails on the council to delay implementation of DME plan by one year, the lottery is held in December under the current boundaries, rules, etc (don't ask me the mechanics of that)

First thing Mayor Catania does on taking office is work with the council and DCPS and the community to develop a plan for the renovation of McFarland, with details as to cost and capactiy, design parameters, curriculum plan, etc. And passes the budget to implement that. Something similar, if perhaps less fleshed out, is prepared for the other new middle schools.

Its now summer 2015. Do you think EVERY high SES family (with choice, IOW) that objected to the DME plan in 2014 will now accept it? Do you think some will still object, and that some of them will say "The new McFarland is not good enough, I bought for Deal, I will move if I am cut out of Deal"? And what will the logical response at that point be, if not "go, we can live without you"

At some point the only response to threats to leave is to point at the door.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Loads. People want to pay less in taxes, have more money spent to solve the many problems, and still have a balanced budget. They want more rights for citizens, and less crime. They want more housing, but less impacts from more density. Parking to be less scarce, but not to have to pay more for it.

Life is full of tradeoffs. The proposed plan addressed real problems. It also created losers in the process. There is no way to have avoided that. MAYBE your proposal to delay a year till McFarland plans are fleshed out will result in fewer losers, at minimal cost. But there will STILL be losers, and yes, some of them will leave the city as a result.

Everyone has their own particular interests. For instance, unlike some other posters here, I don't have a personal stake in MacFarland. However, I may be able to help MacFarland in my own small way. But, really, not everyone can be satisfied, so should I care if MacFarland supporters are satisfied? Is it worth looking beyond my own parochial interests? Maybe those people who don't have a good middle school option should just move? New families will move in and some will have babies (new DCUM users!!!).

I don't think the message of "we want you to go to our school but don't care if you move" sells very well. In fact, it is pretty insulting.

Threats tend to drain feelings of empathy. When someone honestly tries hard to reach something that works as well as possible for as many as possible, and someone says " If I dont get what I want I will do X! Ha!" at some point the person threatened is inclined to say "okay, go ahead and do X. I can take it" thats not a lack of empathy, or a desire to insult. Its simply a reality check.

The reality here is someone is going to lose from this, a few of those will move, and DC WILL continue to grow and gentrify anyway. Again, that does not mean everyone should not try to find a way to minimize the losses to anyone - but it does mean that at some point the claims that any changes will lead to disaster need to pushed beyond.

Yes, but this isn't a book group. Henderson is a high-level public official and should refrain from reacting petulantly to annoying people.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Carolyn Reynolds, who’s lived in Crestwood for slightly more than four years, is indignant upon learning that her two children at a nearby charter school won’t be grandfathered into Deal and Wilson under the new policy. “That’s outrageous,” she says. “That’s unacceptable.”

#####

Really? Congratulations to her for being able to afford to freeride her way into the best feeder pattern, but I'm not feeling sorry for her at all.

Oh, Ms. Reynold's house was free? Lucky her. I am not sure you understand the meaning of "freeride".

If there is one lesson I have learned from the DME process, it is that only fools feel empathy.

You understand perfectly well what it means....her kids don't attend either IB elementary school, they go to a tax payer funded charter. Perfectly fine. But no one wants to hear her crying when she loses the benefit she would have had by sending her kids IB. Get in the OOB lottery like everyone else.

Apparently you are determined to demonstrate that you are the least informed poster on this board. Reynolds would not get a right to Deal by sending her kids to the local inbound school. That school is not a Deal feeder. It is currently a CHEC feeder. Many families living elsewhere who were able to gain entry to charter schools moved to Crestwood in order to have Deal and Wilson options. While buying a house doesn't guarantee rights to a school -- though it generally has in DC for the last 40 years -- it is still understandable that someone would be upset. Calling people who made a major financial investment based on information that has turned out not to be true "freeriders" is pretty ignorant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Or lets put it this way. Follow me

Catania wins in November. He prevails on the council to delay implementation of DME plan by one year, the lottery is held in December under the current boundaries, rules, etc (don't ask me the mechanics of that)

First thing Mayor Catania does on taking office is work with the council and DCPS and the community to develop a plan for the renovation of McFarland, with details as to cost and capactiy, design parameters, curriculum plan, etc. And passes the budget to implement that. Something similar, if perhaps less fleshed out, is prepared for the other new middle schools.

Its now summer 2015. Do you think EVERY high SES family (with choice, IOW) that objected to the DME plan in 2014 will now accept it? Do you think some will still object, and that some of them will say "The new McFarland is not good enough, I bought for Deal, I will move if I am cut out of Deal"? And what will the logical response at that point be, if not "go, we can live without you"

At some point the only response to threats to leave is to point at the door.

I think at that point, if you are an elected official (which Kaya has the luxury not to be), you keep your mouth shut on any of the 'go, I don't care anyway' lines you feel like retorting with and issue a general statement that the new MS is great and many families are happy and we know the neighborhood and city will love it blah blah blah. Politics 101, IMO.