DCI Parent Petition

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I agree what you’re saying PP. no good solutions. But I would be cautious to fire the DCI ED right now without a good plan.

If he isn't fired we will loose a ton of teachers. A number of them already have one foot out the door.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When lamb removed their ED after the Fernández situation, we were in a long period of instability. Then we got a truly awful ed who was eventually fired. Then more instability. Then our current ED who I don’t like at all. None of them ever resolved the many issues parents brought up over the years.

I still feel it was worth removing Diane as ED. She made catastrophic choices. But for years we had instability and the school declined. I don’t want to deal with years of that. I am fine with dci’s ED but I do want them to address the points on the parent petition.

Also fyi when they removed the EDs from lamb usually the Board chair becomes ED. Do you want Pardo in charge, even in the short term?

Issues are rarely ever just the responsibility or fault of the LT, let alone a single member. As your experience shows things often get worse, not better.

I think the ED can handle things better but so much of it is HR issues- you can’t comment on staff terminations, and you can’t say much more than “hiring is difficult and we want to find the right person. That takes time.” I’m not sure the people complaining will be satisfied with that.

Note: it’s not clear he’s said either of those things.

These are fair general observations about leadership and HR constraints. But they don't apply cleanly to what's documented here.

You're right that leaders can't publicly comment on individual terminations. But there's a difference between 'can't comment on staff terminations' and actively lying to a community member about whether conversations with a non-renewed employee were ongoing. The ED didn't stay silent about the DP Coordinator situation. He made a false statement. That's documented in the staff letter and hasn't been disputed.

You're right that hiring is hard. But the MYP Coordinator departure wasn't just a vacancy. It happened with no succession plan, no communication to families, and a replacement posting that structurally undermines the role. That's not a hiring timeline problem. That's a planning and transparency failure.

You're right that issues are rarely one person's fault. But 175 staff members signed a formal document saying otherwise, after three years of documented attempts to work through proper channels. That's not a personality conflict. That's an institutional verdict.

And on whether people will be satisfied: the staff letter was very specific about what would satisfy them. Remove the ED, reinstate non-renewals, partner with staff on an interim and search process. Those are concrete asks, not a vague demand for better vibes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:On IB degradation beyond personnel: the staff letter provides quite a bit of specific evidence.

Here’s what it documents:

The MYP Coordinator resigned in February with no succession plan and no communication to families. Community and Personal Projects, which are IB requirements not optional programming, are currently operating with little to no guidance for 8th and 10th grade students right now.

IB coordinator roles have been restructured to include unrelated coaching duties, in some cases supervising double or triple the number of teachers they previously did. This directly reduces their capacity to manage IB program requirements, which are substantial and non-negotiable.

Teachers no longer receive consistent IB-specific training. The IB has very specific professional development requirements that must be documented and verified at program evaluation. The letter describes the process as having become “convoluted and difficult to maneuver.”

The French language track has had multiple phases collapsed into single courses that the letter says serve neither set of language learners. Current middle school students are not receiving the same degree of target language instruction as previous cohorts and will arrive in DP years at a deficit. The board presented biliteracy outcomes at the March meeting as evidence the program is strong, but the letter points out those outcomes reflect students who were taught under the old model. The current cohort is a different story.

And what we do know about the DP Coordinator is that he had a history of only strong performance evaluations per the staff letter, that 744 students signed a petition to reinstate him, and that the ED told an alum inquiring about his status that conversations about his future at DCI were ongoing when verifiably no such conversations were happening.

Here is why the personnel and the IB program degradation are not separate issues: the DP Coordinator oversees the Extended Essay, Theory of Knowledge, and the full diploma candidacy process. The MYP Coordinator manages Personal and Community Projects. These are not general administrator roles.

They require IB-specific training and certification and years of program experience. Losing both simultaneously, with no succession plan, at a school with an IB re-evaluation coming in 2027-28, is not a personnel matter. It is a program integrity matter.

This long post shows me that as a middle school parent, I know precious little about the IB model for MYP, much less for high school, and how it's meant to be implemented.

I personally think that the school needs to work much harder at educating parents and bringing families on board to support the school. They do almost nothing. That is one role an ED should take on, via their coordinators. It's one sign that is a red flag to me.

At one point, I attended a Zoom meeting for incoming 6th grader families in which a couple of fairly young professionals who led the MYP but were about to leave the school presented a slide show. That is about it for the information on the IB model.

This school has so much potential and so many eager parents ready to chip in and support almost anything. They do not engage and already the kids in 6th are discussing how they can try to get into Walls and other schools, amongst themselves.

