Thursday, October 14, 2010

Washington Post: Chancellor of D.C. public schools Michelle Rhee resigns

This from the Post:
Presumptive mayor-elect Vincent C. Gray introduced Kaya Henderson on Wednesday as the interim chancellor of D.C. public schools and vowed that reforms launched under Michelle A. Rhee would continue when he takes office in January.

"We cannot and will not return to the days of incrementalism," said Gray, appearing at a news conference with Rhee, Henderson and Mayor Adrian M. Fenty, who will formally appoint Henderson at Gray's request.

Later in the day, Gray, the D.C. Council chairman, met privately with Henderson for more than 90 minutes in his office in the John A. Wilson Building. They were joined for part of the time by Chief Financial Officer Natwar Gandhi, perhaps signaling that Gray and Henderson are already grappling with issues related to the District's large budget shortfall.

Read the full story

54 comments:

  1. Now that Michelle Rhee is a free agent let's sign her to manage a new SFUSD team.

    We need a Superintendent with some vision, and that is not Carlos Garcia. While she has been stepping up to make real changes including union reform, SFUSD has been tinkering with the assignment system and promoting "joyful learning".

    Carlos Garcia is a nice man, but if he was doing a good job his administration would not be in a state of constant flux and rearrangement. Three years into the Balanced Scorecard most people still don't know what it is or why we spent do much money to implement it. They don't know what it is because there isn't much to know. It is bureaucratic banter that sharply contrasts with the real work that goes on in classrooms everyday.

    Parents spend a great deal of time talking about schools and working at the grass roots level in schools, but the fundamental decisionmaking in education is top down. The great majority of funding trickles down to the districts from state and federal coffers. The Central Office makes most of the important decisions for schools, not the principals.

    Can anyone tell me what Mr. Garcia's vision is for SFUSD? A wave of the wand, joyful learning and another placement round of musical chairs that costs the district untold millions. And for what?

    ReplyDelete
  2. I don't know about Michelle Rhee, but I agree with you when you say, "It is bureaucratic banter that sharply contrasts with the real work that goes on in classrooms everyday."

    I worked for this district for many years as a teacher at the high school level.I have never seen a superintendent and a board so ideologically driven as is the case at present. Schooling is a pragmatic business. You see what works and what doesn't work. The disconnect between classrooms and management has never been greater in this school district.

    Many people don't like Rhee for her anti-union pro-charter ways. You can't make an omelet without breaking eggs.

    ReplyDelete
  3. On further consideration - this is a big union town and the Board of Education is firmly in the pocket of the unions. No way could Michelle Rhee get a job here, nor do I think she would want it given the challenges of real reform for SFUSD.

    Consider just how much time, money and other resources have been wasted on the monumentally flawed student assignment redesign. If all that effort had gone to promotion of academic achievement we wouldn't need to continuously learn new ways to reshuffle the deck. That is to say, if the educational leaders behaved like educators instead of casino operators we might have a real shot a making the schools the number one option for most families.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I think Michelle Rhee may well be heading to Newark where Mark Zuckerberg just donated $100 million.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Funny how you anti-union types complain that the SFUSD is "ideologically driven" because they don't share your advocacy of charter schools.

    In fact, the evidence shows that charter schools do not perform significantly better than regular public schools and in many cases perform worse. In other words, supporters of charter schools are the "ideologically driven" ones, not the SFUSD--which on this issue happens to be weighing pragmatism above ideology.

    Some reading for you:

    "But for all their support and cultural cachet, the majority of the 5,000 or so charter schools nationwide appear to be no better, and in many cases worse, than local public schools when measured by achievement on standardized tests, according to experts citing years of research. Last year one of the most comprehensive studies, by researchers from Stanford University, found that fewer than one-fifth of charter schools nationally offered a better education than comparable local schools, almost half offered an equivalent education and more than a third, 37 percent, were “significantly worse.”"

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/02/education/02charters.html

    ReplyDelete
  6. Check out the test scores for Caucasian Arts Charter School:

    http://www.greatschools.org/modperl/achievement/ca/6355#CSTResults

    Hardly very impressive...

