testify to SAVE Mayoral control of DCPS
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
I would be OK with one teacher rep. Not more. |
Anonymous
| No more mayoral control, only thing it has done is lined the pockets of executives. |
Anonymous
There should be a special education and general education rep. |
Anonymous
And there was no corruption before mayoral control? Please. |
Anonymous
| Should I be surprised that the people who are supporting these bills can't really explain the bills? |
Anonymous
Neither bill would take away the power of the mayor to appoint the chancellor, so yeah...it's not ending mayoral control. The rest of Yglesia's thread is just as misinformed. From Cheh's bill: "In every state, school districts answer to state-level education authorities, which are empowered to audit all school data and demand corrective action where an audit identifies areas of concern. In no other state does the state-level oversight body report to the head of a school system it oversees. This conflict of interest compromises the work of our Superintendent, risking the public’s trust in the integrity of our school data." The superintendent would be appointed by the mayor -- and OSSE would have more independence, and by removing conflict of interest, remove the disincentive to audit, thereby functioning more like other states. It seems like the DCUM naysayers would like that accountability of our schools, but then where would you all be if you don't have a union boogeyman to worry about? Stop making this out to be something it's not at all. |
Anonymous
Well, it does lessen mayoral control, so that part is accurate. It is a "shift away from mayoral control" as Yglesias states. And the other bill DOES put OSSE under the control of SBOE, so that is absolutely removing a big portion of mayoral control. At any rate, can you answer any of the above questions about Cheh's bill?: 1) who appoints the head of OSSE under the bill? 2) how would this bill change school functioning? 3) which agency would OSSE be under, according to the bill? In general, what issues is the bill meant to correct, and will it do that? Can you provide an example? You can try and smear people asking genuine questions all you want, but it doesn't make your cause look good. |
Anonymous
lol no. you leave out the part where OSSE has control over many key substantive issues like assessments, federal grants, and IDEA. It’s not simply an audit function - which yes, should have independence and *already does.* and there are two bills. the first bill B24-80 removes mayoral control of OSSE and puts it under the school board. The school board would appoint the superintendent as well, removing the mayor AND the current requirement of Council consent. It allows DCPS employees to be elected to the board (currently all DC employees prohibited). the second bill B24-101 removes OSSE from the mayor and makes it an independent agency. The mayor continues to appoint the superintendent but may only remove them for cause (which can be hard to do - requires wrongdoing or insubordination and not just disagreement.) It adds some additional data provisions that are extremely broad and vague and hard to implement, and IMO completely contrary to the goal of data governance and data quality. |
Anonymous
|
I think a lot of people here, angry and disagreeable as most of us are, probably agree on more than you'd think.
Mostly, I think we think accountability under a Mayor who runs unopposed and doesn't pay close attention to schools could be better. But at least the lines of authority and governance are clear. Mostly, we worry that a stronger SBOE in charge is a governance problem waiting to happen, and structurally, it's set up to fight and deadlock. But at least some accountability could be possible. What I wonder now is what are the lessons of having Grosso, at least at one point mildly activist, and then Mendelson, generally not an activist, in a position to influence the Mayor's inaction where they really got upset? It seems like we got maybe a marginal amount of accountability more, but it seems like there's a significant point further the Council would have to be empowered to go to get officials to really jump for them. So they mostly shrug them off, I think, knowing if they can blather through a hearing or two a year they can do whatever they want. For me, at the parent level, it's mostly the frustration of seeing issues that as an amateur I can see coming a mile away and the bureaucracy does not take any proactive steps. Not the perfect example necessarily, but like, take subs. It's clear that COVID was gonna mean we're gonna have to be ready with way more substitute teachers. People told DCPS that! And they didn't do it until October, like 18 months after COVID sent everybody home. Not the perfect example, just an example of a bureaucracy moving slower than your average woman on the street, which is frustrating. What makes a bureaucracy responsive? That's your secret sauce. And I haven't seen it yet. |
Anonymous
|
taking a cue from Yglesias, I was looking at articles regarding SF (with its school board control) and reopening.
E.g., SF Legislators Call Bulls**t on School District's Scheme to Get $12 Million In State Funding for Reopening https://sfist.com/2021/05/24/sf-legislators-call-bulls-t-on-school-districts-scheme-to-get-12-million-in-state-funding-for-reopening/ S.F. schools seek reopening consultant a year after the board shot down the idea https://www.sfchronicle.com/education/article/S-F-schools-seek-reopening-consultant-a-year-16136661.php Discord in San Francisco schools, on race and reopening, looms large https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2021/05/22/san-francisco-school-board-race-reopening/ |
Anonymous
|
Anonymous
No, parents speak for kids, not teachers. As a parent of SN kids, I'm extremely offended by the idea that a teacher should speak for my kids. Teachers went on strike to protest returning to work to support my IEP kid in November 2020, including my kid's teacher who just watched my child fall through the cracks without even trying to offer even virtual support. I don't have enough fingers and toes to count the number of times I've sat across from WTU members who lied about my child's abilities to support reducing services. All you "we love the teachers" parents who think the teachers are looking out for your kids above their own employment terms are just insane. |
Anonymous
The plural of anecdote is not data. During the pandemic our school added another evaluation for our SN child because they thought there was an undiagnosed LD at play. I definitely was frustrated by the lack of in-person services, but holy hell, it was a pandemic. I don't expect a teacher to put their life on the line for my child. My SN child was one of the first to return in early spring after teachers were vaccinated. And what strike are you talking about? None of your post makes sense. What WAS happening in November was a record-setting number of covid cases, surpassing the previous peak. You sound like you have misplaced anger issues. |
Anonymous
That PP has posted something similar on dozens of threads at this point. |
Anonymous
DP. Many, many SN parents were very upset. There are many of us. PP who did not care is in the minority. |