Wilson HS principal candidate rumor-Melissa Kim

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There was a very angry, militant teacher (who’s still at Hardy, by the way) who was the most vocal ringleader against Rhee’s reforms and was particularly hostile to the notion that Hardy should change to attract more IB students. That teacher would have lasted about a New York minute under Dr. Kim.

You again??? I guess the "bash Hardy" threads finally died out, so you're here on a Wilson/Melissa Kim thread because, I don't know...you're bored? It's weird how you have this fascination with this teacher at Hardy. My guess is that you haven't had a kid at Hardy for at least 5 years. My kid is there now and doing great. Do you have anything else to add to the conversation other than this tired fascination?

Can someone explain why IB parents avoid Hardy like a pile of doggie doo-doo that has sat out in the hot July sun?

As explained above. They are horribly embarrassed by the failure of their misplaced grab for glory with Michelle Rhee. Their only recourse is to diss Hardy until the end of time.

It's psychologically difficult to fall from the heights of self-perceived champions of neighborhood public schools led by a glorified national heroine to the depths of being perceived as petty self-interested parents, cruelly misled and abandoned by the now fallen heroine.

Denial is a much easier course.

sorry but this explanation does not hold water, it actually sounds ridiculous. the Michelle Rhee thing happened when? 2009? 2010? Hardy has 15% IB, compared to 70% IB for Deal today, and rising 6th graders were in early elementary school years at that time. the idea that parents how shell out 30K a year or go charter just because they are in denial is silly. I think the reasons are complex. Hardy covers some wealthy areas and a lot of those parents would send their kids to private anyway (see Mann), especially for middle and high school, and there is not much DCPS can do about it. test scores seems pretty good to me (although the ones at Deal are remarkably better), and the fact that the school has only about 300 students is certainly an advantage over Deal. there must be other reasons and finding what they are seems to me more productive than simply saying that IB parents sending their kids elsewhere are dumb.

Who said they were dumb? I said they were in denial over they way they acted when Rhee seemed like their champion. And yeah, right -- let's make it so "complex" that it can't be figured out, except to say that IB parents avoid Hardy because they just want the best for their children -- the same kind of IB parents who were clamboring to get in when they thought they had Michelle Rhee on their side.

well, sending kids to private at $20K-$30K per year just because they are in "denial over the way they acted when Rhee seemed their champion" seem pritty dumb to me. sorry but this reason does not really seem reasonable to me. and when I say the reasons are complex, I did not mean to say that cannot be figured out. I don't know much about Hardy, so I expected people like you and whoever knows better to explain them to me. the fact that some parents would send their kids to private no matter what it easy for me to figure out, so I did it. the other reasons, I expect somebody else to give them to me, but you need to suggest reasons that are believable. just saying poeple are in denial over soemthing they did 5 years ago does not cut it (I wonder how many of those people have kids that would be eligible for Hardy next year, and what about the current IB poeple who have nothing to do with what happened 5 years ago). similarly, saying that poeple are elitist and racist seems like gratuitous name calling (why supposedly high SES white parents flocked to Deal years ago when the percentage of minorities was even higher than the current +50%). I understand that years ago Hardy had a focus on music and arts. that would explain why IB parents did not consider the school back then, and it has nothing to do with race or SES level. I find pretty normal that parents expect the neighborhood middle school to have a strong focus on the basics, math, science, reading and writing, and not music. the fact that the school has had 5 principals in 4 years (other posters say that, I have no idea if this is true), can also explain why some parents do no trust the school. with so many changes in leadership, it is difficult to see where the school was going.

Sorry, but no one "needs" to provide you with reasons you find believable -- why not just make up the reasons yourself -- or believe what IB parents who won't send their Hardy have said. Also talk to or read about IB families who are happy with their decision to send their kids to Hardy, then come to your own conclusions about Hardy and stop demanding that others provide them for you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There was a very angry, militant teacher (who’s still at Hardy, by the way) who was the most vocal ringleader against Rhee’s reforms and was particularly hostile to the notion that Hardy should change to attract more IB students. That teacher would have lasted about a New York minute under Dr. Kim.

You again??? I guess the "bash Hardy" threads finally died out, so you're here on a Wilson/Melissa Kim thread because, I don't know...you're bored? It's weird how you have this fascination with this teacher at Hardy. My guess is that you haven't had a kid at Hardy for at least 5 years. My kid is there now and doing great. Do you have anything else to add to the conversation other than this tired fascination?

Can someone explain why IB parents avoid Hardy like a pile of doggie doo-doo that has sat out in the hot July sun?

