DC Schools & Their Horrible Leaders

[Anonymous]

Personnel practices are transparent and the range for discipline is not that cut and dry. Those who have negotiated contracts may have certain due process procedures but the final decision is management. Too many are so blind - sided with the hiring practices but ignore the discipline matrix in education.... when a phrase says that a first offense can range from a letter of reprimand to removal. Don't assume you'll get many bites at the apple of misconduct. Every action has a reaction...suffering the consequences are the results of ALL misconduct.

[Anonymous]

DC is a complex place for a lot of reasons, the rich poor gap for one is a huge issue. I think we have some great, some lousy and some so-so leaders at all levels. Blanket statements like the one that started this thread either have an irrational issue or are a troll.

[Anonymous]

To be serious for a second, I think it's structural. Principals at the best public schools have to respond to (i) downtown, (ii) teachers, and (iii) parents, which creates a sort of checks-and-balances effect. (For good privates, it's more like the board of directors, alumni, and parents -- but quality long-term teachers wield influence via parents and alumni.)

Charters aren't accountable to downtown, their teachers aren't unionized, and parents too tend to be far less organized -- principals therefore find themselves accountable to no one. Of course there are some good leaders, just like a government without checks and balances may produce a benevolent despot, but it's an environment where petty tyrants can thrive.

Similarly, in the less successful DCPS schools, you have a history of near-total alignment between downtown and the teachers, and parental non-involvement, so -- like in a one-party democracy -- you have far fewer effective checks and balances. Again, that doesn't necessarily preclude good leadership, but it creates an environment where bad leadership can go unchallenged.

Like some PPs have said, there's been more tension between downtown and the teacher's union since Rhee, and some IB parent communities have been becoming more active. Just from a structural point of view, that should help -- but it doesn't happen overnight, if only because no one can build a Janney-style PTA overnight -- and most involved parents at up-and-coming schools have back-up plans (even if they keep quiet about them).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:To be serious for a second, I think it's structural. Principals at the best public schools have to respond to (i) downtown, (ii) teachers, and (iii) parents, which creates a sort of checks-and-balances effect. (For good privates, it's more like the board of directors, alumni, and parents -- but quality long-term teachers wield influence via parents and alumni.)

Charters aren't accountable to downtown, their teachers aren't unionized, and parents too tend to be far less organized -- principals therefore find themselves accountable to no one. Of course there are some good leaders, just like a government without checks and balances may produce a benevolent despot, but it's an environment where petty tyrants can thrive.

Similarly, in the less successful DCPS schools, you have a history of near-total alignment between downtown and the teachers, and parental non-involvement, so -- like in a one-party democracy -- you have far fewer effective checks and balances. Again, that doesn't necessarily preclude good leadership, but it creates an environment where bad leadership can go unchallenged.

Like some PPs have said, there's been more tension between downtown and the teacher's union since Rhee, and some IB parent communities have been becoming more active. Just from a structural point of view, that should help -- but it doesn't happen overnight, if only because no one can build a Janney-style PTA overnight -- and most involved parents at up-and-coming schools have back-up plans (even if they keep quiet about them). [/quote

If this is true the school's board is failing is everyone. No charter school should operate without accountability and if that's the case the board should be replaced or the school shut down.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Honestly, the DC government in general seems to attract a lot of morons. It doesn't surprise me that the schools are any different.

I worked in DC government. I lasted 2 years, but I will tell you, there are some amazing in DC. However, I found the leadership severely lacking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Here's what's wrong in education - individuals who insist that their extremely limited world view sums up the experience for everyone. You believe you have a horrible leader so all DC leaders are horrible and DC is a horrible place. MOVE. If you are a teacher, QUIT. I'd hate to have my kids subjected to someone with so few critical thinking skills.

Bad form. It is always the 'I don't want you teaching my kid' posters. You all think that because teachers work with kids you can treat them like children. What s dumb thing to say. And so what if OP is teaching your kid. Then will you acknowledge her point? Agree or disagree- but this mommy management shit is dumb.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly, the DC government in general seems to attract a lot of morons. It doesn't surprise me that the schools are any different.