    ReplyDelete
  7. "Consider just how much time, money and other resources have been wasted on the monumentally flawed student assignment redesign. If all that effort had gone to promotion of academic achievement we wouldn't need to continuously learn new ways to reshuffle the deck."

    Ummm...wasn't it you and your gang of "neighborhood schools or die" group that complained so much and insistent on the redesign in the first place? And now, you are claiming the time, money and resources wasted? sheesh!

    ReplyDelete
  8. This isn't about charter schools, this about finding a leader with vision who gets things done. Rhee may inspire a lot of passion for and against, but a leader she certainly she is. How could San Francisco not benefit from someone like her?

    ReplyDelete
  9. She's a leader who massively alienated the very people who were on the front lines--teachers. Including many teachers who would be very pro-reform. A good leader does not alienate the troops like that.

    ReplyDelete
  10. According to the Examiner the school board already voted to extend Garcia's contract an additional year, so this is moot anyway. That should send Don Krause into a tizzy.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Diane Ravitch's comment on Michelle Rhee's ongoing assault against teachers:

    You can't win a war by firing on your own troops.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Michelle Rhee lacks several characteristics important for a leader, particularly one with an interest in long-term, stable change.

    Alienating the teachers and their union isn't the half of it. Her inability to coherently account for money, penchant for rude sarcasm and extreme hyperbole when talking to the press, aggressive courting of corporate sponsors, and racially-charged hire/fire policies add up to (at best) an exceptionally controversial tenure.

    Moreover, data that control for the changes in DC demographics - the district's students have become somewhat wealthier and whiter - show no student achievement gains.

    Michelle Rhee is good at self-promotion and certainly has a vision for education reform. She lacks the ability to coach new leaders, share her vision with stakeholders, and tolerate dissent. Ultimately, these skills are needed for real leadership.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Here's an interesting article in Michelle Rhee: http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2010/09/13-5

    ReplyDelete
  14. "wasn't it you and your gang of "neighborhood schools or die" group that complained so much and insistent on the redesign in the first place?"

    Answer : NO

    Fact check - neither I nor Students First had any influence on the Board's SAS. Students First didn't even exist as an entity until after the SAS was passed. If any pro-neighborhood voices made an impact they were the voices of individuals across the city at community meetings.

    But once Students First files with the Board of Elections and the measure goes public, it will begin to have an impact well before the up or down vote in 11/12.

    It was Carlos Garcia that offered the Board a more neighborhood friendly policy. This was probably the result of numerous pressures - from the CGJ, several court decisions (Seattle PS versus Parents Involved most notably) and the widespread nationwide movement towards neighborhood schools. But there is also the money issue and the big real estate interests that want neighborhood schools to raise slumping real estate prices as well as the big deals that would need to be made to build a neighborhood schools infrastructure.

    Re: Rhee - I'm neither pro nor anti charters. There are good and bad charters. It is a matter of whether to allow the State and the unions to have a monopoly on education. When someone here says that 37% of charters do worse, that is the same as saying that 63% do as well or better. If those anti-charters advocates like Caroline oppose them for their creaming, why then do they not oppose Lowell and SOTA that cream off the top 10% and remove them from the rest of the public education pool. Where is the outrage over that? There is no outrage because it isn't really creaming that bothers them. That is just the rational used to hide their advocacy for the status quo and union supremacy. Having sad that, I don't believe that the dialectic of the teacher in competition with the student is a valid argument in the reform wars, even if some pro-charter groups portray it as such.

    Lastly, I'm in no tizzy over Garcia getting another year. It certainly comes as no surprise that the current BOE would reward him further for his failures. But of course, his failures are their failures. And realistically , when have any public officials taken responsibility for their shortcomings? After all, this isn't Japan. But when will we find out what Mr Garcia will do to help the students of SFUSD? If anyone knows what he means by going "Beyond the Talk...", I'm all ears.

