Toggle navigation
Toggle navigation
Home
DCUM Forums
Nanny Forums
Events
About DCUM
Advertising
Search
Recent Topics
Hottest Topics
FAQs and Guidelines
Privacy Policy
Your current identity is: Anonymous
Login
Preview
Subject:
Forum Index
»
DC Public and Public Charter Schools
Reply to "Deal Expansion"
Subject:
Emoticons
More smilies
Text Color:
Default
Dark Red
Red
Orange
Brown
Yellow
Green
Olive
Cyan
Blue
Dark Blue
Violet
White
Black
Font:
Very Small
Small
Normal
Big
Giant
Close Marks
[quote=Anonymous][quote=jsteele]By February 2009, Key parents had to have known that Rhee was a bull in a china shop. ... I guess they should have been careful what they asked for. [/quote] Yes, it's all their fault. They should have had perfect knowledge of the future -- so they could have shorted the market in the 2008 financial collapse and all made fortunes so they could send their kids to private school, and all the unpleasantness would have been avoided. I want to share with you something from the minutes of the infamous 2009 Rhee meeting with parents: "She [Rhee] clarified that whereas in the past, Hardy required an application for all students, even in-boundary students, which recently changed. Key students do not need to apply to Hardy. It is still not 100% clear, however, whether in-boundary students will need to apply to the “arts intensive” program. Chancellor Rhee will deliver guidance on that as soon as she can and will extend the arts application deadline (currently March 13) until after she has announced her decision." When Rhee said the policy had "recently changed," she meant that week. Even after that meeting, Pope and the Hardy staff continued to insist that nothing had changed, in-boundary families had to apply to Hardy just like everyone else. Until Key parents started making noise, Key, Mann, Stoddert and Hyde effectively had no in-boundary middle school. Families could apply to Hardy, put in for the lottery at Deal or Latin, or go private. Was it wrong for the Key parents to ask for a middle school that they could actually attend as a matter of right? If the incumbent principal refused to follow the Chancellor's instructions, was it wrong to remove him? [/quote]
Options
Disable HTML in this message
Disable BB Code in this message
Disable smilies in this message
Review message
Search
Recent Topics
Hottest Topics