Kaya Henderson has Undermined her own Leadership

[jsteele]

Aaron Weiner of the Washington City Paper has an article looking at winners and losers in the recent DME school boundary process:

http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/housingcomplex/2014/08/27/zone-defense/

In response to a suggestion that some families hurt by the new school boundaries might move, DCPS Chancellor Kaya Henderson is quoted as saying:

"Even those who decide to leave, you know, this city is getting 1,000 new residents a month," she says. "And these residents will have babies."

This is outrageous. While Henderson is factually correct, retention of families that have invested in DCPS should be one of her top priorities. If her school system is causing people to leave the District, she is failing at her job. This raises a serious question as to whether Henderson is fit for the position she holds. Months ago, she publicly told a Council hearing that DCPS does not do middle schools well and suggested that maybe middle schools should be turned over to the charter sector. Now, she prefers babies over actual DCPS students. Is there anyone she actually wants to educate or is her goal to dismantle DCPS?

[Anonymous]

She is not qualified to run a school system and should be replaced.

[Anonymous]

Our school leaders don't deal in subtleties. That would be a sign of intelligence and professionalism. Yes, a boundary and school assignment overhaul would have people adversely impacted no matter what. It is how you mitigate that ( good planning, full budgeting, confidence-inspiring hiring and programming ) that makes the difference. They are simply a "my way or the highway" sort of crowd and it isn't serving the city well.

I say this as someone not personally affected one way or another by the changes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Our school leaders don't deal in subtleties. That would be a sign of intelligence and professionalism. Yes, a boundary and school assignment overhaul would have people adversely impacted no matter what. It is how you mitigate that ( good planning, full budgeting, confidence-inspiring hiring and programming ) that makes the difference. They are simply a "my way or the highway" sort of crowd and it isn't serving the city well.

I say this as someone not personally affected one way or another by the changes.

Very well put. Thank you.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:Aaron Weiner of the Washington City Paper has an article looking at winners and losers in the recent DME school boundary process:

http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/housingcomplex/2014/08/27/zone-defense/

In response to a suggestion that some families hurt by the new school boundaries might move, DCPS Chancellor Kaya Henderson is quoted as saying:

"Even those who decide to leave, you know, this city is getting 1,000 new residents a month," she says. "And these residents will have babies."

This is outrageous. While Henderson is factually correct, retention of families that have invested in DCPS should be one of her top priorities. If her school system is causing people to leave the District, she is failing at her job. This raises a serious question as to whether Henderson is fit for the position she holds. Months ago, she publicly told a Council hearing that DCPS does not do middle schools well and suggested that maybe middle schools should be turned over to the charter sector. Now, she prefers babies over actual DCPS students. Is there anyone she actually wants to educate or is her goal to dismantle DCPS?

Depends on what her job really is. If it's to promote charters and serve the interests of hordes of newcomers who aren't as fussy as people currently here, then she's doing a fine job.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:Aaron Weiner of the Washington City Paper has an article looking at winners and losers in the recent DME school boundary process:

http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/housingcomplex/2014/08/27/zone-defense/

In response to a suggestion that some families hurt by the new school boundaries might move, DCPS Chancellor Kaya Henderson is quoted as saying:

"Even those who decide to leave, you know, this city is getting 1,000 new residents a month," she says. "And these residents will have babies."

This is outrageous. While Henderson is factually correct, retention of families that have invested in DCPS should be one of her top priorities. If her school system is causing people to leave the District, she is failing at her job. This raises a serious question as to whether Henderson is fit for the position she holds. Months ago, she publicly told a Council hearing that DCPS does not do middle schools well and suggested that maybe middle schools should be turned over to the charter sector. Now, she prefers babies over actual DCPS students. Is there anyone she actually wants to educate or is her goal to dismantle DCPS?

Depends on what her job really is. If it's to promote charters and serve the interests of hordes of newcomers who aren't as fussy as people currently here, then she's doing a fine job.

Are you kidding? One of the things can gave impetus to the whole boundary project was new residents, who settled in neighborhoods because they were a good value and convenient to urban "vibrancy" but without any thought to the public schools, are now focused on schools. Originally, they didn't know whether they would have kids, or just figured they'd move. Now they don't want to move or can't afford to. But rather than working and investing sweat equity in their local schools, they want access now to OOB schools that are already good.

[Anonymous]

Henderson's affable manner often obscures the fact that she can be as stubborn and tone-deal as Rhee. Unfortunately, she doesn't have Rhee's same focus on reform.