    ReplyDelete
  15. I don't oppose charters for their creaming. I don't inherently oppose charters; I oppose the harm that in their current incarnation they do to public education. I oppose the fact that they've become weapons used to attack and undermine public schools, to siphon money and support from public education; and to promote privatization of education.

    As to creaming, as a SOTA parent I'm not opposed to schools with selective admissions if they're open and honest about it, with transparent admission processes.

    ReplyDelete
  16. "The Caucasian Arts Charter School?" I don't think so.

    Don and his group of activist parents had nothing to do with what was offered. In some ways it was aligned with Students First, not because of it. That is because neighborhood schools are popular across community lines as well as is choice. Waiting For Superman, its merits aside, shows the interest in good community-based schools.

    The plan offered by the administration was an answer to the community outreach and a compromise to the six options. The PAC and PPSF reported to the Board earlier on the interests of the community and the support for schools close to home with opportunity for choice.

    The argument that Michelle Rhee is a leader that massively alienated her troops sounds akin to Barach Obama's Department of Education. If you believe teaching unions have too much power, it is only natural that she would run afoul of their interests. That criticism of her is not a valid barometer of her tenure. The teaching unions will decide who are your next commissioners when they pony up the cash to push some candidates over the top with mailer money.

    As for E. Rat's comments, getting corporate sponsors is suppose to be a good thing. We want philanthropists to participate. She says Rhee cannot tolerate dissent. Hello? There was no dissent until she came along. Until the SAS became an issue, do you see any effect dissent in SFUSD against the status quo? Just sheep and socialists like yourself.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Caroline,

    Hardy har har. I can't count the number of times you railed against charters for creaming. Change of tune?

    Why lump all charters together if you support the best of them? Overgeneralizing is not a form of inclusiveness. Not ALL charters are part of the charter school disinformation campaign anymore than all teachers should be held accountable for UESF's support for KSM for Board, past or present, for example.

    Many of the 6,000 charters nationwide have little or nothing to do with the aspirations of the Waltons or the Broads. It is a disinformation campaign in itself to say otherwise.

    Attacking public schools is one way to put it. Free speech,public outcry and child advocacy is another.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Geez, Caroline, I find myself agreeing with Don. Good Gawd!

    Being open and honest about the admission process doesn't make it right. What is truly honest and forthright about a SOTA process that favors the monied classes over those that can't afford the lessons required to pass the audition?

    I guess it saves SOTA the bad press when it inevitably dumps the flunkies back into the system.

    ReplyDelete
  19. "Ummm...wasn't it you and your gang of "neighborhood schools or die" group that complained so much and insistent on the redesign in the first place? And now, you are claiming the time, money and resources wasted?"

    In fairness, the high choice/lottery driven system wasn't doing what it was supposed to do - ensure diversity. Plus, as more of the schools upped their game, the political weight balance between choice-based and neighborhood-based allocation shifter. 10 years ago, Noe inhabitants didn't want Alvarado, but now the story is different.

    The new system preserves some choice while having a lot more certainty. It'll be simpler than the old system, bnu twill give only marginally better results for diversity and matching demand. That's just the maths of the situation - there's just not going to be a whole lot of people choosing Muir, but 2-3% of the districts capacity is at Muir.

    The reason charters like CACS or the old Edison school haven't got much traction is because of the choice system already in place. (The KIPP schools are a different story.) The ecological niche that in other districts is taken by charters in attracting high-SES families is taken by the trophy publics.

    ReplyDelete
  20. What certainly do you speak of? If you live near Alvarado you are going to have to wait and see how many seats will be left over after siblings, Pre-K and CTIP1 students claim their god-given right to a spot at your local school. Hardly a sure bet.

    ReplyDelete
  21. "In fairness, the high choice/lottery driven system wasn't doing what it was supposed to do - ensure diversity."

    Exactly. And why wasn't it doing what it was supposed to do? Middle class whites were benefiting from school choice instead of poor black and Latinos. That's why whites are screaming foul now. They lost their gaming rights to good schools and low mortgage payments.

