Hearst Principal Leaving/Washington Post

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Still get past the fact that Kerlina chose to cut and run, not unlike Rhee, rather than stay long enough to ensure the rest of the children recover from the trauma of one (one of only 200 apparently) dangerous student who also needs help.

It sounds cynical, but maybe Rhee thought "how much harm could this guy do"? It's not like he was supposed to turn around Dunbar.

I respect that some people directly involved feel he was a loss, but the way he did it was hardly a profile in courage for the system overall.

If a principal can't hold their own with the Central Borg under Rhee (Kaya's only been in charge since November lest we forget) then DCPS is not the place for them. Amateurs need not apply. And central should not hire them.

Keep in mind Rhee was known to fire principals in the middle of the year - obviously not concerned about the effect that would have on the schools.
What does "Amateurs need not apply" mean? Just how strong do you need to be to work in DCPS?

That is the exact opposite of true. How many people do you know with the intestinal fortitude to quit a steady, reliable, paycheck to pursue an entrepreneurial venture in a miserable economic environment? Have you done it?

Yeah, I didn't think so. What he chose to do is actually quite fearless and even admirable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Still get past the fact that Kerlina chose to cut and run, not unlike Rhee, rather than stay long enough to ensure the rest of the children recover from the trauma of one (one of only 200 apparently) dangerous student who also needs help.

It sounds cynical, but maybe Rhee thought "how much harm could this guy do"? It's not like he was supposed to turn around Dunbar.

I respect that some people directly involved feel he was a loss, but the way he did it was hardly a profile in courage for the system overall.

If a principal can't hold their own with the Central Borg under Rhee (Kaya's only been in charge since November lest we forget) then DCPS is not the place for them. Amateurs need not apply. And central should not hire them.

Keep in mind Rhee was known to fire principals in the middle of the year - obviously not concerned about the effect that would have on the schools.
What does "Amateurs need not apply" mean? Just how strong do you need to be to work in DCPS?

That is the exact opposite of true. How many people do you know with the intestinal fortitude to quit a steady, reliable, paycheck to pursue an entrepreneurial venture in a miserable economic environment? Have you done it?

Yeah, I didn't think so. What he chose to do is actually quite fearless and even admirable.

If PP is one of the unhinged Rhee-haters, I'd just like to compliment you on your staggering capacity for situational ethics. This is the sort of thing that Rhee would be (and has been) pilloried for. Hell, she basically got fired (via the ballot-box) and the unhinged Rhee-haters called it "abandoning the children".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Still get past the fact that Kerlina chose to cut and run, not unlike Rhee, rather than stay long enough to ensure the rest of the children recover from the trauma of one (one of only 200 apparently) dangerous student who also needs help.

It sounds cynical, but maybe Rhee thought "how much harm could this guy do"? It's not like he was supposed to turn around Dunbar.

I respect that some people directly involved feel he was a loss, but the way he did it was hardly a profile in courage for the system overall.

If a principal can't hold their own with the Central Borg under Rhee (Kaya's only been in charge since November lest we forget) then DCPS is not the place for them. Amateurs need not apply. And central should not hire them.

Keep in mind Rhee was known to fire principals in the middle of the year - obviously not concerned about the effect that would have on the schools.
What does "Amateurs need not apply" mean? Just how strong do you need to be to work in DCPS?

That is the exact opposite of true. How many people do you know with the intestinal fortitude to quit a steady, reliable, paycheck to pursue an entrepreneurial venture in a miserable economic environment? Have you done it?

Yeah, I didn't think so. What he chose to do is actually quite fearless and even admirable.

If PP is one of the unhinged Rhee-haters, I'd just like to compliment you on your staggering capacity for situational ethics. This is the sort of thing that Rhee would be (and has been) pilloried for. Hell, she basically got fired (via the ballot-box) and the unhinged Rhee-haters called it "abandoning the children".

I'm not a Rhee-hater at all, in fact I'm pretty agnostic on Rhee. Some good, some not-so-good, whatever. I am someone who knows something about how incredibly difficult it is pursue a start-up business and I'm quite positive that very few people have the guts or stamina for it. So, good for him and keep your snarky venom to yourself. You quite obviously have no idea what you're talking about.

