Rhee feared Hardy principal was weeding out poor kids

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is what we need to see for Deal and Hardy before we can make a comparison. We need to know 1) the numbers of the in-boundary students for both schools who are both African-American and receive free/reduced price lunches; 2) the numbers of in-boundary students who are both African-American and don't receive free/reduced price lunches; 3) the numbers of OOB students who are both African American and receive free/reduced price lunches; 4) the numbers of OOB students who are both African-American and don't receive free/reduced price lunches; 5) the numbers of overall students at the school. Then we can do a statistical analysis which will suggest whether the differences (if there are any) are likely to be random or are in fact likely to be related to the difference in the schools - which at that point would suggest that we should investigate further whether the application is a factor, because it could have an effect or it could still be something else such as the location vis-a-vis metro, for example, or some combination of the two.

Where would you propose getting that information? Ken worked with what was available, which is what DCPS puts on the website in the school profiles and report cards. He did what he could with what he was given.

If you don't have it, you don't have it. You don't claim you have evidence when you don't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:PP, I'm sure you do have a PhD in social science. You sure didn't spend any time developing social graces. I am a frequent critic of Ken on GGW, but your condescending rant seems a bit absurd to me. So Ken didn't use a statistical method sufficient to submit to a scholarly journal - so what? He never said he proved anything - in fact, here's a quote from the piece"

"Perhaps the unique demographics of Hardy were not the result of any specific intent to make poor students another principal's problem. Perhaps they were the unintended effect of using an application process to select students off of the Hardy waitlist with the best essays and in-person interviews."

I understand this is what you do for a living (zzzzzzz), but really, calm down,

Right, burying that in the piece isn't much comfort when the overall message that is being broadcast by the way the piece is framed (eg the headline) and its poorly developed charts is that Michelle Rhee really really cared about poor black children and Patrick Pope didn't. Do you have any idea how insulting that sounds? Sorry but I find that extremely offensive - both as a Hardy parent and a social scientist. Furthermore, how many people are going to actually read that line and grasp what it really means -- especially when they see these bar charts that look credible but actually aren't. It's not okay to base a claim on a flawed method and say it doesn't matter because it's not being sent to a research journal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP, I'm sure you do have a PhD in social science. You sure didn't spend any time developing social graces. I am a frequent critic of Ken on GGW, but your condescending rant seems a bit absurd to me. So Ken didn't use a statistical method sufficient to submit to a scholarly journal - so what? He never said he proved anything - in fact, here's a quote from the piece"

"Perhaps the unique demographics of Hardy were not the result of any specific intent to make poor students another principal's problem. Perhaps they were the unintended effect of using an application process to select students off of the Hardy waitlist with the best essays and in-person interviews."

I understand this is what you do for a living (zzzzzzz), but really, calm down,

Right, burying that in the piece isn't much comfort when the overall message that is being broadcast by the way the piece is framed (eg the headline) and its poorly developed charts is that Michelle Rhee really really cared about poor black children and Patrick Pope didn't. Do you have any idea how insulting that sounds? Sorry but I find that extremely offensive - both as a Hardy parent and a social scientist. Furthermore, how many people are going to actually read that line and grasp what it really means -- especially when they see these bar charts that look credible but actually aren't. It's not okay to base a claim on a flawed method and say it doesn't matter because it's not being sent to a research journal.

No more insulting than your assumption that people who read the piece are incapable of understanding it doesn't purport to "prove" anything. Although to be fair, YOU don’t seem to have grasped that, so I guess I can see why you believe no one else could – after all, you have a Phd! in social science! I think you’d be surprised, however, how much the rest of us can comprehend. Perhaps you should go look at the piece again – and this time, read the words, don’t just look at the headline and the charts (ooh – pretty colors!).

[Anonymous]

The original article is crap, just saying
I'm positive that most in-bound families for Hardy were well aware of their right to attend...

[Anonymous]

Insane. So Rhee kept all of this under wraps so Fenty could lose the election? Okay? Here's the truth. Anybody who will travel across town, regardless of income, has far more invested in the education of their child. Sadly, this will probably correlate with a better educated parent, hence the higher test scores. Next. Rhee sucked then, she still sucks now. What about Art Seibens from Wilson a nationally recognized science teacher? Truth? If you had the goods on Rhee and her chosen principals you were a target.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
I'm positive that most in-bound families for Hardy were well aware of their right to attend...

