Jonetta Barras says what everyone is thinking

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

Interesting point, pp!

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jeff,

As usual, you miss the point. It is not the role of the DC govt to create jobs. Yes, the DC govt can foster an environment that facilitates job growth, but this is different. Overall, the District is fairing much better than other cities, so the jobs criticism is larglely bunk.

The reason that unemployment is so high in Ward 8 is due to structural factors that have nothing to do with the current recession. What was unemployment in Ward 8 when the economy was booming in the mid-to-late 90s?

No, you miss the point. The point is that if people don't have jobs there is a problem. The fact that that problem may have existed for a long time does not make it less of a problem. Arguably, it makes it more of a problem. Whether you consider having a jobs plan to be "creating jobs" or "fostering an environment that facilitates job growth" really makes no difference to me. But, you can't ignore the high levels of unemployment that exist in some wards and then be surprised that the residents of those wards don't think you are serving their interests. And, when that happens, it is unfair to criticize the voters for "burning down their own neighborhood" as one DCUM poster put it.

I never thought I would agree with Jeff, but he's right.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

What I said was that you had decided that Rhee couldn't possibly be mistaken in closing any of those schools.

Ahh. Ok, now I see where you went off the rails.

My argument:

You can talk about how everyone would've been happy as a clam if only Rhee had done differently whatever pissed you off personally. But everyone is not you. If she'd addressed your particular concerns, it would've pissed off someone else.

For the third time, I don't know if Rhee made the right decisions in closing which particular school, etc... What I do know is that *some* schools had to be closed. Furthermore, whatever schools were closed would have pissed people off.

You responded by arguing that closing underutilized schools is *completely* different from closing underutilized military bases because, wait for it "The purpose of the military base was not to serve the local population. The benefits to the local economies were incidental. Therefore they had no right to expect the based to stay. Public schools are another matter entirely."

In other words, parents have a right to expect every local public school to stay open indefinitely because the purpose of those schools is to serve the local population. (i.e. folks in-boundary).

I'm assuming you're just a sloppy reader, and not incapable of understanding the ramifications of your position.

I am the poster that you quoted. But you still misrepresent my point.

In BRAC, the population had NO legitimate interest in the bases. Therefore it made sense to create a base closure system that deliberately excluded them from having significant input.

In DCPS, we have a very legitimate interest in the school system. Therefore it is more important to include them in the decisions. That does not mean that they have an absolute right to keep each school open. I repeat that does not mean that they have an absolute right to keep each school open. But it shouldn't be ignored, either.

You continue to push the belief that any change will piss someone off, as though that justifies the change that was made in this case. It may be true that someone will always complain, but cities and counties manage to do school closures and realignments all the time without angering enough people to remove their mayors. This particular set of changes pissed off a lot of people. Personally I did not see much protest around the consolidation of Francis and Stephens. If your thesis is correct, there should have been a lot of protest. There wasn't.

The actual type of change matters.

[Anonymous]

1824 is fundamentally wrong about BRAC. For many small to medium size communities, closing a base is a very very big deal. Military bases are the life blood of many communities in terms of population, direct jobs, spin off jobs, etc. It was so difficult to close bases that the BRAC system had to be created. Pressure from the affected Congressman was tremendous. [I do take note that, for a few communities, closing a facility can be helpful, as it makes otherwise unavailable real estate available. Witness Walter Reed. But this is very unusual and only relevant in areas that are diversified and doing well in general.] So, I suggest the communities do have a legitimate interest in base closings for no other reason than they had built up an infrastructure to support the bases. So local communities did have a real legitimate economic interest in the closing of bases.

[Anonymous]

What I think 1824 misses is that, for DCPS, time is of the essence. As more time passes, dc kids suffer. So, the choice is between a drawn out process that tries to take everybody's views in account before making a decision or a faster (but no doubt imperfect) process that gets the job done quicker. Given the history of DC politic, and the emphasis on process and inclusion, I understand why many would prefer the first approach. For me, given the state of the schools and our children, I want the job done faster so DCPS can move on to the many other issues that it needs to addres. Time is not on the side of our children. The gap between many of our children and many others in the US is getting better. If one includes the rest of the world, it is worse. So, I am willing to suck up my ego and keep shut my mouth so the dramatics changes can be made quickly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What I think 1824 misses is that, for DCPS, time is of the essence. As more time passes, dc kids suffer. So, the choice is between a drawn out process that tries to take everybody's views in account before making a decision or a faster (but no doubt imperfect) process that gets the job done quicker. Given the history of DC politic, and the emphasis on process and inclusion, I understand why many would prefer the first approach. For me, given the state of the schools and our children, I want the job done faster so DCPS can move on to the many other issues that it needs to addres. Time is not on the side of our children. The gap between many of our children and many others in the US is NOT getting better. If one includes the rest of the world, it is worse. So, I am willing to suck up my ego and keep shut my mouth so the dramatics changes can be made quickly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jeff,

As usual, you miss the point. It is not the role of the DC govt to create jobs. Yes, the DC govt can foster an environment that facilitates job growth, but this is different. Overall, the District is fairing much better than other cities, so the jobs criticism is larglely bunk.

The reason that unemployment is so high in Ward 8 is due to structural factors that have nothing to do with the current recession. What was unemployment in Ward 8 when the economy was booming in the mid-to-late 90s?

No, you miss the point. The point is that if people don't have jobs there is a problem. The fact that that problem may have existed for a long time does not make it less of a problem. Arguably, it makes it more of a problem. Whether you consider having a jobs plan to be "creating jobs" or "fostering an environment that facilitates job growth" really makes no difference to me. But, you can't ignore the high levels of unemployment that exist in some wards and then be surprised that the residents of those wards don't think you are serving their interests. And, when that happens, it is unfair to criticize the voters for "burning down their own neighborhood" as one DCUM poster put it.