[Anonymous]

Of course everyone is free to follow their bliss, or whatever your pont means. However, the role of principal brings with it the responsibilities of hundreds of lives beyond your own entrpreneurial urges. He should have "reassessed" his life 2 years ago before getting in over his head in pursuit of a promotion.

Why couldn't he have waited a couple of weeks and put together a more coherent, constructive missive on how to fix problems.

The fact that he knew he'd come across as a whiny baker-in-training in the article indicates a significant lack of maturity and professionalism.

If he did have some profound life change then fine. But don't blame parents, children and co-workers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Of course everyone is free to follow their bliss, or whatever your pont means. However, the role of principal brings with it the responsibilities of hundreds of lives beyond your own entrpreneurial urges. He should have "reassessed" his life 2 years ago before getting in over his head in pursuit of a promotion.

Why couldn't he have waited a couple of weeks and put together a more coherent, constructive missive on how to fix problems.

The fact that he knew he'd come across as a whiny baker-in-training in the article indicates a significant lack of maturity and professionalism.

If he did have some profound life change then fine. But don't blame parents, children and co-workers.

He doesn't sound like a whiner, you do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Still get past the fact that Kerlina chose to cut and run, not unlike Rhee, rather than stay long enough to ensure the rest of the children recover from the trauma of one (one of only 200 apparently) dangerous student who also needs help.

It sounds cynical, but maybe Rhee thought "how much harm could this guy do"? It's not like he was supposed to turn around Dunbar.

I respect that some people directly involved feel he was a loss, but the way he did it was hardly a profile in courage for the system overall.

If a principal can't hold their own with the Central Borg under Rhee (Kaya's only been in charge since November lest we forget) then DCPS is not the place for them. Amateurs need not apply. And central should not hire them.

Keep in mind Rhee was known to fire principals in the middle of the year - obviously not concerned about the effect that would have on the schools.
What does "Amateurs need not apply" mean? Just how strong do you need to be to work in DCPS?

That is the exact opposite of true. How many people do you know with the intestinal fortitude to quit a steady, reliable, paycheck to pursue an entrepreneurial venture in a miserable economic environment? Have you done it?

Yeah, I didn't think so. What he chose to do is actually quite fearless and even admirable.

If PP is one of the unhinged Rhee-haters, I'd just like to compliment you on your staggering capacity for situational ethics. This is the sort of thing that Rhee would be (and has been) pilloried for. Hell, she basically got fired (via the ballot-box) and the unhinged Rhee-haters called it "abandoning the children".

I'm not a Rhee-hater at all, in fact I'm pretty agnostic on Rhee. Some good, some not-so-good, whatever. I am someone who knows something about how incredibly difficult it is pursue a start-up business and I'm quite positive that very few people have the guts or stamina for it. So, good for him and keep your snarky venom to yourself. You quite obviously have no idea what you're talking about.

You might want to get hold of a basic book on formal arguments and look up the meaning of the concept "if-then". I do think it's quaint that you've got some sort of idea that you're the lone entrepreneur in the history of the DC metropolitan area, though. You go girl!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

You might want to get hold of a basic book on formal arguments and look up the meaning of the concept "if-then". I do think it's quaint that you've got some sort of idea that you're the lone entrepreneur in the history of the DC metropolitan area, though. You go girl!

Thanks for the bitchitude. I'm clear on if/then, I was, however, unaware that because I'm not an "un-hinged Rhee-hater" that negated any perspective I might have on the subject.

And, where exactly did I suggest I'm the lone entrepreneur in the history of the DC metropolitan area? Oh, that's right - nowhere.

Your ability to make a relevant inference is as solid as your ability to read.

Take your sniveling home to your hen-pecked husband and keep telling yourself that Kerlina is the problem. It's clear you're the type who likes to place the blame elsewhere, but that helps your children's education... how?

[jsteele]

Please help with some clarifications? Are there such things as "hinged" Rhee-haters? Also, is it possible to be a Rhee critic without being a Rhee-hater (hinged or unhinged)? If you were a Rhee supporter, but disapproved of her bailing out after the election, are you therefore an unhinged Rhee-lover?

If you supported Rhee leaving abruptly, must you also support Kerlina's departure? The opposite argument has certainly been implied.

Is there any difference between the person at the top of the pyramid -- who wields great power -- and a person lower down who has much less influence? Do we measure them with the same ruler?