What makes you positive? Are you psychic?

I'm in-boundary. I could never get a straight answer from the school about what I had to do. If someone from the Chancellor's office was in the room the answer was one thing, otherwise it was something else. I met Mr. Pope a number of times and he never left me with any doubt that he didn't want my children in his school. Neighbors who sent their kids to Hardy were full of horror stories of how their kids were harassed by the staff. Neighbors who didn't go to Hardy were full of stories about how Mr. Pope had lied to their faces about admission.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I'm positive that most in-bound families for Hardy were well aware of their right to attend...

What makes you positive? Are you psychic?

I'm in-boundary. I could never get a straight answer from the school about what I had to do. If someone from the Chancellor's office was in the room the answer was one thing, otherwise it was something else. I met Mr. Pope a number of times and he never left me with any doubt that he didn't want my children in his school. Neighbors who sent their kids to Hardy were full of horror stories of how their kids were harassed by the staff. Neighbors who didn't go to Hardy were full of stories about how Mr. Pope had lied to their faces about admission.

So you are trying to say that you got an answer to your questions in front of the chancellor and still 'didn't know your rights'? Or didn't communicate with the DCPS central office about later discrepancies? Not at all credible, sorry...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I'm positive that most in-bound families for Hardy were well aware of their right to attend...

What makes you positive? Are you psychic?

I'm in-boundary. I could never get a straight answer from the school about what I had to do. If someone from the Chancellor's office was in the room the answer was one thing, otherwise it was something else. I met Mr. Pope a number of times and he never left me with any doubt that he didn't want my children in his school. Neighbors who sent their kids to Hardy were full of horror stories of how their kids were harassed by the staff. Neighbors who didn't go to Hardy were full of stories about how Mr. Pope had lied to their faces about admission.

Harassed by the staff? Do tell. I have been a staff member for a decade and I thought I heard it all.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
Harassed by the staff? Do tell. I have been a staff member for a decade and I thought I heard it all.

A staffer at Hardy? If so, can you comment on whether Ken is correct that the Central Office would have no idea who was on Pope's waitlist?

[Anonymous]

What if we conclude that Rhee was worried about the Key parents issues, that she did want to bring them into Hardy for any number of reasons. Even that she really was not focused on poor kids. But Let's also look at Pope's motivations here. It seems pretty obvious to me that he developed a system that allowed him to control to some degree the kids that got in. It is a lot easier to be judged if you control how the deck is stacked. I do think he had kids interest at heart. He may have been looking at that middle in DC that does not have great access to middle schools and lacks the money for private but could benefit from not having kids who just did not care. Let's be honest most of us seeking out of boundary applications especially into Ward 3 schools are doing the same. Dysfunctional systems, create dysfunctional work-a-rounds.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Insane. So Rhee kept all of this under wraps so Fenty could lose the election?

Here's the story as far as I can tell. My perspective is that of an in-boundary parent.

Pope was cherry-picking admissions, using administrative tricks to filter out both in-boundary and out-of-boundary kids he didn't want. He got pretty dirty with in-boundary families and pissed off a lot of people. When Fenty was running in 2006 -- way before Rhee was on the scene -- it was an issue in Ward 3, and Fenty made a campaign promise that he would get rid of Pope if elected.

During 2007-9 Rhee comes on board and tries to work with Pope. The chancellor's office arranges several awkward meetings between Pope and feeder school parents. One he blows off completely. Another one he comes to but apparently didn't say what was expected, I heard a deputy chancellor talking to him in the hallway afterward say "WTF was that?"

Fast forward to fall 2009. Fenty realizes that he has less than a year to go before the next election, and he's getting pressured about keeping his campaign promise. He realizes that Ward 3 is his base and he can't afford to lose it, and he gives the word to Rhee that Pope needs to go. Rhee realizes she can't fire Pope outright because she doesn't have the documentation to prove cause. She comes up with this arts magnet school in an effort to lure Pope away from Hardy. According to people who were in the room when Rhee pitched the arts magnet to Pope, Rhee left the meeting believing that Pope had agreed to the magnet school job.