As explained above. They are horribly embarrassed by the failure of their misplaced grab for glory with Michelle Rhee. Their only recourse is to diss Hardy until the end of time.

It's psychologically difficult to fall from the heights of self-perceived champions of neighborhood public schools led by a glorified national heroine to the depths of being perceived as petty self-interested parents, cruelly misled and abandoned by the now fallen heroine.

Denial is a much easier course.

sorry but this explanation does not hold water, it actually sounds ridiculous. the Michelle Rhee thing happened when? 2009? 2010? Hardy has 15% IB, compared to 70% IB for Deal today, and rising 6th graders were in early elementary school years at that time. the idea that parents how shell out 30K a year or go charter just because they are in denial is silly. I think the reasons are complex. Hardy covers some wealthy areas and a lot of those parents would send their kids to private anyway (see Mann), especially for middle and high school, and there is not much DCPS can do about it. test scores seems pretty good to me (although the ones at Deal are remarkably better), and the fact that the school has only about 300 students is certainly an advantage over Deal. there must be other reasons and finding what they are seems to me more productive than simply saying that IB parents sending their kids elsewhere are dumb.

Who said they were dumb? I said they were in denial over they way they acted when Rhee seemed like their champion. And yeah, right -- let's make it so "complex" that it can't be figured out, except to say that IB parents avoid Hardy because they just want the best for their children -- the same kind of IB parents who were clamboring to get in when they thought they had Michelle Rhee on their side.

well, sending kids to private at $20K-$30K per year just because they are in "denial over the way they acted when Rhee seemed their champion" seem pritty dumb to me. sorry but this reason does not really seem reasonable to me. and when I say the reasons are complex, I did not mean to say that cannot be figured out. I don't know much about Hardy, so I expected people like you and whoever knows better to explain them to me. the fact that some parents would send their kids to private no matter what it easy for me to figure out, so I did it. the other reasons, I expect somebody else to give them to me, but you need to suggest reasons that are believable. just saying poeple are in denial over soemthing they did 5 years ago does not cut it (I wonder how many of those people have kids that would be eligible for Hardy next year, and what about the current IB poeple who have nothing to do with what happened 5 years ago). similarly, saying that poeple are elitist and racist seems like gratuitous name calling (why supposedly high SES white parents flocked to Deal years ago when the percentage of minorities was even higher than the current +50%). I understand that years ago Hardy had a focus on music and arts. that would explain why IB parents did not consider the school back then, and it has nothing to do with race or SES level. I find pretty normal that parents expect the neighborhood middle school to have a strong focus on the basics, math, science, reading and writing, and not music. the fact that the school has had 5 principals in 4 years (other posters say that, I have no idea if this is true), can also explain why some parents do no trust the school. with so many changes in leadership, it is difficult to see where the school was going.

Sorry, but no one "needs" to provide you with reasons you find believable -- why not just make up the reasons yourself -- or believe what IB parents who won't send their Hardy have said. Also talk to or read about IB families who are happy with their decision to send their kids to Hardy, then come to your own conclusions about Hardy and stop demanding that others provide them for you.

NP here. You're taking too literal an approach. Intentionally I imagine. The poster made a coherent comment about the lack of logic in some of this drivel. Like pointing out the absurdity that people sit around and lament the long departed Rhee. But hey, if what you took from her entire post was that someone "had" to do something then good luck with that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was informed over dinner tonight that an assistant principal from McKinley Tech was selected as a candidate.

Is s/he diverse? I had heard that having a principal of color at Wilson was a very important criterion this time.

Is this the new lingo for "not white"

It makes one wonder in what kind of an alternative universe DC is located, when a Korean-Amercian woman is not really considered "diverse."

Where did anyone say that hiring a Korean-American such a Kim is NOT diverse??? Which post? I think you're trying to be clever by putting nonexistent words into nonexistent posts.

just read the post you are citing, I made it bold if you did not see it. a principal "of color" means black, pretty obvious, not Korean American.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was informed over dinner tonight that an assistant principal from McKinley Tech was selected as a candidate.

Is s/he diverse? I had heard that having a principal of color at Wilson was a very important criterion this time.

Is this the new lingo for "not white"

It makes one wonder in what kind of an alternative universe DC is located, when a Korean-Amercian woman is not really considered "diverse."

Where did anyone say that hiring a Korean-American such a Kim is NOT diverse??? Which post? I think you're trying to be clever by putting nonexistent words into nonexistent posts.

just read the post you are citing, I made it bold if you did not see it. a principal "of color" means black, pretty obvious, not Korean American.

Your post still makes no sense because you're assuming Michelle Kim was a) in the running for the Wilson job and b) she didn't get it because she wasn't black. The entire premise of this thread is based on OP reporting a rumor, which to date has not been confirmed.

