Reply to DCI Parent Petition

Forum Index » DC Public and Public Charter Schools

Reply to "DCI Parent Petition "

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]I joined to genuinely try to understand more about the language and IB curriculum (we're new to DCI) but angry high school parents (not just the lamb parent) commandeered the whole event.  It's really frustrating and embarrassing (seriously, no one is going to tell you why a teacher was let go and you are not entitled to know why a teacher is out).

I hope the school puts on event just for MS parents.[/quote]

The point of this meeting was not to educate parents on language and the IB curriculum. It was to address the recent concerns raised by staff and parents about how Rosskamm is decimating DCI's language and IB curriculum. [/quote]

You wanted it to be about the ED, but that's not how it was billed to families.  You wasted my time and the time of other families that were hoping to learn about the school's approach.  You made a fool of yourselves -- this was not the forum for your antics. [/quote]

The session was *never* billed as an info session. Rosskamm's email last month explicitly framed the first town hall as being about "concerns raised" and "issues under my leadership". That's why parents were raising those concerns.

Go back to the actual email that announced these town halls, because the framing that parents 'hijacked' an IB information session doesn't hold up.
The email is titled 'A Community Update from Executive Director Michael Rosskamm.' It opens by referencing the board meeting, the no confidence concerns, and questions about 'whether we are fully living up to our commitments.' It explicitly frames the town halls as a response to those concerns and his words are 'these issues must be addressed directly' and 'I take responsibility.'

The first session was described as focusing on IB for All and language programs specifically in the context of concerns raised about them. That's not an academic information session, that's an accountability conversation. Parents who showed up expecting answers to the questions the ED himself raised in his own email were not out of line. They were taking him at his word.

What actually happened is that the ED used a format he controlled to talk around the concerns rather than address them which is the same pattern documented at the March 19th board meeting, and the same pattern the staff letter describes over three years of 'listening sessions' that led nowhere.

The parents who pushed back weren't making fools of themselves. They were refusing to sit through another managed non-answer dressed up as dialogue. That's not antics. That's accountability.[/quote]

The email on April 3 said those listening sessions you're describing were canceled.   The email regarding yesterday's town hall said: We are hosting the first of our two Town Halls tonight, Tuesday, April 7 from 5:00–6:00 p.m. via Zoom. This session will focus on our core programming – specifically IB for All and our language programs – and will follow the same format as our recent safety town halls.

I wanted to hear more about IB for all and language programming and the questions other parents had about the program.  But you hijacked the meeting to demand that school leaders disclose HR info or to talk at length about your kids. It's still not clear to me what you're all riled up about.  That a popular teacher was let go? That teachers have the audacity not to tell parents why they are calling out? That your kids are not getting homework? My kid doesn't even have a locker ffs.[/quote]

The board-led listening sessions were cancelled pending the investigation. DCI-led sessions, meaning sessions run by Rosskamm himself, were allowed to continue. And that is exactly what happened last night. The ED ran his own town hall, on his own terms, while an investigation into his conduct is actively underway.

Think about what that means. The person who is the subject of an investigation was permitted to host a community meeting, control the agenda, frame the narrative, and speak directly to families about the very issues being investigated. Without being placed on administrative leave.

This is not how investigations are supposed to work. In any functional governance structure, the subject of an investigation is removed from positions that allow them to influence the process or the people involved. That is the entire reason admin leave exists.

So when people ask why the meeting was chaotic, why parents were frustrated, and why the IB programming conversation got overtaken by governance concerns, the answer is simple. The board cancelled their own oversight process but left Rosskamm in charge of running his. Parents showed up expecting accountability and got a managed presentation instead.
That is not a parent problem. That is a governance failure. 
[/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