[Anonymous]

Meant to type "tone deaf."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:Aaron Weiner of the Washington City Paper has an article looking at winners and losers in the recent DME school boundary process:

http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/housingcomplex/2014/08/27/zone-defense/

In response to a suggestion that some families hurt by the new school boundaries might move, DCPS Chancellor Kaya Henderson is quoted as saying:

"Even those who decide to leave, you know, this city is getting 1,000 new residents a month," she says. "And these residents will have babies."

This is outrageous. While Henderson is factually correct, retention of families that have invested in DCPS should be one of her top priorities. If her school system is causing people to leave the District, she is failing at her job. This raises a serious question as to whether Henderson is fit for the position she holds. Months ago, she publicly told a Council hearing that DCPS does not do middle schools well and suggested that maybe middle schools should be turned over to the charter sector. Now, she prefers babies over actual DCPS students. Is there anyone she actually wants to educate or is her goal to dismantle DCPS?

Depends on what her job really is. If it's to promote charters and serve the interests of hordes of newcomers who aren't as fussy as people currently here, then she's doing a fine job.

Are you kidding? One of the things can gave impetus to the whole boundary project was new residents, who settled in neighborhoods because they were a good value and convenient to urban "vibrancy" but without any thought to the public schools, are now focused on schools. Originally, they didn't know whether they would have kids, or just figured they'd move. Now they don't want to move or can't afford to. But rather than working and investing sweat equity in their local schools, they want access now to OOB schools that are already good.

Not kidding -- you're talking about people already here - and yes, a lot was learned about them in the DME Boundary discussions (including that people would like good neighborhood schools options). Henderson mentioned people not yet here and not yet with children -- perhaps hoping they'd be different.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:Aaron Weiner of the Washington City Paper has an article looking at winners and losers in the recent DME school boundary process:

http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/housingcomplex/2014/08/27/zone-defense/

In response to a suggestion that some families hurt by the new school boundaries might move, DCPS Chancellor Kaya Henderson is quoted as saying:

"Even those who decide to leave, you know, this city is getting 1,000 new residents a month," she says. "And these residents will have babies."

This is outrageous. While Henderson is factually correct, retention of families that have invested in DCPS should be one of her top priorities. If her school system is causing people to leave the District, she is failing at her job. This raises a serious question as to whether Henderson is fit for the position she holds. Months ago, she publicly told a Council hearing that DCPS does not do middle schools well and suggested that maybe middle schools should be turned over to the charter sector. Now, she prefers babies over actual DCPS students. Is there anyone she actually wants to educate or is her goal to dismantle DCPS?

No school system can satisfy everyone. And no set of changes like this can satisfy everyone. You have people with choice of where to live who lose from the DME proposal, people with choice of where to live who benefit, and of course the many people with less choice whose interests still matter. I mean ultimately "You gotta do what I like cause I can MOVE" is simply not something that should stop an otherwise good plan. Its like the folks on the Hill constantly whining how their problems are hurting the Distict, even as the gentrification frontier on the Hill advances block by block by block. That does not mean their problems should not be addressed - just that there is no tax base reason for it to be urgent.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:Aaron Weiner of the Washington City Paper has an article looking at winners and losers in the recent DME school boundary process:

http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/housingcomplex/2014/08/27/zone-defense/

In response to a suggestion that some families hurt by the new school boundaries might move, DCPS Chancellor Kaya Henderson is quoted as saying:

"Even those who decide to leave, you know, this city is getting 1,000 new residents a month," she says. "And these residents will have babies."

This is outrageous. While Henderson is factually correct, retention of families that have invested in DCPS should be one of her top priorities. If her school system is causing people to leave the District, she is failing at her job. This raises a serious question as to whether Henderson is fit for the position she holds. Months ago, she publicly told a Council hearing that DCPS does not do middle schools well and suggested that maybe middle schools should be turned over to the charter sector. Now, she prefers babies over actual DCPS students. Is there anyone she actually wants to educate or is her goal to dismantle DCPS?

No school system can satisfy everyone. And no set of changes like this can satisfy everyone. You have people with choice of where to live who lose from the DME proposal, people with choice of where to live who benefit, and of course the many people with less choice whose interests still matter. I mean ultimately "You gotta do what I like cause I can MOVE" is simply not something that should stop an otherwise good plan. Its like the folks on the Hill constantly whining how their problems are hurting the Distict, even as the gentrification frontier on the Hill advances block by block by block. That does not mean their problems should not be addressed - just that there is no tax base reason for it to be urgent.

Please let me know what problems you find in the city so that I can advocate that they be ignored. I'm sure your problems are important to you, but, hey, can't satisfy everyone.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:Aaron Weiner of the Washington City Paper has an article looking at winners and losers in the recent DME school boundary process:

http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/housingcomplex/2014/08/27/zone-defense/

In response to a suggestion that some families hurt by the new school boundaries might move, DCPS Chancellor Kaya Henderson is quoted as saying:

"Even those who decide to leave, you know, this city is getting 1,000 new residents a month," she says. "And these residents will have babies."

