Message
My 4-yr-old loves nothing more than to shoot basketballs, but the only basketball court I can find with adjustable height baskets is an outdoor court (Guy Mason). On extremely hot or rainy days we can't do that, and an indoor bb court floor is safer when he falls than the outdoor concrete courts.
Are there any indoor basketball courts in DC with adjustable height baskets? I can't seem to find any. Thanks!
Ken
Are there any indoor basketball courts in DC with adjustable height baskets? I can't seem to find any. Thanks!
Ken
Have you found DC schools - public or private - to be accommodating to children with epilepsy? Are certain schools known to be more accommodating than others?
My 4-yr-old has occasional seizures and has behavioral side effects from his medication, and I would hope for specific accommodations to each.
For his seizures, what I would like is for the school to NOT CALL 911 just because he has a seizure. It's unnecessary and traumatic (not to mention it's expensive). He just needs to be put on a bed in the nurse's office until we arrive within the hour.
His medication side effects include short attention span and, when his dosage increases, lack of impulse control and rough play with classmates until his body adapts to his dosage. We are afraid that a private school could expel or "counsel out" our child after a couple of these behavioral side effects of med dosage increases. Can private schools do that?
My 4-yr-old has occasional seizures and has behavioral side effects from his medication, and I would hope for specific accommodations to each.
For his seizures, what I would like is for the school to NOT CALL 911 just because he has a seizure. It's unnecessary and traumatic (not to mention it's expensive). He just needs to be put on a bed in the nurse's office until we arrive within the hour.
His medication side effects include short attention span and, when his dosage increases, lack of impulse control and rough play with classmates until his body adapts to his dosage. We are afraid that a private school could expel or "counsel out" our child after a couple of these behavioral side effects of med dosage increases. Can private schools do that?
I understand the need for the breaks. But if lifeguards don't have to work during the breaks, then do they lifeguards really need to have their own separate breaks? The result is that pools need an extra lifeguard or two at all times. Why can't we say that the breaks for the swimmers are also sufficient breaks for the lifeguards, and then increase pool hours?
I took my 3-yr-old to the newest, nicest outdoor pool in town, Rosedale, which has a kiddie pool and 3 slides. My little guy was sad that the kiddie pool and slides were all closed. When I asked a lifeguard why they were closed, he said they didn't have enough lifeguards to sit in the 3 lifeguard posts. When I said that there are 2 lifeguards at posts but 3 in the break room, he said that they need more. On top of that, the 15 minute break at the end of each hour is for everyone (not just children) to exit the water, and so all the lifeguards go to the breakroom for 15 minutes of each hour. Has anyone else been to Rosedale and had this experience?
Ken
Ken
...when we all have direct experience that that's simply untrue. OSSE's auditor of pre-K capacity confirmed to GreaterGreaterWashington.com that, in fact, OSSE's claim of universal pre-K is false. From ward 3 to ward 8, kids still languish on waiting lists while OSSE and Mayor Gray claim this doesn't happen.
Read the article here.
Then email your elected representative to the Board of Education (which advises OSSE) asking that OSSE halt its current audit, and audit unmet demand in the Fall instead of available spaces in May.
Ken Archer
GreaterGreaterWashington.com
Read the article here.
Then email your elected representative to the Board of Education (which advises OSSE) asking that OSSE halt its current audit, and audit unmet demand in the Fall instead of available spaces in May.
Ken Archer
GreaterGreaterWashington.com
The city says there's universal pre-K in DC, but is that your experience? Have you had a 3- or 4-year old that you couldn't get into a public pre-K program? The city's own auditor says we haven't reached universal pre-K. I researched this topic with a colleague for 6 weeks and we were shocked at what we learned. Learn more at http://greatergreaterwashington.org/post/14405/despite-officials-claims-dc-hasnt-reached-universal-pre-k/.
Ken Archer
GreaterGreaterWashington.com
Ken Archer
GreaterGreaterWashington.com
What WTU President Nathan Saunders says is that, he agrees with successful charter schools that more actual instructional time (what DC Prep and Saunders each called "time on task") leads to better outcomes. Saunders says that increasing instructional time can happen by eliminating distractions during the existing school day (data entry, disciplinary distractions), more a lot less money than extending the school day. Saunders is arguing that extending the school day masks the underlying inefficiencies in the existing school day.
After looking at the recent Charter School rankings and talking with Mary Cheh's staff and WTU President Saunders, I've become convinced that increasing teacher's time on task, whether through extended school days and/or removing distractions from teachers' school day, must become a top priority of DCPS. Unfortunately, what I found is that no one is really seriously looking into this.
I posted this GGW article on extended school days in DCPS this morning with the disheartening interviews that make this clear.
I posted this GGW article on extended school days in DCPS this morning with the disheartening interviews that make this clear.
Anonymous wrote:
Here's the story as far as I can tell. My perspective is that of an in-boundary parent.
Pope was cherry-picking admissions, using administrative tricks to filter out both in-boundary and out-of-boundary kids he didn't want. He got pretty dirty with in-boundary families and pissed off a lot of people. When Fenty was running in 2006 -- way before Rhee was on the scene -- it was an issue in Ward 3, and Fenty made a campaign promise that he would get rid of Pope if elected.
