Jonetta Barras says what everyone is thinking

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

You have faith that Rhee made the right decision.

Just one last thing before I leave you to continue your internal dialogue. It would be helpful if you could actually quote where I say this, rather than inventing this argument out of whole cloth and assigning it to me.

kthxbai

Okay, then prove me wrong. Say that Rhee might have made a mistake in closing at least one school but you still think she shouldn't have wasted time listening to parents complain. If you can acknowledge that she might have been wrong and she still shouldn't have listened, I can accept that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:WHAT have you seen Detroit lately. You are insane if you think Detroit is in better shape now that town is totally lost. I have family members there.

I think the PP was referring to the car companies (GM, Chrysler, and Ford) when the reference to Detroit was made. All 3 car companies are in substantially better shape than several years ago. Detroit, as a city, is unfortunately not in good shape, as you no doubt know better than I.

Are you kidding? The Little 3 are running on government dollars. That is the only reason why they still exist because the US taxpayers are funding them. ALso remember they went through a bankruptcy that screwed all their former owners and creditors that wiped away their giant debts. You know not what you speak of.

[Anonymous]

Ford did not take bailout money. Ford is also making a profit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

You have faith that Rhee made the right decision.

Just one last thing before I leave you to continue your internal dialogue. It would be helpful if you could actually quote where I say this, rather than inventing this argument out of whole cloth and assigning it to me.

kthxbai

Okay, then prove me wrong. Say that Rhee might have made a mistake in closing at least one school but you still think she shouldn't have wasted time listening to parents complain. If you can acknowledge that she might have been wrong and she still shouldn't have listened, I can accept that.

Hey! Now we're getting somewhere. As I've said--repeatedly--I won't address whether Rhee's decisions were the optimal set of decisions. *All* of her decisions may have been mistaken. (And I have yet to see anywhere that you or any other PP has shown that Rhee "didn't listen to parents complain". If I remember correctly, there were all sorts of meetings across the city.)

My only point--once again--is that *any* set of decisions she made, regardless of whether they right or wrong, would have generated just as much of a firestorm of dissent. That's the way such things go. You on the other hand either agree with me, or think that had she made some theoretical "ideal" set of decisions, then everyone would've accepted it without a peep.

That just seems incredibly naive to me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

You have faith that Rhee made the right decision.

Just one last thing before I leave you to continue your internal dialogue. It would be helpful if you could actually quote where I say this, rather than inventing this argument out of whole cloth and assigning it to me.

kthxbai

Okay, then prove me wrong. Say that Rhee might have made a mistake in closing at least one school but you still think she shouldn't have wasted time listening to parents complain. If you can acknowledge that she might have been wrong and she still shouldn't have listened, I can accept that.

Hey! Now we're getting somewhere. As I've said--repeatedly--I won't address whether Rhee's decisions were the optimal set of decisions. *All* of her decisions may have been mistaken. (And I have yet to see anywhere that you or any other PP has shown that Rhee "didn't listen to parents complain". If I remember correctly, there were all sorts of meetings across the city.)

My only point--once again--is that *any* set of decisions she made, regardless of whether they right or wrong, would have generated just as much of a firestorm of dissent. That's the way such things go. You on the other hand either agree with me, or think that had she made some theoretical "ideal" set of decisions, then everyone would've accepted it without a peep.

That just seems incredibly naive to me.

Yes - SIMULTANEOUSLY. So that Rhee and Fenty wouldn't have to face more than one group of questions.

[Anonymous]

getting back to the original posting, i generally agree that barras nailed it, but wonder if "race" is obscuring the true dividing line - "class." even barras suggests that the shakeup of the dc education system jeopardizes the class structure...

[Anonymous]

I've lived in DC for over 30 years, have a high HHI, live in NW, and Jeff Steele is exactly right, in my opinion. AND I'm a DCPS parent.

[Anonymous]

OP, who is this "everyone" you speak of? Everyone you know? Statements like this are really asinine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

You have faith that Rhee made the right decision.

Just one last thing before I leave you to continue your internal dialogue. It would be helpful if you could actually quote where I say this, rather than inventing this argument out of whole cloth and assigning it to me.

kthxbai

Okay, then prove me wrong. Say that Rhee might have made a mistake in closing at least one school but you still think she shouldn't have wasted time listening to parents complain. If you can acknowledge that she might have been wrong and she still shouldn't have listened, I can accept that.

