Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Please read the letter more carefully. People are upset about a culture of fear and retaliation where people are at risk of losing their jobs if they speak up about unjust practices. There is one small part about clocking in and clocking out, but the larger narrative is about an organization run by power and authority. The DP Coordinator, who is beloved by students, parents, and staff, did not get his contract renewed. Students started a petition to have it reinstated, and it has over 700 signatures. He was let go because he sometimes questioned harmful practices. Ask any individual at the school or any parent or student who worked with him. He is one of the most competent people there. That is the culture of the current leadership. Don't ask questions or you're gone. No matter how effective you are at your job. Teaching is hard enough, people. 94% of voting staff do not have confidence in his leadership! Clearly this is about more than clocking in and clocking out.

If I’m gonna ask for anyone to lose their job, I want a list- a bullet point list- of harmful practices,

No one is being specific, at all.

NINETY-FOUR PERCENT OF THE STAFF VOTED NO CONFIDENCE.

That's lower than the President.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you read the full letter and have ever worked under similar leadership, whether in a public or corporate setting, you’ll understand exactly what it’s describing. The fact that more than 100 teachers have left since the ED started speaks for itself.

The teacher retention issue, is the main issue. It doesn't matter if the school is offering the most advanced and most comprehensive list of IB courses and adding APs etc. if staff aren't there to provide high quality instruction and support students. I guess for kids that can walk themselves through curriculum online it's okay but good teachers that stay are what will make it a really good middle/high school. No idea if this ED is good for that or not.

DCI's teacher retention on the school report card is 73% - which is just about the charter average. While it's not great, has there been a decline over the recent years? Or has retention always been an issue (even before this particular ED and/or the union)? I am always surprised that in unionized charter environments pay and retention seem to be lower than in non-unionized ones. Not saying it's a union issue but wondering if the factors that cause staff to move in the direction of unionizing are entrenched and complex.

That’s an interesting question. I do think that you are right, there’s a lot going on. That said, several of the unions are relatively new and it can take a looooooong time to ratify a contract, and I believe things sort of freeze while that is under way in terms of comp, so that could be another contributing factor for some of the newer unions.

School report card is outdated. That is from 2 years ago? The rate was presented at the last board meeting in the 90’s.

Not sure how long ago it was but most of the retention metrics cover teachers who worked at a school in 24-25 and returned for 25-26. So not two years old. Interesting that the letter that goes with the petition suggests very high turnover (but doesn’t provide actual figures), yet the recent retention rate you quoted is 90%. If that is correct, retention is better not worse.

The letter does provide actual figures and you'd know that if you read it: "Due to the culture of micromanagement and fear he has fostered, many
qualified, dedicated staff who have served DCI’s community for years are leaving: over 125 departures since SY23-24"

"The rate was presented at the last board meeting in the 90’s" This was based on the survey of teachers asking if they intended to return. And it was not anonymous.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you read the full letter and have ever worked under similar leadership, whether in a public or corporate setting, you’ll understand exactly what it’s describing. The fact that more than 100 teachers have left since the ED started speaks for itself.

The teacher retention issue, is the main issue. It doesn't matter if the school is offering the most advanced and most comprehensive list of IB courses and adding APs etc. if staff aren't there to provide high quality instruction and support students. I guess for kids that can walk themselves through curriculum online it's okay but good teachers that stay are what will make it a really good middle/high school. No idea if this ED is good for that or not.

DCI's teacher retention on the school report card is 73% - which is just about the charter average. While it's not great, has there been a decline over the recent years? Or has retention always been an issue (even before this particular ED and/or the union)? I am always surprised that in unionized charter environments pay and retention seem to be lower than in non-unionized ones. Not saying it's a union issue but wondering if the factors that cause staff to move in the direction of unionizing are entrenched and complex.

That’s an interesting question. I do think that you are right, there’s a lot going on. That said, several of the unions are relatively new and it can take a looooooong time to ratify a contract, and I believe things sort of freeze while that is under way in terms of comp, so that could be another contributing factor for some of the newer unions.