This is outrageous. While Henderson is factually correct, retention of families that have invested in DCPS should be one of her top priorities. If her school system is causing people to leave the District, she is failing at her job. This raises a serious question as to whether Henderson is fit for the position she holds. Months ago, she publicly told a Council hearing that DCPS does not do middle schools well and suggested that maybe middle schools should be turned over to the charter sector. Now, she prefers babies over actual DCPS students. Is there anyone she actually wants to educate or is her goal to dismantle DCPS?

Let this be a clue for those of you who advocate for improvement by threatening to leave the city. It doesn't work.

[Anonymous]

Anyone who considers D.C. "home" should not be surprised in the least by the level of competency coming from Henderson or anyone else at DCPS. Neighborhood schools can exist as a buffer to the historic, generational incompetence; but until you get a neighborhood school and try to have some guidance over what is going on...families are subject to it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:Aaron Weiner of the Washington City Paper has an article looking at winners and losers in the recent DME school boundary process:

http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/housingcomplex/2014/08/27/zone-defense/

In response to a suggestion that some families hurt by the new school boundaries might move, DCPS Chancellor Kaya Henderson is quoted as saying:

"Even those who decide to leave, you know, this city is getting 1,000 new residents a month," she says. "And these residents will have babies."

This is outrageous. While Henderson is factually correct, retention of families that have invested in DCPS should be one of her top priorities. If her school system is causing people to leave the District, she is failing at her job. This raises a serious question as to whether Henderson is fit for the position she holds. Months ago, she publicly told a Council hearing that DCPS does not do middle schools well and suggested that maybe middle schools should be turned over to the charter sector. Now, she prefers babies over actual DCPS students. Is there anyone she actually wants to educate or is her goal to dismantle DCPS?

No school system can satisfy everyone. And no set of changes like this can satisfy everyone. You have people with choice of where to live who lose from the DME proposal, people with choice of where to live who benefit, and of course the many people with less choice whose interests still matter. I mean ultimately "You gotta do what I like cause I can MOVE" is simply not something that should stop an otherwise good plan. Its like the folks on the Hill constantly whining how their problems are hurting the Distict, even as the gentrification frontier on the Hill advances block by block by block. That does not mean their problems should not be addressed - just that there is no tax base reason for it to be urgent.

And here is where the tone-deaf comes in. What is good for the people on the Hill you say are "whining" is actually good for the school system--and the city--as a whole. If DCPS had people with experience and vision at the top, that would be obvious and the CITY ( not the Hill ) wouldn't have almost half its public school students in charters.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:Aaron Weiner of the Washington City Paper has an article looking at winners and losers in the recent DME school boundary process:

http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/housingcomplex/2014/08/27/zone-defense/

In response to a suggestion that some families hurt by the new school boundaries might move, DCPS Chancellor Kaya Henderson is quoted as saying:

"Even those who decide to leave, you know, this city is getting 1,000 new residents a month," she says. "And these residents will have babies."

This is outrageous. While Henderson is factually correct, retention of families that have invested in DCPS should be one of her top priorities. If her school system is causing people to leave the District, she is failing at her job. This raises a serious question as to whether Henderson is fit for the position she holds. Months ago, she publicly told a Council hearing that DCPS does not do middle schools well and suggested that maybe middle schools should be turned over to the charter sector. Now, she prefers babies over actual DCPS students. Is there anyone she actually wants to educate or is her goal to dismantle DCPS?

No school system can satisfy everyone. And no set of changes like this can satisfy everyone. You have people with choice of where to live who lose from the DME proposal, people with choice of where to live who benefit, and of course the many people with less choice whose interests still matter. I mean ultimately "You gotta do what I like cause I can MOVE" is simply not something that should stop an otherwise good plan. Its like the folks on the Hill constantly whining how their problems are hurting the Distict, even as the gentrification frontier on the Hill advances block by block by block. That does not mean their problems should not be addressed - just that there is no tax base reason for it to be urgent.

Please let me know what problems you find in the city so that I can advocate that they be ignored. I'm sure your problems are important to you, but, hey, can't satisfy everyone.

Loads. People want to pay less in taxes, have more money spent to solve the many problems, and still have a balanced budget. They want more rights for citizens, and less crime. They want more housing, but less impacts from more density. Parking to be less scarce, but not to have to pay more for it.

Life is full of tradeoffs. The proposed plan addressed real problems. It also created losers in the process. There is no way to have avoided that. MAYBE your proposal to delay a year till McFarland plans are fleshed out will result in fewer losers, at minimal cost. But there will STILL be losers, and yes, some of them will leave the city as a result.