    ReplyDelete
  22. "What certainly do you speak of? If you live near Alvarado you are going to have to wait and see how many seats will be left over after siblings,"

    You can't give choice and certainty simultaneously. You either tell folks in the Muir attendance area "sorry, you're screwed, you get Muir" or you give them a meaningful choice. Hence CTIP-1.

    For your neighborhood school you have priority after sibs, CTIP-1, and kids are SFUSD pre-Ks. If your school doesn't have enough room for all the neighborhood applicants, you get a bump in priority for other school *even if you don't list your neighborhood school*.

    CTIP-1 is 20% of the city, folks, and their preferences are going to be spread over 60-odd schools less what percentage of CTIP-1 parents send their kids to CTIP-1 schools. Plus you have 25% of the capacity in citywide programs. I guarantee the impact of CTIP-1 is going to be marginal on any individual school. The exceptions might be Alvarado (given it's popularity with Latins), Flynn, and Fairmount (because of their proximity to CTIP-1 areas). But there's no conceivable universe where Alamo or Argonne gets CTIP-1'd out.

    ReplyDelete
  23. I feel like Caroline is being unfairly dumped on here. I feel that she's been consistent about how charter schools effectiveness can be at least partially attributed to "creaming," (mostly by counseling out under-performers, but also by having a separate admissions process).

    Creaming works, as demonstrated by Lowell's success. But if charter schools are successful due to creaming, they should be honest about it. I don't think Caroline has ever been hypocritical on this point. Of course, a link to something she wrote saying otherwise would be welcomed.

    ReplyDelete
  24. First off I was utterly amazed that Caroline is now claiming she doesn't oppose charters for there creaming.

    Here is an example of something she said in response to Sharon Higgins on Change.org:

    "... a key point of our posts is that even if a charter school never actively turns away an applicant, it still creams for the higher-functioning, more-motivated students. Charter schools do not enroll the most troubled, at-risk young people who pose the greatest challenge to public education. And despite that creaming, they do not overall outperform traditional public schools. Some charter schools are excellent, just as some traditional public schools are."

    She has made these pronouncements over and over so I don't know what the deal is there. But she is certainly not being unfairly dumped on.

    I think Caroline makes some good points overall and is a knowledgeable advocate for public schools. This is probably some misunderstanding. She says she is not against charters in principle. The fact that there are hucksters trying to make a quick charter buck should not a be overstated as a condemnation of the entire concept. But a better solution would be to scrap the Ed Code and to let schools work in a less constrained environment.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Re SOTA and Lowell -- One could indeed oppose, on principle, schools that do selective enrollment. It's a valid point that if SOTA didn't siphon off many of the most committed artists, there would be more committed artists enrolled in other high schools throughout the district; and same point with Lowell. The countering argument is that these schools meet the needs of certain students and are able to offer higher levels of education (in arts or academics). Both arguments are valid. So that's my response to 9:52 -- yes, your points are valid. My view is that they are outweighed by the benefits of providing such schools, but there are two sides to this argument. So would you call for eliminating the selection processes for SOTA and Lowell (and the many schools across the country that are run the same way)?

    Don, I have definitely written extensively about charter school creaming. I vehemently object to the fact that they de facto/covertly cream, that they deny it and that they then proclaim themselves superior to public schools that don't cream. The quote you posted from a past blog of mine demonstrates exactly that. I'm just saying that your claim that I oppose charter schools because they cream is overly broad-brushed. I'm a vigorous critic of that and other things about charter schools, but it's not accurate to say I inherently oppose them.

    All charter schools, whether willingly or not, become part of the "charter schools are superior to those failing public schools with their lazy, failing teachers ..." story as told in Waiting for Superman, on Education Nation, in messages from the Obama and Schwarzenegger administrations, in so much of the mainstream media, etc. It would be so heartening to see some charter school somewhere publicly dissociate itself from that propaganda.

    ReplyDelete
  26. And Don, you actually call for scrapping the Ed Code? Would you replace it with anything, or just a libertarian party? Any monitoring of the how the unregulated, un-overseen schools were using public funds, or just take it on faith?