School report card is outdated. That is from 2 years ago? The rate was presented at the last board meeting in the 90’s.

Not sure how long ago it was but most of the retention metrics cover teachers who worked at a school in 24-25 and returned for 25-26. So not two years old. Interesting that the letter that goes with the petition suggests very high turnover (but doesn’t provide actual figures), yet the recent retention rate you quoted is 90%. If that is correct, retention is better not worse.

The letter does provide actual figures and you'd know that if you read it: "Due to the culture of micromanagement and fear he has fostered, many
qualified, dedicated staff who have served DCI’s community for years are leaving: over 125 departures since SY23-24"

Many DCI parents have written to the Board expressing their concerns about the damage Rosskamm is doing.

Here's the letter my husband and I sent:

Dear Members of the Board of Trustees,

We are writing as DCI parents. And as LAMB parents who lived through the events of 2017.

We want to be very direct: We are frustrated and angry to find ourselves in this position again.

Nine years ago, our sons were students at LAMB. Today, our daughter is there and our sons are now at DCI. We are heartbroken that another school community we love is in crisis, that another Board is being asked to choose between an executive and the institution it governs, and that the parents and staff who are sounding the alarm loudly, clearly, and at significant personal risk are once again being met with deflection instead of action.

What we know from living through the LAMB crisis is that the parents who show up in moments like this are not troublemakers. They are the school's most committed advocates, and their urgency is a measure of how much they believe DCI is worth saving. We share that belief completely and we are here, again, because of it.

When Mr. Fernandez was arrested we initially defended the LAMB administration. We believed in the school. We trusted its leaders. We gave them the benefit of the doubt because we could not imagine that the institution we had entrusted with our children had failed so profoundly. That instinct, to protect the school by protecting its leadership, felt like loyalty. It was not. It was blindness.

What changed for us was the evidence other parents and staff shared. The repeated red flags that had been ignored. The staff who had raised concerns and been disregarded. The children who had been harmed while the administration operated from a posture of self-protection rather than accountability. When we finally saw clearly, we joined all the other LAMB parents in demanding that the Board act, independently, decisively, and in the interest of children over institution.

The LAMB Board ultimately did act. They acknowledged that their administrators had failed and they removed the Executive Director. They chose the school over the administrators who had led it astray. LAMB survived and now it thrives.

We are now watching the DCI Board face the same choice LAMB's Board faced and we are watching it make the wrong one.

On the surface the situations are not identical. Mr. Rosskamm has not been accused of criminal conduct. But the pattern is familiar and it is damning: staff raise concerns, leadership dismisses them, the concerns compound, the culture deteriorates, and the Board, the body whose sole obligation is to the mission and to the community, protects the executive instead of the school.

Ninety-four percent of DCI's non-supervisory staff have voted no confidence in Mr. Rosskamm. Over 125 staff have departed since SY23-24. The IB Diploma Coordinator's contract was not renewed. The MYP Coordinator resigned abruptly. These are not personnel inconveniences. These are structural warnings.

And yet the Board's response or lack thereof, especially at the March 19th public meeting and in the communications that have followed, has been to suppress dialogue, deflect accountability, and allow Mr. Rosskamm to manage his own consequence through town halls and listening sessions that result in no change and that his own staff have already declared they do not trust.

We want to be direct about Board Chair Pardo specifically. Her conduct of the March 19th meeting, the deliberate foreclosure of public comment, the alignment with Mr. Rosskamm's framing, the failure to treat the staff's extraordinary vote of no confidence as the serious governance crisis it is, was not neutral. It was a choice. Chair Pardo has not demonstrated the independence this moment demands, and her continued leadership of this board in this crisis is itself a barrier to resolution. We are calling for her to step down as Chair.

We say this not with hostility but with clarity born of experience. At LAMB, the Board's willingness to act over the objections of an administration that had failed is what saved the school. What would have destroyed LAMB was a Board that prioritized protecting leadership over protecting the community it existed to serve.

DCI is a remarkable school. Its IB for All model, its language immersion programs, its diverse and committed community are worth fighting for. We are fighting for them now, as we fought for LAMB then.

