Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I care an awful lot about traffic safety, which Bowser and her handpicked lackey DDOT director also do a complete trash job of. However, since my goal is "better traffic safety" and not "increase political power of the DDOT employees' union", I spend my energy engaging with the Mayor/DDOT/Council directly lobbying for safer streets, and if a viable challenger to Bowser emerges who I felt would do a better job on traffic safety, I would support that person's campaign. I am not wasting my time trying to argue that DDOT should be removed from the Mayor's control and report to a board of 12 people elected specifically for that purpose. Because that is a governance nightmare and doesn't actually help.

Pretty much.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I understand things are better than 10 years ago but they still aren't good.

- How many damaged (ie fired/quit from other districts) have led DCPS under this one Mayor?
- Why can't the Council do effective oversight on basic things like how many nurses and librarians schools have?
- Why are school modernizations still being used as political tools?

Sometimes it is easier for a group of people to make "hard decisions." If the Mayor changes the school boundaries, it could cost her the election. If a board changes school boundaries, it might cost some of them their elections but they could share that risk. The other thing is public education should be a bit more steady and changes should be like steering a ship. Mayoral control leads to a lot of sharp turns and means that DCPS does not have to do long term planning well (because the Mayor doesn't care about DCPS in 2030).

I don't know what you are trying to ask with that first question.

Can you describe what "effective oversight" looks like -- perhaps provide an example? Is that cured by school board control?

I can't understand why improvement should NOT be something that a politician discusses as a win. So...what's the point of your third question?

I will give you that shared political risk might mean more steady changes.

Regarding long-term planning: no elected official with term limits cares about "the thing" beyond their term. So that complaint is also true with school board control.

DCPS is unable to attract the best, or even good school leadership. I blame the the current set up.

I just did. If you go to a DCPS budget hearing, it is amazing how little information the council can get from the current leadership. How many people work in the central office, why don't schools have computers, etc etc.

Moderizations are being used to punish neighborhoods that aren't "in-line" with the Mayor. For every need based school revo, another is done as a favor.

And I agree regarding terms. however with overlapping terms, you hopefully always have a group of people looking 4 years out every year.

Anonymous wrote:I care an awful lot about traffic safety, which Bowser and her handpicked lackey DDOT director also do a complete trash job of. However, since my goal is "better traffic safety" and not "increase political power of the DDOT employees' union", I spend my energy engaging with the Mayor/DDOT/Council directly lobbying for safer streets, and if a viable challenger to Bowser emerges who I felt would do a better job on traffic safety, I would support that person's campaign. I am not wasting my time trying to argue that DDOT should be removed from the Mayor's control and report to a board of 12 people elected specifically for that purpose. Because that is a governance nightmare and doesn't actually help.

Anonymous wrote:I understand things are better than 10 years ago but they still aren't good.

- How many damaged (ie fired/quit from other districts) have led DCPS under this one Mayor?
- Why can't the Council do effective oversight on basic things like how many nurses and librarians schools have?
- Why are school modernizations still being used as political tools?

Sometimes it is easier for a group of people to make "hard decisions." If the Mayor changes the school boundaries, it could cost her the election. If a board changes school boundaries, it might cost some of them their elections but they could share that risk. The other thing is public education should be a bit more steady and changes should be like steering a ship. Mayoral control leads to a lot of sharp turns and means that DCPS does not have to do long term planning well (because the Mayor doesn't care about DCPS in 2030).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I understand things are better than 10 years ago but they still aren't good.

- How many damaged (ie fired/quit from other districts) have led DCPS under this one Mayor?
- Why can't the Council do effective oversight on basic things like how many nurses and librarians schools have?
- Why are school modernizations still being used as political tools?

Sometimes it is easier for a group of people to make "hard decisions." If the Mayor changes the school boundaries, it could cost her the election. If a board changes school boundaries, it might cost some of them their elections but they could share that risk. The other thing is public education should be a bit more steady and changes should be like steering a ship. Mayoral control leads to a lot of sharp turns and means that DCPS does not have to do long term planning well (because the Mayor doesn't care about DCPS in 2030).

I don't know what you are trying to ask with that first question.

Can you describe what "effective oversight" looks like -- perhaps provide an example? Is that cured by school board control?

I can't understand why improvement should NOT be something that a politician discusses as a win. So...what's the point of your third question?

I will give you that shared political risk might mean more steady changes.

Regarding long-term planning: no elected official with term limits cares about "the thing" beyond their term. So that complaint is also true with school board control.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I understand things are better than 10 years ago but they still aren't good.

- How many damaged (ie fired/quit from other districts) have led DCPS under this one Mayor?
- Why can't the Council do effective oversight on basic things like how many nurses and librarians schools have?
- Why are school modernizations still being used as political tools?

Sometimes it is easier for a group of people to make "hard decisions." If the Mayor changes the school boundaries, it could cost her the election. If a board changes school boundaries, it might cost some of them their elections but they could share that risk. The other thing is public education should be a bit more steady and changes should be like steering a ship. Mayoral control leads to a lot of sharp turns and means that DCPS does not have to do long term planning well (because the Mayor doesn't care about DCPS in 2030).

I don't know what you are trying to ask with that first question.

Can you describe what "effective oversight" looks like -- perhaps provide an example? Is that cured by school board control?

I can't understand why improvement should NOT be something that a politician discusses as a win. So...what's the point of your third question?

I will give you that shared political risk might mean more steady changes.

Regarding long-term planning: no elected official with term limits cares about "the thing" beyond their term. So that complaint is also true with school board control.

Anonymous wrote:I understand things are better than 10 years ago but they still aren't good.

- How many damaged (ie fired/quit from other districts) have led DCPS under this one Mayor?
- Why can't the Council do effective oversight on basic things like how many nurses and librarians schools have?
- Why are school modernizations still being used as political tools?

Sometimes it is easier for a group of people to make "hard decisions." If the Mayor changes the school boundaries, it could cost her the election. If a board changes school boundaries, it might cost some of them their elections but they could share that risk. The other thing is public education should be a bit more steady and changes should be like steering a ship. Mayoral control leads to a lot of sharp turns and means that DCPS does not have to do long term planning well (because the Mayor doesn't care about DCPS in 2030).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:SAVE MAYORAL CONTROL is basically Vote Ferebee. I thought that was what we were against?

Sadly, there are ideas worse than Ferebee, and this is one of them. I won't vote to just "shake up" things, because that was exactly why people voted for Trump. Shaking up things to bring in people with backwards or weak policy proposals should be verboten.

Mayoral control of schools was adopted to 'shake things up'. It allowed Fenty to bring in a flamethrower like Michelle Rhee to stare down the union and promote a pro charter agenda. That's the new status quo and it's continues to fail.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:SAVE MAYORAL CONTROL is basically Vote Ferebee. I thought that was what we were against?

Sadly, there are ideas worse than Ferebee, and this is one of them. I won't vote to just "shake up" things, because that was exactly why people voted for Trump. Shaking up things to bring in people with backwards or weak policy proposals should be verboten.

Mayoral control of schools was adopted to 'shake things up'. It allowed Fenty to bring in a flamethrower like Michelle Rhee to stare down the union and promote a pro charter agenda. That's the new status quo and it's continues to fail.