    ReplyDelete
  27. A very large piece of the Ed Code was scrapped when the legislature passed SB X3_4 in 02/09. Forty categorical programs wher effectively canceled and it is likely to become permanent. Do you hear screams from the education community? Most people don't even know what is SB x34 or a categorical program for that matter.

    It did all the districts a great service to be unleashed from all the state mandates. Of course I don't espouse just a free for all. But a simpler code for education would be a great start.

    I think you would also be quite pleased if we could unwind the immense power that the SBE holds over districts. No?

    I don't have time right now to address the other stuff.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Sorry, I have a general preference not for taking the scant private donations that Goldman Sachs is willing to throw to Chancellor Rhee. I'd rather they pay their taxes instead of engaging in the unethical tax dodges for which they are famous.

    I don't want private money in public schools because I believe they should be funded as a public endeavor, since they benefit all of us, including those who work at Goldman Sachs.

    ReplyDelete
  29. I never said that creaming or the lack of public accountability for it was your main concern against charters. My point was that creaming itself is not good and we apparently disagree on this account.

    I do not advocate allowing charters to do it whether they do so transparently or not. In that regard, I would never agree to allow a Lowell or Lowell-type school to operate as a creaming machine for this reason and I would be happy to see it gone. Removing so many high performers from the public pool does a disservice to all those who believe that schools and their students are best served in a academically diverse environment. Of course, saying this is anathema to all those that support an elite public high school and the special jobs it offers.

    Critics of this might say that AP effectively removes high achievers anyway. That is partially true, but just as a critical mass of unruly students can change the entire school environment, so can a large group of high performers. And to the extent that many high performers are gone, I'm sure it has made the rest of the schools more challenging.

    If Lowell didn't exist the AP programs would be strengthened district-wide and diversity would increase. As for SOTA I see that school more as a specialty program like immersion. That is another issue entirely.

    Asking charters to dissociate themselves from propaganda not of their making is asking a bit much. I have friends in charter schools in other areas that have no connection whatsoever to the shenanigans you speak of and hence no reason or inclination to speak out against them. I suggest you ask the board members to do that. And while they are at it they should commend those that are exceeding expectations.

    ReplyDelete
  30. E Rat,

    By that logic all the extra funding that comes into districts in the form of donations and services should be rejected. Do you think the kids who benefit from donations care where the money comes from? Just because you have a political agenda for what passes your smell test, that does not mean your students should be stymied.

    If the US DOE gives your school SIG money borrowed from China, a notorious human rights abuser, would you say no?

    I agree with the other person who had you pegged.

    ReplyDelete
  31. It's a little complicated to say that board members should "commend (charter school) that are exceeding expectations."

    To be thorough, they should first look at whether those charters:

    -- have vastly more money than public schools
    -- get incredible support from powerful and wealthy forces from all kinds, from the White House to Hollywood to the major mainstream media, all of which bash and demean public schools and their teachers while exalting charters
    -- vigorously cream for motivated and compliant students
    -- kick out the least successful students and don't replace them (the KIPP charters in San Francisco have more than 50% of their students leave -- did they jump or were they pushed -- between enrollment and graduation, and don't replace them).

    Should a school be commended for being successful under those circumstances? Maybe, but those things need to be on the radar.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Love: E Rat.
    Heartily tired of: Don

    ReplyDelete
  33. Caroline,

    Most people wouldn't be considering charter schools if they could get access to reasonably good public schools.

    It's that failure of the SFUSD to provide access that is pushing people in the direction of charters.

    Also, I think you should exercise full disclosure regarding your interest in protecting SFUSD pensions.

    Regarding the San Francisco charters: There are hardly any charter schools in the city. The few that exist don't get more funding than public schools.

    Creaming? What about E R Taylor? Isn't E R Taylor creaming funds from other SE schools? What about AFY? More creaming there, big time.

    So what exactly is your beef with San Francisco charter schools?

    ReplyDelete
  34. As it so happens, I don't approve of nonprofit donations to public schools, either. Given current conditions, accepting no strings attached philanthropic donations is quite different than accepting corporate money that requires Michelle Rhee remain at the helm of the DC school district - which is what Chancellor Rhee did.