It is still suffering the legacy of successive Barry administrations. Do not underestimate the profound damage that man wrought on our Capitol city.

The hangover of the Barry years is a bit like the legacy of Communism is some of the Eastern European democracies. It may still take another generation to flush the hacks and apparachiks out of the system completely.

That is a good comparison.

That is a great comparison.

And then outsiders come in and expect us NOT to have ever been living under communism because, what the hell, this is America. I abhor the "DC way" - and OP sounds like part of the problem, not the solution, although OP does not say what "DC way" OP is referring to. But when I hear that, to me it means the Barry way. Yet OP talks about competence.

But it is absolutely true that unless you understand the "DC way" you will never get anything but the cover of Time with a broom and become a multimillionaire. Not a bad move for Rhee, just DCPS because she further destroyed us in the process. I remain disgusted that the "DC way" prevailed and that there was no investigation into the massive cheating. Talk about sending the wrong message.

OP,
everyone knows the DCPS administration is bloated, rife with incompetence, and useless people. That is how we spend more $ (technically) per student than anyone else and still have an epic failure on our hands. Degrees in administration or anything else don't make people competent. I am sure all the people in the central office have degrees.

[/b]Charter schools and DCPS cannot be conflated - they are their own fiefdoms, their own LEA's, and as we just saw with Amos, the level of corruption can be appalling, or nonexistent

Do you remember what Rhee did to Pope at Hardy, and how some people still want the teacher who was his most vocal supporter fired even though the teacher is apparently excellent? Those people sound ridiculous. So do you.

You have made us curious, so why don't you elaborate - what is your real problem[/b] and who is it with?
Whoever you are, you have to understand that
a) charters and DCPS cannot be talked about in the same sentence and
b) rambling vague complaints get no traction here or anywhere else

If there is a specific person on a power trip that you would like to identify, fine.
If there are specific safety issues, like the fight at Wilson, fine. That came out here. So did the kid from DC General.
If you think you have specific information that people on this board should know, tell us.

Vague complaints are useless, not everyone agrees with you about the specific examples you did offer up, and your comment about how most of the principals mentioned as good principals were probably white raises serious questions about your own issues with race. If you had said, oh they are probably all WOTP, where the schools function, that might have made some sense. But to go immediately to all those principals must be white? Now I am wondering what color you are, which I almost never do anymore.

I grew up under Barry, but went away long enough so that I rid myself of the ingrained racial assumptions I had and I have no idea, for example, whether Principal Pride is white or black, but I know that almost everyone seems to agree she is trying hard to get IB families at Hardy and that she is doing a good job in a tough situation. I have to assume Martha Cutts (the head of Washington Latin) is white because she came from NCS, I think most would agree she is doing a good job. There are a lot of good principals and teachers out there who are helping turn schools around (and I don't mean Hardy, I mean DCPS people EOTP), and everyone seems to agree that Trogisch (the technical Principal of Walls and FSS) is on a power trip and doesn't give a crap about Walls and may run it into the ground....I don't know what color he is either and I don't care. Kill the racial comments and maybe we can have a conversation.

Not to be mean, OP, but please put up or shut up.

And if you shut up, I have to assume you are from that first school and just another disgruntled employee with an axe to grind. Prove me wrong. Tell us your stories and let's see who believes them. But tell.....

You seem to have something you really want to say. Say it. You have us listening.

This is a very thoughtful posting. People do have to get beyond color. I think it was the Chinese leader who said (in a very different context), it doesn't matter whether the cat is black or white, as long as it catches mice. And what DC needs is good mousers. Even with the best of intentions, there is too much attention paid to the race of administrators, when the focus needs to be on the kids. I know of one NW school where the principals had been African-American for decades. Then DCPS chose a white principal and there was handwringing and angst about how a segment of the school community would react. So DCPS created a new position of assistant principal, when none had existed before, and hired an African-American. Instead of a focus on optics and race balancing, I would have rather seen the funds go to hire a science enrichment teacher or more reading tutors -- basically money directed to the kids, not at the front office.

