Anonymous wrote:Jacque Patterson sends his own kids to DCPS and is actually on the LSAT of Ludlow-Taylor.

I still think it is inappropriate because it elevates the interests of KIPP over other charters. KIPP is particularly bad about this, Naomi Shelton also will not acknowledge that her being on the PCSB is a conflict, and both are quite rude and snarky about it.

Jacque Patterson sends his own kids to DCPS and is actually on the LSAT of Ludlow-Taylor.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Patterson to SBOE means that KIPP is going to have even more of its own staff in positions that create a conflict of interest.

Excellent. I’m very much looking forward to the charter takeover of DC schools.

I think it is inappropriate to have that kind of conflict of interest even from a pro-charter perspective.

why is it a conflict? he can recuse himself from any matter that impacts KIPP specifically. There’s no conflict in him weighing in on charter sector in general.

Because it is like letting Coke regulate Pepsi as long as it recuses from Coke. Matters affecting the charter sector generally can still be an opportunity to influence policy in favor of KIPP.

There’s no rule against it. Would you say no parents should be allowed on? How about a teacher?

I would allow individuals because their influence is so limited and I think it would be bad to not have any parent perspective. But I would not allow people in positions of power in any part of the system. For example I do not think Ferebee or any of the instructional superintendents or people in high level positions at OSSE it the DMA should be allowed. Nor should school principals or APs, charter or DCPS.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Patterson to SBOE means that KIPP is going to have even more of its own staff in positions that create a conflict of interest.

Excellent. I’m very much looking forward to the charter takeover of DC schools.

I think it is inappropriate to have that kind of conflict of interest even from a pro-charter perspective.

why is it a conflict? he can recuse himself from any matter that impacts KIPP specifically. There’s no conflict in him weighing in on charter sector in general.

Because it is like letting Coke regulate Pepsi as long as it recuses from Coke. Matters affecting the charter sector generally can still be an opportunity to influence policy in favor of KIPP.

There’s no rule against it. Would you say no parents should be allowed on? How about a teacher?