It would be helpful for me to understand all of this while I wait for Amazon to ship my copy of "Formal Arguments for Dummies".

[Anonymous]

Kids, kids, please stop arguing or I'm going to stop this car and leave you on the side of the road.

The only reason Kerlina can speak out is because he's leaving education. I'm grateful to him for speaking out, even though I think the area needs another cupcake store as much as we need another federal agency.

I met Kerlina and was impressed with him. He had a lot of experience in Montgomery County. I spoke with teachers at Hearst and they liked him a great deal. I wanted very much to send my child to Hearst--we didn't get in OOB. You can imagine how I feel reading that some violent child from Maryland (who later moved to DC, but is still OOB for Hearst) was ordered into Hearst, over Kerlina's protests. Hearst has a solid program for autistic children, but violent kids do not belong in a public school. He was right to resign over this issue alone.

I speak from personal experience: a cousin had to remove her child from a public kindergarden in a wealthy city because he attacked another child. I remember her sobbing (she had moved to a block of the school). Her child was placed in a special school and flourished there. She is currently on the board of the special school and sings its praises. I wonder if the child from PG County would do better elsewhere. God knows DC's education budget has the money, if we cut some mid-level management, to send violent kids to decent schools, but not to public schools. Not sure we have enough money to save PG County kids, though, as well.

Francis-Stevens also had a violent child, also out-of-boundary. Took forever to get him out of the school. In the meantime, anyone who could flee, did.

[Anonymous]

I'm a Hearst parent and I'm pretty involved with the school. And until this article, I had never heard about this violent child, much less the incident mentioned.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm a Hearst parent and I'm pretty involved with the school. And until this article, I had never heard about this violent child, much less the incident mentioned.

As a parent of a child in this class, I can assure you it's true. I do think your point is interesting though because of the earlier comments about hiring lawyers etc. THe lack of any uproar from parents struck me as strange. I think perhaps it was kept on the DL because it involved a class with a pretty bad behavior reputation anyway. Also, the student was expelled twice, only to return a few weeks later (and in one case, days) so people who heard about the incident may not have known he was back. Finally, it might say that Hearst parents are less gossipy than the JKLM's nearby

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:Please help with some clarifications? Are there such things as "hinged" Rhee-haters? Also, is it possible to be a Rhee critic without being a Rhee-hater (hinged or unhinged)? If you were a Rhee supporter, but disapproved of her bailing out after the election, are you therefore an unhinged Rhee-lover?

If you supported Rhee leaving abruptly, must you also support Kerlina's departure? The opposite argument has certainly been implied.

Is there any difference between the person at the top of the pyramid -- who wields great power -- and a person lower down who has much less influence? Do we measure them with the same ruler?

It would be helpful for me to understand all of this while I wait for Amazon to ship my copy of "Formal Arguments for Dummies".

For some, anyone who criticizes Rhee or one of her disciples merits the description "unhinged Rhee hater" because for some, Rhee is a deity figure who is beyond human criticism.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm a Hearst parent and I'm pretty involved with the school. And until this article, I had never heard about this violent child, much less the incident mentioned.

I'm OOB for Hearst with a child in 3rd grade. For years, I've been aware through the parent grapevine of behavior problems with the group of children in Hearst 3rd grade, next year 4th grade. The problems I've heard of seem to be pretty contained to that grade level.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As a parent of a child in this class, I can assure you it's true. I do think your point is interesting though because of the earlier comments about hiring lawyers etc. THe lack of any uproar from parents struck me as strange. I think perhaps it was kept on the DL because it involved a class with a pretty bad behavior reputation anyway. Also, the student was expelled twice, only to return a few weeks later (and in one case, days) so people who heard about the incident may not have known he was back. Finally, it might say that Hearst parents are less gossipy than the JKLM's nearby

Or they keep their powder dry while trying to get their own kids out?

Does the large number of OOB kids at Hearst play into this? Say people kept their mouths shut trying to attract more middle class families to Hearst rather than rock the boat and return to say an east of the park IB school? JKLMO parents may feel like they can scream to the heavens and their council members because they are predominantly IB?

[Anonymous]

Again, with the assumptions about OOB. I would venture to say that most OOB at Hearst are middle class - some even upper middle. Yes, it's true.