Anonymous wrote:Believe it or not, but some schools actually like to tout their successful students. Apparently that's an alien concept to DCPS, though.

They like square pegs to fit in round holes.

Believe it or not, but some schools actually like to tout their successful students. Apparently that's an alien concept to DCPS, though.

Private school cashes tuition check and then gets to promote the prodigy who attends their fine institution.

Anonymous wrote:I don't think that a public school has to put up with excessive absences just because a child is deemed to be a 'prodigy' in some area. She's missing a ton of school and that is a burden for her teachers and the school. She needs to either be in a private school, go to a performing arts boarding school, or be homeschooled. If she is that talented (which she apparently is), it is hard to imagine a private school or performing arts school would not be very generous with financial aid and/or a scholarship. OTOH, it is ironic how awful DC generally is with truancy and how on top of their game they are with this child.

Honestly, which private schools in the area would allow her to miss that much schooling?

How can the district comment about this student? It seems like a violation of her school privacy rights under FERPA.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh please. This was a Tiger Mom over thinking this and running to Petula, who, true to form didn't due background.

As a Deal parent I knew something wasn't right from the start. I am pretty sure these parents subscribe to the "no press is bad press" concept.

"And despite requests, no one from the school system wanted to go on the record explaining its refusal to consider her performance-related absences as excused instead of unexcused."


Henderson's statement is consistent with at least one key point in Dvorak's piece. DCPS sent robo calls and formal notices on one hand (providing a formal record of "unexcused" absences) vs. informally conveying a decision over the phone without providing a formal record of that allowance. If DCPS was willing to work with the family, why nothing in writing to that effect?

Having been on the receiving side of the robocalls-- you can barely understand them much less worry about them. Then we received a letter, which I threw in the garbage. That was it. Of course I wasn't trying to get my kid in the newspaper (with video) so I figured the issue was done and my child is back at Deal again this year.

They are bureaucrats. I don't bother.

Ignore a robocall, sure. Ignore an official letter from the school district? Whoa.
Ignore official written notices directed to you at your own peril. If you don't understand this, think of a slightly different situation. Let's say you received a notice from the IRS that you owe back taxes, and the consequences of not paying them. You call the IRS's 1-800 number and whoever answers says, "oh, nevermind, just a mix-up on our part, ignore the notice." Then you continue to get warning letters from the IRS. Still OK with just ignoring the "robo-notice"? Probably not after the IRS garnishes your wages, confiscates assets, and has no clue of who or why one of its agents told you to ignore its notices.

ALWAYS follow up on official, governmental notices. If a written notice is wrong -- get a corrected notice in writing.

That's my public service announcement for the day.

Anonymous wrote:http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/petula-dvorak-no-misrepresentation-of-piano-prodigys-treatment-by-dc-schools/2014/09/09/8d19659e-385f-11e4-8601-97ba88884ffd_story.html

She has gone off the rails, no longer a reporter but a ranting DCUM.

Actually, it's a pretty reasoned, point-for-point rebuttal of all of DCPS's claims. DCPS called her and the parents liars, and she's giving a very detailed account of her reporting.

I am usually one of those "check your privilege" posters (and generally a big DCPS booster). And I see the argument, in this case, that this child's schedule might not be compatible with public school. Still, I think DCPS really screwed this one up--the idea that parents are supposed to trust one person on the phone telling them to ignore the letters and calls..only to get more letters and calls. It's unpredictable and the opposite of transparent. Just bad bureaucracy.