Hey! Now we're getting somewhere. As I've said--repeatedly--I won't address whether Rhee's decisions were the optimal set of decisions. *All* of her decisions may have been mistaken. (And I have yet to see anywhere that you or any other PP has shown that Rhee "didn't listen to parents complain". If I remember correctly, there were all sorts of meetings across the city.)

My only point--once again--is that *any* set of decisions she made, regardless of whether they right or wrong, would have generated just as much of a firestorm of dissent. That's the way such things go. You on the other hand either agree with me, or think that had she made some theoretical "ideal" set of decisions, then everyone would've accepted it without a peep.

That just seems incredibly naive to me.

This part is new.
Of course, any set of decisions will upset someone but the way you wrote it before implied quite strongly that her decisions were correct.
Clarity is useful in communication.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: (And I have yet to see anywhere that you or any other PP has shown that Rhee "didn't listen to parents complain". If I remember correctly, there were all sorts of meetings across the city.)

It depends on your definition of "listen." I attended the Hardy PTA meeting where Rhee announced that Pope was being removed from his position as principal. If you mean "listen" in that Rhee stood there while parents complained, well, technically you're correct. But if you mean actually grasping what people said and showing that she understood their concerns and was willing to work with them, well, no she didn't listen.

In fact, she spent part of the meeting smiling and laughing -- perhaps it was nerves but I'm surprised that a woman who is in a leadership position doesn't understand how foolish that is. The African-American parents standing near me noticed that she laughed when responding to African-Americans but that she looked serious when she responded to whites. Indeed, the two times she addressed me (a white person) she was quite serious. While I didn't monitor her behavior and can't tell you whether her behavior actually followed this pattern, I can tell you that it certainly looked that way to people near me.

Whatever the reason she was smiling and laughing, it suggests that either a) she wasn't listening at all and/or b) she is too much of a novice administrator to understand how to behave properly in a heated public meeting. Following the meeting, I point this out in an email exchange with her. She didn't get it. Again, more evidence to me that she is available in that she responds to emails (e.g., she is "present") but she doesn't really consider what you are saying with any sense of openness and awareness (e.g., actually "listening").

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: (And I have yet to see anywhere that you or any other PP has shown that Rhee "didn't listen to parents complain". If I remember correctly, there were all sorts of meetings across the city.)

It depends on your definition of "listen." I attended the Hardy PTA meeting where Rhee announced that Pope was being removed from his position as principal. If you mean "listen" in that Rhee stood there while parents complained, well, technically you're correct. But if you mean actually grasping what people said and showing that she understood their concerns and was willing to work with them, well, no she didn't listen.

In fact, she spent part of the meeting smiling and laughing -- perhaps it was nerves but I'm surprised that a woman who is in a leadership position doesn't understand how foolish that is. The African-American parents standing near me noticed that she laughed when responding to African-Americans but that she looked serious when she responded to whites. Indeed, the two times she addressed me (a white person) she was quite serious. While I didn't monitor her behavior and can't tell you whether her behavior actually followed this pattern, I can tell you that it certainly looked that way to people near me.

Whatever the reason she was smiling and laughing, it suggests that either a) she wasn't listening at all and/or b) she is too much of a novice administrator to understand how to behave properly in a heated public meeting. Following the meeting, I point this out in an email exchange with her. She didn't get it. Again, more evidence to me that she is available in that she responds to emails (e.g., she is "present") but she doesn't really consider what you are saying with any sense of openness and awareness (e.g., actually "listening").

Jesus. You look for racism in EVERY thing. So this lady who btw is marrying a black man does not take black people seriously. Read what you wrote. You sound as if you are in 1970 instead of 2010. Get over it. Not everything in this world is about race.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

You have faith that Rhee made the right decision.

Just one last thing before I leave you to continue your internal dialogue. It would be helpful if you could actually quote where I say this, rather than inventing this argument out of whole cloth and assigning it to me.

kthxbai

Okay, then prove me wrong. Say that Rhee might have made a mistake in closing at least one school but you still think she shouldn't have wasted time listening to parents complain. If you can acknowledge that she might have been wrong and she still shouldn't have listened, I can accept that.