Obviously, either Rhee misread Pope or Pope changed his mind, but clearly by the time the change was announced Pope had decided to fight to keep his position at Hardy. Pope launches a guerrilla campaign to undermine Rhee, with parents and students as his proxies. Hardy becomes a city-wide cause because of the general resentment of Rhee and Fenty, race and class, and anxiety about the out-of-boundary process. Rhee and Fenty lose their jobs but Pope doesn't get his back.

A new principal starts on July 1. She dismantles Pope's admissions scheme, and goes to a straight by-the-book lottery. Enrollment surges by over 120 students -- it turns out Pope had been keeping the school almost a quarter empty. The new students cause problems with scheduling and discipline. Pro-Pope parents know they can't complain about the change in admissions policy, so they start a campaign blaming all of the problems on the incompetence of the new prinicpal. After four months the new principal has had enough and begs for her old job back.

Which pretty much gets us to where we are today.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So you are trying to say that you got an answer to your questions in front of the chancellor and still 'didn't know your rights'? Or didn't communicate with the DCPS central office about later discrepancies? Not at all credible, sorry...

Oh, I communicated with DCPS central office all right. A whole bunch of us Key parents did. That's why Pope was transferred.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So you are trying to say that you got an answer to your questions in front of the chancellor and still 'didn't know your rights'? Or didn't communicate with the DCPS central office about later discrepancies? Not at all credible, sorry...

Oh, I communicated with DCPS central office all right. A whole bunch of us Key parents did. That's why Pope was transferred.

And you ran over to enroll your DC(s) at Hardy? Where everything is so much better now?

[archerovi]

Anonymous wrote:

Here's the story as far as I can tell. My perspective is that of an in-boundary parent.
Pope was cherry-picking admissions, using administrative tricks to filter out both in-boundary and out-of-boundary kids he didn't want. He got pretty dirty with in-boundary families and pissed off a lot of people. When Fenty was running in 2006 -- way before Rhee was on the scene -- it was an issue in Ward 3, and Fenty made a campaign promise that he would get rid of Pope if elected.

During 2007-9 Rhee comes on board and tries to work with Pope. The chancellor's office arranges several awkward meetings between Pope and feeder school parents. One he blows off completely. Another one he comes to but apparently didn't say what was expected, I heard a deputy chancellor talking to him in the hallway afterward say "WTF was that?"

Fast forward to fall 2009. Fenty realizes that he has less than a year to go before the next election, and he's getting pressured about keeping his campaign promise. He realizes that Ward 3 is his base and he can't afford to lose it, and he gives the word to Rhee that Pope needs to go. Rhee realizes she can't fire Pope outright because she doesn't have the documentation to prove cause. She comes up with this arts magnet school in an effort to lure Pope away from Hardy. According to people who were in the room when Rhee pitched the arts magnet to Pope, Rhee left the meeting believing that Pope had agreed to the magnet school job.

Obviously, either Rhee misread Pope or Pope changed his mind, but clearly by the time the change was announced Pope had decided to fight to keep his position at Hardy. Pope launches a guerrilla campaign to undermine Rhee, with parents and students as his proxies. Hardy becomes a city-wide cause because of the general resentment of Rhee and Fenty, race and class, and anxiety about the out-of-boundary process. Rhee and Fenty lose their jobs but Pope doesn't get his back.

A new principal starts on July 1. She dismantles Pope's admissions scheme, and goes to a straight by-the-book lottery. Enrollment surges by over 120 students -- it turns out Pope had been keeping the school almost a quarter empty. The new students cause problems with scheduling and discipline. Pro-Pope parents know they can't complain about the change in admissions policy, so they start a campaign blaming all of the problems on the incompetence of the new prinicpal. After four months the new principal has had enough and begs for her old job back.

Which pretty much gets us to where we are today.

This is, I think, pretty close to what happened. Whitmire's book also says Pope gave Rhee the impression he was on-board with the plan.

Pope didn't set out to discriminate against poor kids, and Rhee didn't set out to whitewash Hardy. The truth is, as it is so often, between these extremes. As a previous commenter summed it up: "dysfunctional systems beget dysfunctional workarounds".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And you ran over to enroll your DC(s) at Hardy? Where everything is so much better now?

Sadly, it turned out Hardy had a small group of persistent parents who would rather ruin their own school than not get their way. So, no, I won't be sending my kids to Hardy and I'm not at all happy about the way things turned out.