PP here, and left out the name of the Chinese leader, the late Deng Xiaoping.

Amen to mousers. And I have to say, you can be arrogant if you are effective. But most smart effective people in DCPS are not that arrogant. It is the others... Rhee, Kaya (although her willingness to hand over ALL middle school education to charters because they "do it so well" was touching as well as distressing, and Trogisch....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:To be serious for a second, I think it's structural. Principals at the best public schools have to respond to (i) downtown, (ii) teachers, and (iii) parents, which creates a sort of checks-and-balances effect. (For good privates, it's more like the board of directors, alumni, and parents -- but quality long-term teachers wield influence via parents and alumni.)

Charters aren't accountable to downtown, their teachers aren't unionized, and parents too tend to be far less organized -- principals therefore find themselves accountable to no one. Of course there are some good leaders, just like a government without checks and balances may produce a benevolent despot, but it's an environment where petty tyrants can thrive.

Similarly, in the less successful DCPS schools, you have a history of near-total alignment between downtown and the teachers, and parental non-involvement, so -- like in a one-party democracy -- you have far fewer effective checks and balances. Again, that doesn't necessarily preclude good leadership, but it creates an environment where bad leadership can go unchallenged.

Like some PPs have said, there's been more tension between downtown and the teacher's union since Rhee, and some IB parent communities have been becoming more active. Just from a structural point of view, that should help -- but it doesn't happen overnight, if only because no one can build a Janney-style PTA overnight -- and most involved parents at up-and-coming schools have back-up plans (even if they keep quiet about them).

+ 1,000

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To be serious for a second, I think it's structural. Principals at the best public schools have to respond to (i) downtown, (ii) teachers, and (iii) parents, which creates a sort of checks-and-balances effect. (For good privates, it's more like the board of directors, alumni, and parents -- but quality long-term teachers wield influence via parents and alumni.)

Charters aren't accountable to downtown, their teachers aren't unionized, and parents too tend to be far less organized -- principals therefore find themselves accountable to no one. Of course there are some good leaders, just like a government without checks and balances may produce a benevolent despot, but it's an environment where petty tyrants can thrive.

Similarly, in the less successful DCPS schools, you have a history of near-total alignment between downtown and the teachers, and parental non-involvement, so -- like in a one-party democracy -- you have far fewer effective checks and balances. Again, that doesn't necessarily preclude good leadership, but it creates an environment where bad leadership can go unchallenged.

Like some PPs have said, there's been more tension between downtown and the teacher's union since Rhee, and some IB parent communities have been becoming more active. Just from a structural point of view, that should help -- but it doesn't happen overnight, if only because no one can build a Janney-style PTA overnight -- and most involved parents at up-and-coming schools have back-up plans (even if they keep quiet about them).

The bolded is totally bizarre to me and completely untrue. I see total MISalignment between the struggling schools and downtown, it's just that unless something super egregious happens, they aren't held accountable in any organized way. It depends on what leadership is above them.

What are your examples of "less successful DCPS schools" and what they have "near-total alignment" with downtown on that further prevents them from making progress? What is an example of a school with bad leadership but where the teachers are "in near-total alignment with downtown"?? Please name schools and aspects of alignment, because this isn't my experience at all.
+ 1,000

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To be serious for a second, I think it's structural. Principals at the best public schools have to respond to (i) downtown, (ii) teachers, and (iii) parents, which creates a sort of checks-and-balances effect. (For good privates, it's more like the board of directors, alumni, and parents -- but quality long-term teachers wield influence via parents and alumni.)

Charters aren't accountable to downtown, their teachers aren't unionized, and parents too tend to be far less organized -- principals therefore find themselves accountable to no one. Of course there are some good leaders, just like a government without checks and balances may produce a benevolent despot, but it's an environment where petty tyrants can thrive.

Similarly, in the less successful DCPS schools, you have a history of near-total alignment between downtown and the teachers, and parental non-involvement, so -- like in a one-party democracy -- you have far fewer effective checks and balances. Again, that doesn't necessarily preclude good leadership, but it creates an environment where bad leadership can go unchallenged.