I also am a LAMB parent and I know what the other poster means by years of instability. I also know the signs that a set of teachers is ready to leave or rebel against an ED, and this is not a good sign. But at least at LAMB, there are many opportunities to learn what Montessori is all about, and the school does make an effort (less so now than before, but it happens) to educate parents on the model itself and bring them frequently into the building to learn what's happening. Of course, it's a much smaller school, but something needs to happen. Letting go of the ED with a succession plan and perhaps pushing out the Board chair are a start, but only if someone with vision is on the horizon. One of the issues with the changes at LAMB are that the initial vision of the school has been lost to an extent, since the subsequent new leaders were not particularly visionary. It matters. Where do you locate the vision and heart of a school with turnover? With the longtime staff and most dedicated teachers.

You're right that removing an ED creates instability. But instability is already here. 125 staff departures since SY23-24. Both IB coordinators gone. 37 special education staff departed. A 94% no confidence vote. The question isn't stability versus instability. It's whether you manage a controlled transition now or an uncontrolled collapse later.

Your LAMB experience is exactly the right frame. You know what a staff that is ready to leave looks like. You're looking at it.

And your point about vision is the most important thing anyone has said in this thread. DCI's vision is not in the ED. It's not in the board. It's documented in the school's founding charter, in its IB commitment, in its language programs, and most critically in the longtime staff who have carried that vision for over a decade and are now leaving or being pushed out one by one.

The staff letter actually asks for exactly what you're describing. An interim ED named in partnership with staff. A search process that includes staff and parent voice. A board that partners with the community rather than manages it.

That's not a recipe for losing the vision. That's a recipe for protecting it. The vision is still there. The question is whether it survives long enough for the right leader to steward it.

[Anonymous]

Different poster- from my lamb experience with ED turnover- I just don’t think it’s a good idea for staff to dictate that an ED must go.

Eventually the staff at lamb ran the show. Some teachers were excellent. Some teachers were terrible. You could do very little if you had a terrible situation. The current ED stays afloat hiding from issues and avoiding taking a position. You don’t want that, especially in a high school. It’s vital to have an ED that makes hard and often unpopular decisions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:On IB degradation beyond personnel: the staff letter provides quite a bit of specific evidence.

Here’s what it documents:

The MYP Coordinator resigned in February with no succession plan and no communication to families. Community and Personal Projects, which are IB requirements not optional programming, are currently operating with little to no guidance for 8th and 10th grade students right now.

IB coordinator roles have been restructured to include unrelated coaching duties, in some cases supervising double or triple the number of teachers they previously did. This directly reduces their capacity to manage IB program requirements, which are substantial and non-negotiable.

Teachers no longer receive consistent IB-specific training. The IB has very specific professional development requirements that must be documented and verified at program evaluation. The letter describes the process as having become “convoluted and difficult to maneuver.”

The French language track has had multiple phases collapsed into single courses that the letter says serve neither set of language learners. Current middle school students are not receiving the same degree of target language instruction as previous cohorts and will arrive in DP years at a deficit. The board presented biliteracy outcomes at the March meeting as evidence the program is strong, but the letter points out those outcomes reflect students who were taught under the old model. The current cohort is a different story.

And what we do know about the DP Coordinator is that he had a history of only strong performance evaluations per the staff letter, that 744 students signed a petition to reinstate him, and that the ED told an alum inquiring about his status that conversations about his future at DCI were ongoing when verifiably no such conversations were happening.

Here is why the personnel and the IB program degradation are not separate issues: the DP Coordinator oversees the Extended Essay, Theory of Knowledge, and the full diploma candidacy process. The MYP Coordinator manages Personal and Community Projects. These are not general administrator roles.

They require IB-specific training and certification and years of program experience. Losing both simultaneously, with no succession plan, at a school with an IB re-evaluation coming in 2027-28, is not a personnel matter. It is a program integrity matter.

This long post shows me that as a middle school parent, I know precious little about the IB model for MYP, much less for high school, and how it's meant to be implemented.

I personally think that the school needs to work much harder at educating parents and bringing families on board to support the school. They do almost nothing. That is one role an ED should take on, via their coordinators. It's one sign that is a red flag to me.

At one point, I attended a Zoom meeting for incoming 6th grader families in which a couple of fairly young professionals who led the MYP but were about to leave the school presented a slide show. That is about it for the information on the IB model.

This school has so much potential and so many eager parents ready to chip in and support almost anything. They do not engage and already the kids in 6th are discussing how they can try to get into Walls and other schools, amongst themselves.