The staff have done their part. They documented their concerns. They exhausted every formal channel. They took the extraordinary step of a vote of no confidence at significant personal risk. Nineteen staff members abstained from that vote not because they lacked an opinion, but because they feared retaliation. That is the culture this Board has allowed to take root.

Our daughter is sitting in a LAMB classroom right now. We chose LAMB for her because of what this family of schools represents and because we believed that what we went through in 2017 had made the school stronger and more accountable. We need this board to prove that belief was not misplaced.

You have a decision to make. You can choose, as LAMB's Board ultimately chose, to place the mission above the executive. You can remove Mr. Rosskamm, reconstitute Board leadership, and give this school the chance to rebuild trust and retain the extraordinary educators who have not yet left. Or you can continue on the current path and watch DCI become a cautionary tale told by the next generation of DC education advocates.


We have seen what happens when a Board finds its courage too late. We have also seen what happens when it finds it in time.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Please read the letter more carefully. People are upset about a culture of fear and retaliation where people are at risk of losing their jobs if they speak up about unjust practices. There is one small part about clocking in and clocking out, but the larger narrative is about an organization run by power and authority. The DP Coordinator, who is beloved by students, parents, and staff, did not get his contract renewed. Students started a petition to have it reinstated, and it has over 700 signatures. He was let go because he sometimes questioned harmful practices. Ask any individual at the school or any parent or student who worked with him. He is one of the most competent people there. That is the culture of the current leadership. Don't ask questions or you're gone. No matter how effective you are at your job. Teaching is hard enough, people. 94% of voting staff do not have confidence in his leadership! Clearly this is about more than clocking in and clocking out.

If I’m gonna ask for anyone to lose their job, I want a list- a bullet point list- of harmful practices,

No one is being specific, at all.

You could read the staff's letter. Or the petitions. You could also read this 2018 City Paper investigation into TenSquare, a DC charter school consulting firm. Six-figure contracts with no transparency requirements, board members with undisclosed vendor relationships, principals silenced with NDAs, and a PCSB that explicitly exempted the firm from financial oversight.

Sound familiar? It should because the Board Chair and the ED are running the same playbook. Exploit the schools, benefit from it, and cause irreparable damage to the schools.
https://washingtoncitypaper.com/article/185902/behind-the-consulting-firm-raking-in-millions-from-dc-charter-schools/

Anonymous wrote:Please read the letter more carefully. People are upset about a culture of fear and retaliation where people are at risk of losing their jobs if they speak up about unjust practices. There is one small part about clocking in and clocking out, but the larger narrative is about an organization run by power and authority. The DP Coordinator, who is beloved by students, parents, and staff, did not get his contract renewed. Students started a petition to have it reinstated, and it has over 700 signatures. He was let go because he sometimes questioned harmful practices. Ask any individual at the school or any parent or student who worked with him. He is one of the most competent people there. That is the culture of the current leadership. Don't ask questions or you're gone. No matter how effective you are at your job. Teaching is hard enough, people. 94% of voting staff do not have confidence in his leadership! Clearly this is about more than clocking in and clocking out.

If I’m gonna ask for anyone to lose their job, I want a list- a bullet point list- of harmful practices,

No one is being specific, at all.

Anonymous wrote:Is the Union supporting teaching staff? Can they not use their leverage to negotiate better working conditions? Did the non-renewed employee seek recourse from the union?

The ED is very anti-union and has not and does not engage fairly with the staff.

Is the Union supporting teaching staff? Can they not use their leverage to negotiate better working conditions? Did the non-renewed employee seek recourse from the union?

Please read the letter more carefully. People are upset about a culture of fear and retaliation where people are at risk of losing their jobs if they speak up about unjust practices. There is one small part about clocking in and clocking out, but the larger narrative is about an organization run by power and authority. The DP Coordinator, who is beloved by students, parents, and staff, did not get his contract renewed. Students started a petition to have it reinstated, and it has over 700 signatures. He was let go because he sometimes questioned harmful practices. Ask any individual at the school or any parent or student who worked with him. He is one of the most competent people there. That is the culture of the current leadership. Don't ask questions or you're gone. No matter how effective you are at your job. Teaching is hard enough, people. 94% of voting staff do not have confidence in his leadership! Clearly this is about more than clocking in and clocking out.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you read the full letter and have ever worked under similar leadership, whether in a public or corporate setting, you’ll understand exactly what it’s describing. The fact that more than 100 teachers have left since the ED started speaks for itself.