Like some PPs have said, there's been more tension between downtown and the teacher's union since Rhee, and some IB parent communities have been becoming more active. Just from a structural point of view, that should help -- but it doesn't happen overnight, if only because no one can build a Janney-style PTA overnight -- and most involved parents at up-and-coming schools have back-up plans (even if they keep quiet about them).

+ 1,000

The bolded is totally bizarre to me and completely untrue. I see total MISalignment between the struggling schools and downtown, it's just that unless something super egregious happens, they aren't held accountable in any organized way. It depends on what leadership is above them.

What are your examples of "less successful DCPS schools" and what they have "near-total alignment" with downtown on that further prevents them from making progress? What is an example of a school with bad leadership but where the teachers are "in near-total alignment with downtown"?? Please name schools and aspects of alignment, because this isn't my experience at all.

[Anonymous]

Sorry, trying to make the quote turn out correctly!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To be serious for a second, I think it's structural. Principals at the best public schools have to respond to (i) downtown, (ii) teachers, and (iii) parents, which creates a sort of checks-and-balances effect. (For good privates, it's more like the board of directors, alumni, and parents -- but quality long-term teachers wield influence via parents and alumni.)

Charters aren't accountable to downtown, their teachers aren't unionized, and parents too tend to be far less organized -- principals therefore find themselves accountable to no one. Of course there are some good leaders, just like a government without checks and balances may produce a benevolent despot, but it's an environment where petty tyrants can thrive.

Similarly, in the less successful DCPS schools, you have a history of near-total alignment between downtown and the teachers, and parental non-involvement, so -- like in a one-party democracy -- you have far fewer effective checks and balances. Again, that doesn't necessarily preclude good leadership, but it creates an environment where bad leadership can go unchallenged.

Like some PPs have said, there's been more tension between downtown and the teacher's union since Rhee, and some IB parent communities have been becoming more active. Just from a structural point of view, that should help -- but it doesn't happen overnight, if only because no one can build a Janney-style PTA overnight -- and most involved parents at up-and-coming schools have back-up plans (even if they keep quiet about them).

+ 1,000

The bolded is totally bizarre to me and completely untrue. I see total MISalignment between the struggling schools and downtown, it's just that unless something super egregious happens, they aren't held accountable in any organized way. It depends on what leadership is above them.

What are your examples of "less successful DCPS schools" and what they have "near-total alignment" with downtown on that further prevents them from making progress? What is an example of a school with bad leadership but where the teachers are "in near-total alignment with downtown"?? Please name schools and aspects of alignment, because this isn't my experience at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's what's wrong in education - individuals who insist that their extremely limited world view sums up the experience for everyone. You believe you have a horrible leader so all DC leaders are horrible and DC is a horrible place. MOVE. If you are a teacher, QUIT. I'd hate to have my kids subjected to someone with so few critical thinking skills.

Bad form. It is always the 'I don't want you teaching my kid' posters. You all think that because teachers work with kids you can treat them like children. What s dumb thing to say. And so what if OP is teaching your kid. Then will you acknowledge her point? Agree or disagree- but this mommy management shit is dumb.

Exactly! Why don't they homeschool if teachers are so intellectually inferior to them? DC schools have many, many ivy educated from well to do families. He'll, Diana Ross' Georgetown educated daughter taught in DC.

The teachers are great. They need equally wonderful people to lead them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The principal of my school is pretty damn awesome. Maybe not from the perspective of a teacher that isn't performing well...

Typical DC response: It must be the teacher's fault. Nooooo way could a leader just suck, huh?

Believe it or not, even well-performing teachers who are adored by admin can see how terrible the leader is in many cases.

By the way, which school are you at? Shout out your awesome leader! I'm sure he or she won't mind. And I'm certain it's not ALL leaders. But the type of mean-spirited, bullying, incompetence I've seen in the leadership in DC has not been seen anywhere else. So I can't help but wonder what makes DC a place for these terrible people to thrive when we all know they wouldn't survive anywhere else.

So, which schools have awesome leaders? I'd love to know they exist because what I've seen and heard of is scary.