I never thought I would agree with Jeff, but he's right.

I would go a step farther and argue that graduating young adults who are literate with basic math skill through the geometry level at least if the best jobs plan the DC govt could come up with, because when you have a workforce that cannot read at an 8th grade level, or perform basic functions such as determine how many squares of tile are needed to cover a floor, employers will walk away from that workforce. We are condemning an entire generation of young people in some wards to a lifetime of sub-employment and poverty when we fail to both provide competent schools/educators and demand that students perform to a standard.

[Anonymous]

"at least is" - no *if* - sorry.

[Anonymous]

But what about the parents of those young adults? This is the piece that was missed. Workforce development has to happen at multiple levels, not just for the young. IMO Fenty didn't have a complete vision for the city and that's why some folks felt left out.

[Anonymous]

And in other news, Capital Bikeshare was officially launched this week.

[Anonymous]

The previous posts are correct in that DC has serious jobs issues, especially for young and unskilled. Both none of those legitimate concerns means that DCPS should not be reformed radically and quickly. I do, think, that DC could spend its non-DCPS more wisely. For example, I would turn UDC into a community colleges focused on teaching skills to those who are not going to attend a 4-year college. That would be useful and of tremendouse. Instead, DC is wasting money on trying to turn UDC into some nationally acclaimed. While perhaps a nice idea, it will never happen in this century. DC obviously has many great universities, and UDC will be behind them for many many decades. UDC also has a lw school which is even sillier. DC needs a first rate community college system. There are many options for DCPS students who wish to attend a 4-year program.

[Anonymous]

UDC just started a community college. Where have you been. In addition, while I am a lawyer and did not attend UDC, they actually graduate very fine lawyers who enter public service overwhelmingly!

[Anonymous]

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.

Before I make my statement, I will state that I do not know Michelle Rhee. I do not know if she is racist or not. But, what i do no with 100% certainty is that simply because someone marries outside their race, does not mean that they are not racist. True family event. East Indian grandfather. Black/African descent grandmother. Grandfather madly in love with grandmother, but does not like Black people. Talk quite disparaging of Black people as a matter fact. Grandparents had seven children. Some of the children look very much like grandfather. That is, they look East Indian. Three of the children look of mixed descent with Black blood. Grandfather tells father, who looks like a combination of grandfather and grandmother, that he would only take the children who look Indian back to India to meet the extended family. Father marries mother, who is Black/African descent and grandfather derides father for marrying a Black woman. Funny, perhaps they way they wer treated differently as children, but the children who looked most Indian all married other Indians or Whites. The ones who looked a combination of father and mother married people who obviously had African blood running through their veins. So, the story is just because you f*ck someone of a different race or even marry outside the race, does not mean you cannot be a racist. Yes, you can. Big time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am white, a long time DC resident and live in Ward 3. My children go to a very good public school (one of the "JLKMMEO" or whatever the accepted abbreviation is). Our school was good before Fenty and Rhee came along. It will be a good school after they leave. But schools in other wards? They have been terrible for years. I feel sorry for Ward 7 and 8 residents who did not recognize that perhaps drastic change was what is needed to improve their schools. Maybe Rhee did not have all the answers and maybe those schools would continue to be terrible under a second Fenty adminstration, but why not try something different? The status quo is not working over there. I supported Fenty and am disappointed that the neighborhoods that could benefit most from drastic school reform (closing underenrolled schools, firing ineffective teachers) were not on board.

I live in Hillcrest and 3.5 years of Fenty/Rhee did NOTHING to improve my neighborhood school or any near me. Meanwhile, schools in other wards saw improvements and got special programs like Spanish immersion to attract residents from other wards. Nothing over here. And if you think that's just because I live in "the ghetto" and parents out here don't participate, aren't educated or don't care - take a drive out to Hillcrest sometime and see houses just as big as yours, but with crappy schools and run-down playgrounds that no one did anything about while you got a dog park. (And I'm tired of the Fenty folks trying to highlight the Deanwood Rec Center. I don't go to Deanwood and didn't ask for that. Not that anyone in Fenty's admistration ever ASKED us what we wanted. Poor Ward 7 & 8 folks - we should just shut up and be happy with what "His Honor" decides that we need and graces us with. Sorry - I digress...)

If the Hillcrest/Penn Branch kids all went to one school insted of being divided over 3, it could easily compete with the JKLMO's in terms of test scores, parent participation, PTA fundraising, etc. I didn't vote for Fenty the 1st time and I'm not sorry I didn't vote for him again. Rhee isn't the savior and your perfect schools won't go down the toilet without her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:UDC just started a community college. Where have you been. In addition, while I am a lawyer and did not attend UDC, they actually graduate very fine lawyers who enter public service overwhelmingly!

I am aware that UDC has a community college. But UDC should be a community college, nothing more. UDC has limited resources, and it needs to spend the money on those who most need it. For DC youth who wish to attend a 4-year program, there are more than enough of them around, even in DC. As for the law school, I would never recommend that anyone attend UDC law. It is a waste of money. The public service angle is way overblown. Most law schools have a public service angle, so that is nothing special. Even for those interested in public service, I would not recommend UDC. The key here is focus. UDC can't be everything to everybody. DC, UDC and DCPS needs to focus on those who most need the opportunities. Someone attending UDC law has other opportunities. If not, that person should not be in law school and is wasting money.