During 2007-9 Rhee comes on board and tries to work with Pope. The chancellor's office arranges several awkward meetings between Pope and feeder school parents. One he blows off completely. Another one he comes to but apparently didn't say what was expected, I heard a deputy chancellor talking to him in the hallway afterward say "WTF was that?"
Fast forward to fall 2009. Fenty realizes that he has less than a year to go before the next election, and he's getting pressured about keeping his campaign promise. He realizes that Ward 3 is his base and he can't afford to lose it, and he gives the word to Rhee that Pope needs to go. Rhee realizes she can't fire Pope outright because she doesn't have the documentation to prove cause. She comes up with this arts magnet school in an effort to lure Pope away from Hardy. According to people who were in the room when Rhee pitched the arts magnet to Pope, Rhee left the meeting believing that Pope had agreed to the magnet school job.
Obviously, either Rhee misread Pope or Pope changed his mind, but clearly by the time the change was announced Pope had decided to fight to keep his position at Hardy. Pope launches a guerrilla campaign to undermine Rhee, with parents and students as his proxies. Hardy becomes a city-wide cause because of the general resentment of Rhee and Fenty, race and class, and anxiety about the out-of-boundary process. Rhee and Fenty lose their jobs but Pope doesn't get his back.
A new principal starts on July 1. She dismantles Pope's admissions scheme, and goes to a straight by-the-book lottery. Enrollment surges by over 120 students -- it turns out Pope had been keeping the school almost a quarter empty. The new students cause problems with scheduling and discipline. Pro-Pope parents know they can't complain about the change in admissions policy, so they start a campaign blaming all of the problems on the incompetence of the new prinicpal. After four months the new principal has had enough and begs for her old job back.
Which pretty much gets us to where we are today.
This is, I think, pretty close to what happened. Whitmire's book also says Pope gave Rhee the impression he was on-board with the plan.
Pope didn't set out to discriminate against poor kids, and Rhee didn't set out to whitewash Hardy. The truth is, as it is so often, between these extremes. As a previous commenter summed it up: "dysfunctional systems beget dysfunctional workarounds".
Anonymous wrote:Go back and get the break downs for OOB students and then let's see what you find and let's have a real discussion.
I did provide this breakdown for OOB students at Hardy and Deal, and it further supports the claim. It's in one of my comments on my GGW article; you can read it here - http://greatergreaterwashington.org/post/9728/rhee-feared-hardy-principal-was-weeding-out-poor-kids/#comment-92953.
Ken Archer
jsteele wrote:I'm absolutely not buying this. Rhee hardly opened her mouth without talking about data. Now you expect us to believe that she suddenly didn't have data? It absolutely should have been possible for someone at DCPS to pick up a phone and call people who were at the front of the waitlist but not offered spots at Hardy and ask what happened. It would be the height of incompetence to remove a popular principal based on an unproven "concern" without taking even minimal steps to prove the concern.
Jeff,
I probably wasn't clear about this. Pope's application told kids to not go through the lottery, because the Hardy application would automatically put them on Pope's waitlist. (http://www.hardyms.org/quicklinkfiles/ArtsProgramApplication_Grade6_11-09.pdf) That means DCPS didn't have any data on who had applied for Hardy.
Ken Archer
A line of critique that I am getting here and on GGW is that the data I've provided doesn't absolutely prove the claim that Pope used the admissions process to control which waitlisted OOB students were admitted.
There are 2 problems with this critique, however.
First, those making the critique are raising the bar so high that the claim becomes impossible to prove one way or another. They say Hardy is incomparable to any other school. They say Pope should be asked (principals can't speak on the record about any but benign topics without going through DCPS). They say DCPS should see where the Hardy waitlisted kids ultimately ended up (kids often get added to the waitlist after the lottery without DCPS's knowledge, and there's no way for DCPS to know if a waitlisted kid wasn't accepted because Pope skipped them or because they were accepted at Deal or a charter and told Hardy to remove their name from the waitlist).
Second, and more important, is that the claim is being confirmed by former Hardy parents in the comments here and at GGW.
"As a former Hardy parent, I can tell you that I believed that the application process did control the makeup of the OOB population. My husband, who was on the PTA at the time, believed it too. However, I believe that if Pope was interested in controlling who matriculated at Hardy it was to ensure that disruptive students were kept out." (DC Urban Moms)
"The uncommitted students and families were eliminated through a rigorous but welcomed process.... There was a family type environment where you felt confident and secure that you child would be educated and safe while there, this is no longer true." (GGW)
I'm not saying that Pope was a sinister Mr Scrooge gleefully crossing off the names of poor kids from the waitlist.
I'm saying that Pope used admissions data as the primary factor in selecting OOB students, and the unintended effect was to make students with greater needs the burden of other principals and other teachers.
Pope's supporters aren't just calling for his reinstatement, they are calling for the reinstatement of this unjust admissions process. Rhee announced the end of this admissions process the same night she announced Pope's reassignment (I was there).