You're right, they were all white. Some of our very highly regarded DCPS principals of color could include Atasha James at Leckie, Andria Caruthers at West, Abdullah Zaki at Kelly Miller (the 2014 principal of the year), Maria Tukeva at CHEC. DCPS principals and teachers are of an excellent quality. I'm sorry if you feel otherwise. All of them are doing a great job given the very difficult realities of their day-to-day work life.

Whoa. Maria Tukeva. Wow. Just wow. Have you seen the turnover number for CHEC?

This might explain the turnover: http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/page/local/impact-distribution-by-school/1611/
Guess which school has the highest number of "ineffective," "minimally effective," and "developing" teachers? Either leadership at CHEC like Tukeva can't develop their teachers, good teachers aren't staying, or they are unrealistically scoring their staff on IMPACT with ridiculously low scores.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The principal of my school is pretty damn awesome. Maybe not from the perspective of a teacher that isn't performing well...

Typical DC response: It must be the teacher's fault. Nooooo way could a leader just suck, huh?

Believe it or not, even well-performing teachers who are adored by admin can see how terrible the leader is in many cases.

By the way, which school are you at? Shout out your awesome leader! I'm sure he or she won't mind. And I'm certain it's not ALL leaders. But the type of mean-spirited, bullying, incompetence I've seen in the leadership in DC has not been seen anywhere else. So I can't help but wonder what makes DC a place for these terrible people to thrive when we all know they wouldn't survive anywhere else.

So, which schools have awesome leaders? I'd love to know they exist because what I've seen and heard of is scary.

You're right, they were all white. Some of our very highly regarded DCPS principals of color could include Atasha James at Leckie, Andria Caruthers at West, Abdullah Zaki at Kelly Miller (the 2014 principal of the year), Maria Tukeva at CHEC. DCPS principals and teachers are of an excellent quality. I'm sorry if you feel otherwise. All of them are doing a great job given the very difficult realities of their day-to-day work life.

Whoa. Maria Tukeva. Wow. Just wow. Have you seen the turnover number for CHEC?

This might explain the turnover: http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/page/local/impact-distribution-by-school/1611/
Guess which school has the highest number of "ineffective," "minimally effective," and "developing" teachers? Either leadership at CHEC like Tukeva can't develop their teachers, good teachers aren't staying, or they are unrealistically scoring their staff on IMPACT with ridiculously low scores.

Looks like IMPACT is being used to harass and harangue teachers. Who hires so

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The principal of my school is pretty damn awesome. Maybe not from the perspective of a teacher that isn't performing well...

Typical DC response: It must be the teacher's fault. Nooooo way could a leader just suck, huh?

Believe it or not, even well-performing teachers who are adored by admin can see how terrible the leader is in many cases.

By the way, which school are you at? Shout out your awesome leader! I'm sure he or she won't mind. And I'm certain it's not ALL leaders. But the type of mean-spirited, bullying, incompetence I've seen in the leadership in DC has not been seen anywhere else. So I can't help but wonder what makes DC a place for these terrible people to thrive when we all know they wouldn't survive anywhere else.

So, which schools have awesome leaders? I'd love to know they exist because what I've seen and heard of is scary.

You're right, they were all white. Some of our very highly regarded DCPS principals of color could include Atasha James at Leckie, Andria Caruthers at West, Abdullah Zaki at Kelly Miller (the 2014 principal of the year), Maria Tukeva at CHEC. DCPS principals and teachers are of an excellent quality. I'm sorry if you feel otherwise. All of them are doing a great job given the very difficult realities of their day-to-day work life.

Whoa. Maria Tukeva. Wow. Just wow. Have you seen the turnover number for CHEC?

This might explain the turnover: http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/page/local/impact-distribution-by-school/1611/
Guess which school has the highest number of "ineffective," "minimally effective," and "developing" teachers? Either leadership at CHEC like Tukeva can't develop their teachers, good teachers aren't staying, or they are unrealistically scoring their staff on IMPACT with ridiculously low scores.

Looks like IMPACT is being used to harass and harangue teachers. Who hires so many incompetent teachers?