The teacher retention issue, is the main issue. It doesn't matter if the school is offering the most advanced and most comprehensive list of IB courses and adding APs etc. if staff aren't there to provide high quality instruction and support students. I guess for kids that can walk themselves through curriculum online it's okay but good teachers that stay are what will make it a really good middle/high school. No idea if this ED is good for that or not.

DCI's teacher retention on the school report card is 73% - which is just about the charter average. While it's not great, has there been a decline over the recent years? Or has retention always been an issue (even before this particular ED and/or the union)? I am always surprised that in unionized charter environments pay and retention seem to be lower than in non-unionized ones. Not saying it's a union issue but wondering if the factors that cause staff to move in the direction of unionizing are entrenched and complex.

That’s an interesting question. I do think that you are right, there’s a lot going on. That said, several of the unions are relatively new and it can take a looooooong time to ratify a contract, and I believe things sort of freeze while that is under way in terms of comp, so that could be another contributing factor for some of the newer unions.

School report card is outdated. That is from 2 years ago? The rate was presented at the last board meeting in the 90’s.

Not sure how long ago it was but most of the retention metrics cover teachers who worked at a school in 24-25 and returned for 25-26. So not two years old. Interesting that the letter that goes with the petition suggests very high turnover (but doesn’t provide actual figures), yet the recent retention rate you quoted is 90%. If that is correct, retention is better not worse.

Anonymous wrote:This petition is so light on specifics, how can you expect anyone to take it seriously.

I’m a DCI parent and I have no earthly idea what the concerns are other than that there was a letter with concerns, like for all I know he got rid of the espresso machine in the lounge (a thing that got a letter of concern circulating at Dell!)

1) 94% of the staff voting no confidence in the ED seems like a pretty big deal to me.

2) In addition to the parent petition, there’s a student petition that has almost 1k signatures

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DCI parent and as someone who is in a leadership position at work, you have to make decisions that is best for the whole and not everyone is going to be happy.

You have to see the big picture and not just the tree in front of you like many people do when they apply things to just themselves without thinking how it affects others. You need to see both sides of the issue which includes the school side too, not just your side.


The clock in issue. Maybe DCI was having a problem with teachers being consistently late and why they instituted it. If teachers are late a lot, then the school has to scramble and cover and find staff for that classroom until the teacher gets there. It also cuts into instruction time, etc…. If you are prompt and on time, what does it matter if you have to clock in? My staff do it daily. Now if you have a pattern of being late, then it’s easy to see how this would affect you and you would not be happy and bring up t he issue. I don’t see this as a big deal.

Not following the IB model? Yes the IB coordinator is gone. But they have replaced this role with staff. Are teachers not happy that the school is adding more AP courses and it might be more work for staff? Or they think this is the reason why the school is not faithful to the IB model? All the schools in the burbs with IB programs offer AP. I would also argue that it is absolutely beneficial for the high school because it gives IB kids a chance to take the course and get on their record high scores in addition to IB which gives them a huge advantage for college admissions. It also gives all kids in the high school more options and tracking for more rigorous classes. It’s a total win win for the students.

Above are just examples of some things I think about when looking at issues. It’s not valid to just present one side and not having substantial evidence and not offering what the response is from the school why they are implementing things.

Yes, sometimes change is inevitable when viewed from a broader leadership perspective. No one is disputing that. However, execution matters, especially for someone coming in from the outside. In this case, it appears the Executive Director may have moved too quickly to implement changes without first taking the time to observe, build relationships, and earn the trust that is essential for those changes to succeed.

And the ED came to the school with an objective. That he shared with the Board Chair. To completely undermine what makes DCI special