I also am a LAMB parent and I know what the other poster means by years of instability. I also know the signs that a set of teachers is ready to leave or rebel against an ED, and this is not a good sign. But at least at LAMB, there are many opportunities to learn what Montessori is all about, and the school does make an effort (less so now than before, but it happens) to educate parents on the model itself and bring them frequently into the building to learn what's happening. Of course, it's a much smaller school, but something needs to happen. Letting go of the ED with a succession plan and perhaps pushing out the Board chair are a start, but only if someone with vision is on the horizon. One of the issues with the changes at LAMB are that the initial vision of the school has been lost to an extent, since the subsequent new leaders were not particularly visionary. It matters. Where do you locate the vision and heart of a school with turnover? With the longtime staff and most dedicated teachers.

For many kids at dci walls is simply not an option because they will run out of language classes, math classes and science classes to take. Walls is geared toward humanities and doesn’t offer a lot of activities that dci does. Banneker is IB but only offers a lower math track, much lower language track, and only HL biology. It’s really a big step down to move to dcps. We have to make dci work!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Different poster- from my lamb experience with ED turnover- I just don’t think it’s a good idea for staff to dictate that an ED must go.

Eventually the staff at lamb ran the show. Some teachers were excellent. Some teachers were terrible. You could do very little if you had a terrible situation. The current ED stays afloat hiding from issues and avoiding taking a position. You don’t want that, especially in a high school. It’s vital to have an ED that makes hard and often unpopular decisions.

You’re right that staff shouldn’t run a school. And you’re right that an ED who hides from hard decisions is a problem. Nobody here is arguing for either of those things.

There’s a difference between staff running a school and staff having a formal accountability mechanism when leadership fails. The no confidence vote didn’t put teachers in charge of curriculum decisions or hiring. It triggered a board process. That’s exactly how governance is supposed to work. Staff raised concerns through proper channels for three years. When that failed they used the one formal tool available to them. The board is still the decision-making body.

On your second point - you’ve just described Michael Rosskamm. The staff letter documents an ED who told staff to stop amplifying complainers, called concerns gossip, and responded to three years of feedback with more listening sessions that led nowhere. That’s not a leader making hard unpopular decisions. That’s a leader avoiding accountability while creating the appearance of engagement.

The hard decision here is removing an ED who has lost the confidence of 94% of his staff. That’s the decision the board is avoiding.

[Anonymous]

Thanks for this feedback. However I still don’t understand why parents should risk the instability of interim EDs and the transition process. I still don’t understand how the current ED is to blame.

I really don’t want my kids to relive the instability they experienced at LAMB and from a cursory review of the Board, I don’t have a lot of confidence in them (especially the lamb alums) to choose a good ED.

[Anonymous]

You’re weighing ‘risk of instability from transition’ against ‘stability under current leadership.’ That’s not actually the choice in front of you.

The instability is already here. It’s just happening quietly inside the building instead of visibly at the leadership level. 125 staff gone since SY23-24. Both IB coordinators gone simultaneously with no succession plan. 37 special education staff departed while nearly 500 students with IEPs depend on that department. A 94% no confidence vote from the people who show up every day and teach your kids.

That is not a stable school. It is a school that looks stable from the outside while the foundation is eroding.

And the letter doesn’t ask you to blame ED for everything. It documents specific decisions he made and specific failures of leadership over three years of documented attempts to address them. You don’t have to believe he’s a villain to believe he’s the wrong person for this school at this moment.

Your skepticism about the Boardis warranted and frankly shared by many people in this thread. That’s exactly why the staff letter asks for a search process that includes staff and parent voice rather than leaving it entirely to the board.

Your kids already lived through instability at LAMB. You recognize the signs. What you’re describing at DCI right now are those same signs. The question isn’t whether instability is coming. It’s whether you manage it on your terms or wait until it manages you.

[Anonymous]

I see what you mean, but the plan proposed by the staff isn’t a good one either.

To be honest I don’t see the link between people leaving as having anything to do just with the executive director.

On this same thread teachers were complaining about having to clock in. I clock in. I am held accountable. Why are teachers who are often late according to my kids upset about this?

I don’t want teachers choosing an ED that doesn’t hold them accountable. Parents and staff. were involved in choosing the second ED at LAMB. This person was an unqualified disaster. I can’t go through that again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"Basic professional standards" and it's humans with lives who are being threatened with docked pay and consequences if they experience human needs like flat tires, cranky kids who won't move quickly in the morning, late busses. I'm on the outskirts of the DCI community but also in the DC education world, and I've NEVER heard of a school with a clock in system for grown adults. And that's just one aspect of admin infantilizing staff. The school used scare tactics on staff when the opportunity to unionize came up, spreading lies and making staff members feel like their jobs were at risk. The ED took a massive salary while working to ensure support staff like facilities barely make a living wage. The admin has a history of disrespecting their teachers and showing no faith in them. Saying that none of this appears serious is very much misunderstanding the matter and showing the same disrespect to staff that admin is doing.