Hey! Now we're getting somewhere. As I've said--repeatedly--I won't address whether Rhee's decisions were the optimal set of decisions. *All* of her decisions may have been mistaken. (And I have yet to see anywhere that you or any other PP has shown that Rhee "didn't listen to parents complain". If I remember correctly, there were all sorts of meetings across the city.)

My only point--once again--is that *any* set of decisions she made, regardless of whether they right or wrong, would have generated just as much of a firestorm of dissent. That's the way such things go. You on the other hand either agree with me, or think that had she made some theoretical "ideal" set of decisions, then everyone would've accepted it without a peep.

That just seems incredibly naive to me.

It is equally naive to assume that all decisions will be met with the same response. The actual decision matters.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: (And I have yet to see anywhere that you or any other PP has shown that Rhee "didn't listen to parents complain". If I remember correctly, there were all sorts of meetings across the city.)

It depends on your definition of "listen." I attended the Hardy PTA meeting where Rhee announced that Pope was being removed from his position as principal. If you mean "listen" in that Rhee stood there while parents complained, well, technically you're correct. But if you mean actually grasping what people said and showing that she understood their concerns and was willing to work with them, well, no she didn't listen.

In fact, she spent part of the meeting smiling and laughing -- perhaps it was nerves but I'm surprised that a woman who is in a leadership position doesn't understand how foolish that is. The African-American parents standing near me noticed that she laughed when responding to African-Americans but that she looked serious when she responded to whites. Indeed, the two times she addressed me (a white person) she was quite serious. While I didn't monitor her behavior and can't tell you whether her behavior actually followed this pattern, I can tell you that it certainly looked that way to people near me.

Whatever the reason she was smiling and laughing, it suggests that either a) she wasn't listening at all and/or b) she is too much of a novice administrator to understand how to behave properly in a heated public meeting. Following the meeting, I point this out in an email exchange with her. She didn't get it. Again, more evidence to me that she is available in that she responds to emails (e.g., she is "present") but she doesn't really consider what you are saying with any sense of openness and awareness (e.g., actually "listening").

Jesus. You look for racism in EVERY thing. So this lady who btw is marrying a black man does not take black people seriously. Read what you wrote. You sound as if you are in 1970 instead of 2010. Get over it. Not everything in this world is about race.

Like I said, I don't know if it was true. I was just reporting what people said at the meeting. Whether it was true or not, by ignoring her effect on the audience, Rhee helped dig Fenty's grave. That is not the sign of a good administrator. And, yeah, you would think that someone marrying Kevin Johnson would be more aware of the effect she has on people. Another reason to be surprised that she would be dense about her behavior at this meeting. What does it take for her to get a clue?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:WHAT have you seen Detroit lately. You are insane if you think Detroit is in better shape now that town is totally lost. I have family members there.

I think the PP was referring to the car companies (GM, Chrysler, and Ford) when the reference to Detroit was made. All 3 car companies are in substantially better shape than several years ago. Detroit, as a city, is unfortunately not in good shape, as you no doubt know better than I.

Are you kidding? The Little 3 are running on government dollars. That is the only reason why they still exist because the US taxpayers are funding them. ALso remember they went through a bankruptcy that screwed all their former owners and creditors that wiped away their giant debts. You know not what you speak of.

Yes, the USG invested substantial sums in 2 of the Little 3, and you are correct that they probably exist only with the USG help. But the original and real point here is that that incredibly desperate state (which included Ford though Ford did not need any USG money) was required to force real change at the Little 3. For decades, mangement/unions/dealers/etc resisted change, and they bear direct responsibility for the mess. The original point was that many people knew what needed to be done but nobody did anything. So, the Little 3 underwent a radical restructuring. And people did complain. The Little 3 had too many dealerships, for example, and everybody knew that. Closed dealerships were bought out but some complained anyway. And some in Congress tried to second guess the closure of some dealerships. But, at the end, the Little 3 are in substantially better shape.

The analogy here is very simple. All types of organizations find themselves requiring radical change. DCPS is not alone in this regard. Radical change upsets people. No way to avoid.

Finally, since 2 of the Little 3 were close to worthless at the end, it was fully expected thate the owners and creditors bear the loss. That is how the system works. But that has nothing to do with DCPS. Only that most people are resistant to change, and a crisis is generally required to implement radical change.

[Anonymous]

If this is simply resistance to change, then why don't we hear equal complaint from wards 2 and 3?

It is quite possible that reform was done better there and caused more problems in other wards.