[Anonymous]

The strongest signal to students of color that they are (still) welcome at Wilson is to select a person of color as the new principal.

[Anonymous]

Deal's improvements came BEFORE Michelle Rhee. Melissa Kim started with those changes before Rhee came to town. Yes, they are both Korean-American women, but one made lasting positive impact and the other lasting chaos.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The strongest signal to students of color that they are (still) welcome at Wilson is to select a person of color as the new principal.

And the strongest signal to everyone that education matters is to pick the most qualified candidate regardless of ethnicity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The strongest signal to students of color that they are (still) welcome at Wilson is to select a person of color as the new principal.

And the strongest signal to everyone that education matters is to pick the most qualified candidate regardless of ethnicity.

You must just don't get DC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Racism, classism, elitism....faux-limousine liberals....or actual limousine liberals...take your pick.

this cannot be the reason, otherwise why is Deal 70% IB? minorities are over 50% at Deal and the IB percentage is very high.

Deal is viewed as a stronger school than Hardy, pure and simple. While Hardy may be better than many of the other middle schools in DC (and therefore Hardy is appreciated by its OOB families), many IB parents consider Hardy to be inferior compared with Deal and won't consider it for their kids. A Mitsubishi Mirage may look pretty good compared to a clunker but not compared to a Mercedes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The strongest signal to students of color that they are (still) welcome at Wilson is to select a person of color as the new principal.

And the strongest signal to everyone that education matters is to pick the most qualified candidate regardless of ethnicity.

Bravo! I was going to write the same! Thanks.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was informed over dinner tonight that an assistant principal from McKinley Tech was selected as a candidate.

Is s/he diverse? I had heard that having a principal of color at Wilson was a very important criterion this time.

I should have responded to this post way back when you first posted it and then eliminated most of the follow-up discussion it provoked. However, as the very first post in this thread demonstrated, you shouldn't believe everything you hear. Particularly when you hear a lot of stuff from uninformed idiots.

This type of post is very unfair and should be completely discounted. An anonymous second hand claim is worthless. Moreover, giving even the slightest credibility to such a remark contributes to an unwindable situation for any candidates of color for the position. How will any person of color convince this poster that he/she is the best possible candidate and not chosen on the basis of race? A person of color, regardless of that individual's merits, will be greeted by people such as this poster with remarks such as, "yep, they put diversity ahead of picking the best candidate". All on the basis of an unfounded rumor. That is tremendously unfair.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Racism, classism, elitism....faux-limousine liberals....or actual limousine liberals...take your pick.

this cannot be the reason, otherwise why is Deal 70% IB? minorities are over 50% at Deal and the IB percentage is very high.

Deal is viewed as a stronger school than Hardy, pure and simple. While Hardy may be better than many of the other middle schools in DC (and therefore Hardy is appreciated by its OOB families), many IB parents consider Hardy to be inferior compared with Deal and won't consider it for their kids. A Mitsubishi Mirage may look pretty good compared to a clunker but not compared to a Mercedes.

so you agree that racism, classism, elitism, faux or actual limousine liberals are not actually the reasons why so few IB parents send their kids to Hardy. just that the school is perceived as not as strong academically as Deal or other schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The strongest signal to students of color that they are (still) welcome at Wilson is to select a person of color as the new principal.

And the strongest signal to everyone that education matters is to pick the most qualified candidate regardless of ethnicity.

You must just don't get DC.

This explains why most dc schools are failures. Color is more important than quality and competence.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The strongest signal to students of color that they are (still) welcome at Wilson is to select a person of color as the new principal.

And the strongest signal to everyone that education matters is to pick the most qualified candidate regardless of ethnicity.

You must just don't get DC.

This explains why most dc schools are failures. Color is more important than quality and competence.

Sigh. Again, a case of the blind leading the blind. If color were more important than quality and competence, then it might explain the failure of some DC schools. But, there is actually no evidence that color is more important than competence (well, other than a poster up thread "heard" it from some unknown source). There is, however, evidence that low performing DC schools are full of impoverished kids who frequently lack the support systems of students at higher-performing schools. But, let's ignore that and focus on the unsupported fact that somebody heard from someone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The strongest signal to students of color that they are (still) welcome at Wilson is to select a person of color as the new principal.

And the strongest signal to everyone that education matters is to pick the most qualified candidate regardless of ethnicity.

You must just don't get DC.

This explains why most dc schools are failures. Color is more important than quality and competence.

I don't know whether this is true of DCPS but sadly it is still true of DC politics. How else does one explain the outcome of last November's mayoral election?