It's my contention that this request on the part of Pope's supporters that should be rejected.
There are 2 problems with this critique, however.
First, those making the critique are raising the bar so high that the claim becomes impossible to prove one way or another. They say Hardy is incomparable to any other school. They say Pope should be asked (principals can't speak on the record about any but benign topics without going through DCPS). They say DCPS should see where the Hardy waitlisted kids ultimately ended up (kids often get added to the waitlist after the lottery without DCPS's knowledge, and there's no way for DCPS to know if a waitlisted kid wasn't accepted because Pope skipped them or because they were accepted at Deal or a charter and told Hardy to remove their name from the waitlist).
Second, and more important, is that the claim is being confirmed by former Hardy parents in the comments here and at GGW.
"As a former Hardy parent, I can tell you that I believed that the application process did control the makeup of the OOB population. My husband, who was on the PTA at the time, believed it too. However, I believe that if Pope was interested in controlling who matriculated at Hardy it was to ensure that disruptive students were kept out." (DC Urban Moms)
"The uncommitted students and families were eliminated through a rigorous but welcomed process.... There was a family type environment where you felt confident and secure that you child would be educated and safe while there, this is no longer true." (GGW)
I'm not saying that Pope was a sinister Mr Scrooge gleefully crossing off the names of poor kids from the waitlist.
I'm saying that Pope used admissions data as the primary factor in selecting OOB students, and the unintended effect was to make students with greater needs the burden of other principals and other teachers.
Pope's supporters aren't just calling for his reinstatement, they are calling for the reinstatement of this unjust admissions process. Rhee announced the end of this admissions process the same night she announced Pope's reassignment (I was there).
It's my contention that this request on the part of Pope's supporters that should be rejected.
Jeff,
Good questions. Here are my answers.
"If DCPS, rather than Pope, ran the lottery (which is the case), then DCPS should have the list of lottery winners."
The central claim isn't that Pope was using admissions data to pick students from the lottery. As you say, DCPS runs the lottery. The central claim is that Pope made fewer OOB slots available in the lottery so that he would have more control over which OOB students were admitted. Students that don't get in through the lottery are put on a waitlist that the principal manages with complete autonomy.
"As I understood it, Pope used the application as a mechanism to ensure that families knew what they were getting into in terms of expectations and requirements."
That's what we all assumed. But why then does Deal have 71% as many poor kids as OOB kids, while Hardy has only 47% as many poor kids as OOB kids? It's not due to transportation challenges, as Deal is further northwest than Hardy is.
"Isn't the current plan to make Hardy more attractive to in-bound students which would result in fewer OOB spots and leave out even those (relatively) well-off African Americans who attend now?"
If the current plan is what you say, then why get rid of the admissions process for OOB students? If the ratio of poor kids to OOB kids shifts to that of Deal, there will be an increase of poor kids in Hardy from 41% to 62% (89 students) in only 3 years, far greater of an increase than anyone would expect from in-boundary students in even the best of circumstances. Sadly, that will likely lessen the attractiveness of Hardy to in-boundary families.
Good questions. Here are my answers.
"If DCPS, rather than Pope, ran the lottery (which is the case), then DCPS should have the list of lottery winners."
The central claim isn't that Pope was using admissions data to pick students from the lottery. As you say, DCPS runs the lottery. The central claim is that Pope made fewer OOB slots available in the lottery so that he would have more control over which OOB students were admitted. Students that don't get in through the lottery are put on a waitlist that the principal manages with complete autonomy.
"As I understood it, Pope used the application as a mechanism to ensure that families knew what they were getting into in terms of expectations and requirements."
That's what we all assumed. But why then does Deal have 71% as many poor kids as OOB kids, while Hardy has only 47% as many poor kids as OOB kids? It's not due to transportation challenges, as Deal is further northwest than Hardy is.
"Isn't the current plan to make Hardy more attractive to in-bound students which would result in fewer OOB spots and leave out even those (relatively) well-off African Americans who attend now?"
If the current plan is what you say, then why get rid of the admissions process for OOB students? If the ratio of poor kids to OOB kids shifts to that of Deal, there will be an increase of poor kids in Hardy from 41% to 62% (89 students) in only 3 years, far greater of an increase than anyone would expect from in-boundary students in even the best of circumstances. Sadly, that will likely lessen the attractiveness of Hardy to in-boundary families.
Many of us have watched with concern the developments with Hardy Middle School over the past year.
I have invested some time diving into the history of the situation, and written an article at GreaterGreaterWashington.com that reveals much of the rationale for the decisions of the previous and current chancellors with regard to Hardy.
It's entitled "Rhee feared Hardy principal was weeding out poor kids". I hope readers find it helpful.
Ken Archer
I have invested some time diving into the history of the situation, and written an article at GreaterGreaterWashington.com that reveals much of the rationale for the decisions of the previous and current chancellors with regard to Hardy.
It's entitled "Rhee feared Hardy principal was weeding out poor kids". I hope readers find it helpful.
Ken Archer