Kaya Leaving; John Davis in as interim

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Bye, Kaya!

But why wait until October? Why not leave now? Transition Davis in this summer and let the District begin the new school year with the new interim Chancellor instead of another (avoidable) post-school start exit and transition--especially one that's so huge.

The only reason to wait until October would be to give Bowser the time to conduct her national search and find a new replacement. Otherwise, you're just creating more turmoil.

Leave now.

No one will miss you.

You're out of your mind if you think you speak for everyone. You certainly don't speak for me, so stop claiming to.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The benefactors are also the ones who supplied the money for the DCPS study abroad and learn to ride a bike programs. It isn't all about testing for them.

Riding bikes and sending some kids to another country are clearly a winning strategy in terms of achieving literacy snd basic math competency.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No one in DC likes whites but everyone wants to have the white kids in the schools. What a laugh lol! How bout night income blacks ride in and fix the schools in Capitol Hill , se , sw...

The only ones who are pushing for white kids in the schools are white parents who don't want to pay for privates. They're the only ones crying that making schools more palatable for them will improve schools and scores. Everyone else is focused on the needs of poor and black kids. Not saying it's right but it's reality.

On the other hand, I'm not sure why the one poster is screaming about bad white leadership. I've seen no one suggest if it isn't white it isn't right.

Whites have an equal right to 'cry for' good public schools. They are citizens and/or pay taxes. It's a constitutional right.

I agree that good schools are good for everyone. But the PP shouldn't be deluded into thinking that getting white kids into DC schools is at the top of anyone's agenda or that leaders are tripping over themselves to make it happen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Bye, Kaya!

But why wait until October? Why not leave now? Transition Davis in this summer and let the District begin the new school year with the new interim Chancellor instead of another (avoidable) post-school start exit and transition--especially one that's so huge.

The only reason to wait until October would be to give Bowser the time to conduct her national search and find a new replacement. Otherwise, you're just creating more turmoil.

Leave now.

No one will miss you.

You're out of your mind if you think you speak for everyone. You certainly don't speak for me, so stop claiming to.

Ask that other poster for a Quaalude. Like really, no one assumed you were being spoken for.

UN.CLENCH. Then BREATHE.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No one in DC likes whites but everyone wants to have the white kids in the schools. What a laugh lol! How bout night income blacks ride in and fix the schools in Capitol Hill , se , sw...

The only ones who are pushing for white kids in the schools are white parents who don't want to pay for privates. They're the only ones crying that making schools more palatable for them will improve schools and scores. Everyone else is focused on the needs of poor and black kids. Not saying it's right but it's reality.

On the other hand, I'm not sure why the one poster is screaming about bad white leadership. I've seen no one suggest if it isn't white it isn't right.

Whites have an equal right to 'cry for' good public schools. They are citizens and/or pay taxes. It's a constitutional right.

I agree that good schools are good for everyone. But the PP shouldn't be deluded into thinking that getting white kids into DC schools is at the top of anyone's agenda or that leaders are tripping over themselves to make it happen.

Except the poster who wants them spread through Capitol Hill

[Anonymous]

One of the reasons why she's leaving is probably due to the fact that DCPS won't have met their 'Capital Committment' goals by 2018. Another reason is probably the hot mess that is LEAP, led by her golden boy Jason Kamras. A poorly planned, soon to be poorly executed excuse of a program that has a number of principals and staff leaving. Worse still is the splintering of the Early Childhood Education Division which is undergoing some vast and negative changes in the name of LEAP. Key players who are integral to the success of the Division have been pushed out and the Head Start mandate around specific instructional support for teachers has been compromised. If there are any journalists on this board who have children in Title 1 PK programs, I'd encourage you to begin a few investigations into the highly worrying changes in the Early Childhood Education Division.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree Abigail Smith would be a good choice. I think she understands the scope of the problems facing DCPS and would listen to parents and teachers. She really does care and doesn't seem arrogant.

As a parent at a school that was dismissed as "collateral damage" during the boundary redistricting, there's no way I'd accept Abigail Smith. She's a clueless social engineering ideologue.

It's not an elected office. You will 'accept' whoever she puts in the role.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:One of the reasons why she's leaving is probably due to the fact that DCPS won't have met their 'Capital Committment' goals by 2018. Another reason is probably the hot mess that is LEAP, led by her golden boy Jason Kamras. A poorly planned, soon to be poorly executed excuse of a program that has a number of principals and staff leaving. Worse still is the splintering of the Early Childhood Education Division which is undergoing some vast and negative changes in the name of LEAP. Key players who are integral to the success of the Division have been pushed out and the Head Start mandate around specific instructional support for teachers has been compromised. If there are any journalists on this board who have children in Title 1 PK programs, I'd encourage you to begin a few investigations into the highly worrying changes in the Early Childhood Education Division.

LEAP is indeed just one more strand of spaghetti that's being thrown against the wall, but it is not a mess that has a lot of teachers and principals leaving.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree Abigail Smith would be a good choice. I think she understands the scope of the problems facing DCPS and would listen to parents and teachers. She really does care and doesn't seem arrogant.

