Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:Sadly not a surprise. The report says there were seven instances but won't name the officials who received the preferential treatment.

Of course not. It's DCPS classified. They will cite "privacy and confidentiality" but the real reason is to avoid embarrassment to the DC cronies and other well-connected parents.

There are also children involved.

The IG should prove it or move on.

Interesting, because regular crime involves children all the time, and criminal law doesn't allow for an exception whenever children are involved.

Immigration law doesn't work this way either. Lots of poor children are coming home to an empty house because their parents have been deported.

I'm not saying there SHOULDN'T be considerations for kids, but in these examples it's a matter of putting kids on their appropriate school. It's more important to fight corruption.

I for one, plan on pushing my useless ward representative to make sure this does not go unpunished.

The punishment was already meted out -- Henderson has been reprimanded.

As for the families, unless they bribed her or are living outside the district, there's literally nothing to punish them for. And certainly no laws on the book to cover this scenario.

Time for everyone to move on.

"Reprimanded"?!? Give me a fucking break. She committed a crime, the families committed a crime, but we are supposed to look the other way?

Listen Kaya, aren't you busy with your modeling career? Stay off DCUM, I'm tired of reading your excuses.

Anonymous wrote:I'm much more bothered by people who spend a year at a desirable elementary school and move across town, yet keep that feed forever.

Anonymous wrote:Even if it were 100 kids, the cost would be peanuts compared with the outright theft of millions which is the Ellington renovation.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I'm happy to move on from a legal perspective, but the families who pulled strings should be named and shamed.

OMG, really? I know of one case over disputed custody.

Shame on anyone who outs the families involved without proof of criminal wrongdoing.

The IG letter says it told the mayor, who then told the DME, who told Wilson to be more impartial than Henderson.

Done. Case closed.

Yes really. (OMG!)

Corruption rots, even when it's your friends doing it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I'm happy to move on from a legal perspective, but the families who pulled strings should be named and shamed.

OMG, really? I know of one case over disputed custody.

Shame on anyone who outs the families involved without proof of criminal wrongdoing.

The IG letter says it told the mayor, who then told the DME, who told Wilson to be more impartial than Henderson.

Done. Case closed.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I'm happy to move on from a legal perspective, but the families who pulled strings should be named and shamed.

OMG, really? I know of one case over disputed custody.

Shame on anyone who outs the families involved without proof of criminal wrongdoing.

The IG letter says it told the mayor, who then told the DME, who told Wilson to be more impartial than Henderson.

Done. Case closed.

Anonymous wrote:
I'm happy to move on from a legal perspective, but the families who pulled strings should be named and shamed.

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:Sadly not a surprise. The report says there were seven instances but won't name the officials who received the preferential treatment.

Of course not. It's DCPS classified. They will cite "privacy and confidentiality" but the real reason is to avoid embarrassment to the DC cronies and other well-connected parents.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:Sadly not a surprise. The report says there were seven instances but won't name the officials who received the preferential treatment.

Of course not. It's DCPS classified. They will cite "privacy and confidentiality" but the real reason is to avoid embarrassment to the DC cronies and other well-connected parents.

There are also children involved.

The IG should prove it or move on.

Interesting, because regular crime involves children all the time, and criminal law doesn't allow for an exception whenever children are involved.

Immigration law doesn't work this way either. Lots of poor children are coming home to an empty house because their parents have been deported.

I'm not saying there SHOULDN'T be considerations for kids, but in these examples it's a matter of putting kids on their appropriate school. It's more important to fight corruption.

I for one, plan on pushing my useless ward representative to make sure this does not go unpunished.

The punishment was already meted out -- Henderson has been reprimanded.

As for the families, unless they bribed her or are living outside the district, there's literally nothing to punish them for. And certainly no laws on the book to cover this scenario.

Time for everyone to move on.

"Reprimanded"?!? Give me a fucking break. She committed a crime, the families committed a crime, but we are supposed to look the other way?

Listen Kaya, aren't you busy with your modeling career? Stay off DCUM, I'm tired of reading your excuses.

No, it was not a "crime," particularly on the part of the families. Go read the DC Code; if you can find a statute that was violated please inform the rest of us.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This isn't new. Didn't Fenty kids attend a school outside of their boundary?

Yes, but there was a reasonable explanation -- that twins should be in a school that had at least two classes for their grade. Whether that explanation is convincing is another question, but it is better than Henderson's argument that she did it simply because she could.

No Fenty fan, but that argument is defensible depending on the nature of the twins. Competitve twins (vs cooperative) could reasonably make a case for separation where possible.

It's only defensible if it's offered to other similarly situated families as well.

Anonymous wrote:This is such a nonissue. The chancellor does have the authority to grant enrollment requests at schools due to special circumstances. She is correct in saying that if D.C. leaders don't want the chancellor to have that power, they should change the rules. Now, if it comes out she sold seats or whatever, then yes, that is a problem.