As I was saying…..

[Anonymous]

The clock-in issue is one bullet point in a six-page letter that documents potential legal violations, a nepotism concern, a $56,500 executive bonus while aides took home less than last year, 37 special education staff departures affecting nearly 500 students with IEPs, and an ED who made a documented false statement to a community member.

If the only thing in that letter were the clock-in policy, you'd be right to dismiss it. But it isn't and the repeated focus on that one point while ignoring everything else isn't engaging with the actual case being made.

And the letter isn't objecting to accountability. It's objecting to deductions applied in increments as small as 0.1 hours for arriving six minutes late when staff have no in-person duties. That's not accountability. That's punitive micromanagement designed to make people miserable enough to leave.

The letter asks for staff and parent voice in the process, not staff control. Those are different things. A search committee with community representation is standard governance practice at healthy schools.

On your LAMB experience: one bad outcome from a flawed process isn't an argument against community involvement in leadership searches. It's an argument for doing it better. The alternative you're describing, leaving it entirely to a board that appointed an investigator with a 6-figure financial relationship to the school, is not obviously safer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Different poster- from my lamb experience with ED turnover- I just don’t think it’s a good idea for staff to dictate that an ED must go.

Eventually the staff at lamb ran the show. Some teachers were excellent. Some teachers were terrible. You could do very little if you had a terrible situation. The current ED stays afloat hiding from issues and avoiding taking a position. You don’t want that, especially in a high school. It’s vital to have an ED that makes hard and often unpopular decisions.

Like making custodians come in to mop clean floors over spring break just to get their full paycheck?

[Anonymous]

The ED needs to do the right thing and resign. If he had any integrity or concern about the welfare of the school he would understand that he is too polarizing a figure to lead competently. The board needs to help him do this in a way that reduces the tension that is impacting every group in the school community. This incredible school needs healing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The clock-in issue is one bullet point in a six-page letter that documents potential legal violations, a nepotism concern, a $56,500 executive bonus while aides took home less than last year, 37 special education staff departures affecting nearly 500 students with IEPs, and an ED who made a documented false statement to a community member.

If the only thing in that letter were the clock-in policy, you'd be right to dismiss it. But it isn't and the repeated focus on that one point while ignoring everything else isn't engaging with the actual case being made.

And the letter isn't objecting to accountability. It's objecting to deductions applied in increments as small as 0.1 hours for arriving six minutes late when staff have no in-person duties. That's not accountability. That's punitive micromanagement designed to make people miserable enough to leave.

The letter asks for staff and parent voice in the process, not staff control. Those are different things. A search committee with community representation is standard governance practice at healthy schools.

On your LAMB experience: one bad outcome from a flawed process isn't an argument against community involvement in leadership searches. It's an argument for doing it better. The alternative you're describing, leaving it entirely to a board that appointed an investigator with a 6-figure financial relationship to the school, is not obviously safer.

I don't have a horse in this race as I'm not part of the DCI community, but I will say that this poster consistently using AI to write their arguments (the "it's not this, it's that" over and over again is a dead giveaway) doesn't strengthen them in any way. As an outside observer who's been in the education community for a while but doesn't directly know any of the parties involved, there isn't anything in the letter that would warrant a vote of no confidence. Should aides be paid more? Yes - and that's true in every school. The bonus isn't the ED's choice. If you want to complain about that you should blame the board. The "documented false statement to a community member" is blown up way more than what it actually is. Legal and nepotism concerns warrant investigation but from what I see in the letter there doesn't seem to be an issue there. And that many staff departures definitely doesn't sound good, though I don't know the circumstances there. So while there may be legitimate issues, the letter doesn't really support that cause.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Different poster- from my lamb experience with ED turnover- I just don’t think it’s a good idea for staff to dictate that an ED must go.

Eventually the staff at lamb ran the show. Some teachers were excellent. Some teachers were terrible. You could do very little if you had a terrible situation. The current ED stays afloat hiding from issues and avoiding taking a position. You don’t want that, especially in a high school. It’s vital to have an ED that makes hard and often unpopular decisions.

Like making custodians come in to mop clean floors over spring break just to get their full paycheck?

I am not a DCI parent, but I have worked at a school before and the janitorial / maintenance hours + calendar is sometimes different than the rest of the school calendar. Often times there is cleaning or maintenance work required that is better done when school is not in session (which makes sense). This is pretty standard. Of course, this expectation should be laid out clearly in advance to impacted staff.