As a parent at a school that was dismissed as "collateral damage" during the boundary redistricting, there's no way I'd accept Abigail Smith. She's a clueless social engineering ideologue.

It's not an elected office. You will 'accept' whoever she puts in the role.

Exactly! And even if it were an elected office she'd have no choice but to accept the outcome.

[Anonymous]

I think that the problem with the boundary review process that Abigail Smith presided over was that it was far too susceptible to objections that were based on individual rather than collective interest. The idea that people's personal real estate choices must be validated by the education system was outrageous to me then and it remains outrageous now. When you buy a particular house, you assume certain things, but they are not guarantees. That a particular school will ALWAYS be tied to a particular address is a ridiculous assumption, and the idea that that is a "right" is even more ridiculous.

The system we have now sets up enclaves of success that motivated students hope to get into, while leaving an educational quality desert surrounding them. If posters want to sit there and pretend that their objections to things like boundary revisions that redistrict people from Deal to Hardy or the construction of homeless shelters in boundary for a high performing elementary are NOT motivated by person reasons, frankly, I don't believe you.

[Anonymous]

What changes have been made to the Early Childhood division?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Bye, Kaya!

But why wait until October? Why not leave now? Transition Davis in this summer and let the District begin the new school year with the new interim Chancellor instead of another (avoidable) post-school start exit and transition--especially one that's so huge.

The only reason to wait until October would be to give Bowser the time to conduct her national search and find a new replacement. Otherwise, you're just creating more turmoil.

Leave now.

No one will miss you.

You're out of your mind if you think you speak for everyone. You certainly don't speak for me, so stop claiming to.

Ask that other poster for a Quaalude. Like really, no one assumed you were being spoken for.

UN.CLENCH. Then BREATHE.

You're funny. You like to imagine people are all hot and bothered, just because they speak clearly. You're the one shouting "unclench and breathe" in all caps... Maybe just because you disagree with someone don't assume they can only think that way because they're unreasonably upset.

Oh yeah, and the word "no one" is all inclusive, so from a literal point, yes, that PP was presuming to speak for everyone. Aaaah, but having that pointed out to you no doubt strikes you as being about clenching too hard. You're funny!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think that the problem with the boundary review process that Abigail Smith presided over was that it was far too susceptible to objections that were based on individual rather than collective interest. The idea that people's personal real estate choices must be validated by the education system was outrageous to me then and it remains outrageous now. When you buy a particular house, you assume certain things, but they are not guarantees. That a particular school will ALWAYS be tied to a particular address is a ridiculous assumption, and the idea that that is a "right" is even more ridiculous.

The system we have now sets up enclaves of success that motivated students hope to get into, while leaving an educational quality desert surrounding them. If posters want to sit there and pretend that their objections to things like boundary revisions that redistrict people from Deal to Hardy or the construction of homeless shelters in boundary for a high performing elementary are NOT motivated by person reasons, frankly, I don't believe you.

You send your children to a low-performing school and work tirelessly to solve problems within the school thst are impossible for the school to solve, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think that the problem with the boundary review process that Abigail Smith presided over was that it was far too susceptible to objections that were based on individual rather than collective interest. The idea that people's personal real estate choices must be validated by the education system was outrageous to me then and it remains outrageous now. When you buy a particular house, you assume certain things, but they are not guarantees. That a particular school will ALWAYS be tied to a particular address is a ridiculous assumption, and the idea that that is a "right" is even more ridiculous.

The system we have now sets up enclaves of success that motivated students hope to get into, while leaving an educational quality desert surrounding them. If posters want to sit there and pretend that their objections to things like boundary revisions that redistrict people from Deal to Hardy or the construction of homeless shelters in boundary for a high performing elementary are NOT motivated by person reasons, frankly, I don't believe you.

You send your children to a low-performing school and work tirelessly to solve problems within the school thst are impossible for the school to solve, right?

That's exactly the opposite of the PP's point, which is that this is not an individual problem; it's a group, collective-action problem. Something like choice sets (especially in Capitol Hill) could likely result in equalizing the situation without prejudicing the "enclaves". Breaking down the enclaves is the only way to get to an acceptable MS option on the Hill as well. Would I want to send my child to Eliot-Hine as is? No. Would I try out a Ward 6 unified middle school, feeding from Tyler, Miner, Maury, Payne, Brent, Van Ness, etc, where the administration had made a committment to appropriate academic offerings? Almost certainly I would consider it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think that the problem with the boundary review process that Abigail Smith presided over was that it was far too susceptible to objections that were based on individual rather than collective interest. The idea that people's personal real estate choices must be validated by the education system was outrageous to me then and it remains outrageous now. When you buy a particular house, you assume certain things, but they are not guarantees. That a particular school will ALWAYS be tied to a particular address is a ridiculous assumption, and the idea that that is a "right" is even more ridiculous.

The system we have now sets up enclaves of success that motivated students hope to get into, while leaving an educational quality desert surrounding them. If posters want to sit there and pretend that their objections to things like boundary revisions that redistrict people from Deal to Hardy or the construction of homeless shelters in boundary for a high performing elementary are NOT motivated by person reasons, frankly, I don't believe you.

I think Smith did a great job with the boundary review process, considering that they were working against 40 years of inertia.