    By all means, I think that you should absolutely consider me a socialist sheep. Beyond everything else, insults keep us all from the hard work of civil discussion AND give me good ideas for Halloween costumes. Win-win!

    ReplyDelete
  35. E Rat:

    I'm responding to your comments on the charter school thread as well as here.

    I asked you a serious question last night regarding the philosophy of Equality of Result vs. the philosophy of Equality of Opportunity.

    You didn't respond.

    Instead, you dismissed the discussion as "vaguely Darwinian".

    And here, you're going on about being socialist sheep.

    Most western social democracies attempt to guarantee some safety net across the board for their citizens. They try to implement a society of equal opportunity. Even that is a great challenge.

    Here in San Francisco, we do something else. We ignore the needs of the many and instead try to provide Equality of RESULT for a few on the bottom.

    It hasn't worked. Few are climbing up the ladder. The needs of vast segments of the city are ignored. It's costly and unsustainable.

    Your not a socialist. I could tell you a few things about real functioning compassionate socialism.

    I'd call you a dogmatic, narrow minded, utopian.

    Now get to work. I'm sure you can find a few ideas for your costume on original Star Trek runs.

    ReplyDelete
  36. And by the way, E Rat, most of us are putting together a Hallowe'en costume for OUR KIDS, not OUR SELVES.

    So, E Rat, do you even have kids, and have you had to get down in the trenches and try to scrape together an education for them?

    ReplyDelete
  37. The tax dollars for education is allocated to the schools - the majority of which goes to salaries - which in turn and in part become union dues - which in turn go into the coffers of politicians who do the bidding of the unions in return for their campaign contributions and votes.

    This money cycle turns your funding for education into a rigged political machine designed to promote the status quo and the powers that be.

    How much real education reform do you think you will get from those that aid and abet such a corrupt process?

    ReplyDelete
  38. correction 'are allocated'

    -before someone jumps down my throat for a typo

    ReplyDelete
  39. Love:Don
    Heartily Tired of : E.Rat, cowards and company

    ReplyDelete
  40. All the left can bring to the table is a demand for more money. The country is 14 trillion in debt. All the money in the world will not do for a child what a dedicated and disciplined parent can do.

    ReplyDelete
  41. E Rat said- "Given current conditions, accepting no strings attached philanthropic donations is quite different than accepting corporate money that requires Michelle Rhee remain at the helm of the DC school district - which is what Chancellor Rhee did."

    Does this mean you would accept the money under different conditions? Isn't this a moral issue you are making that pay-to-play is wrong? So under what conditions is pay-to-play right? E Rat, moral compasses are for sale under "services" on Craigslist.

    ReplyDelete
  42. I am so unbelievably bored with this blog right now.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Love: Michelle Rhee
    Heartily tired of: This Blog

    ReplyDelete
  44. 2:48/3:34: Your idol apparently has feet of clay. Deal with it.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Huh, 7:43?

    **Also, I think you should exercise full disclosure regarding your interest in protecting SFUSD pensions.**

    My husband is an on-call substitute teacher who isn't and has no possibility of ever becoming eligible for benefits, including a pension.

    Also, it's kind of lame to try to portray my opinions on education policy as being based on some kind of financial conflict of interest due to my husband's job, since I've been voicing roughly the same opinions for nearly a decade, and he has been a working teacher only since fall 2009 -- a career change that was nowhere on the radar until his previous employer's near-collapse at the beginning of 2009.

    I wrote this blog post on charter schools a year and a half ago, and it pretty much still explains my view:

    http://tinyurl.com/2dptxs8

    ReplyDelete
  46. I agree the conflict of interest criticism of Caroline is entirely bogus. It is one thing to disagree over issues, another thing to accuse incorrectly.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Tired of the complainers on the blog. Bored? Stop acting like a teenager and a trapped animal. There is life elsewhere. Go there.

    ReplyDelete
  48. As it so happens, no I'm not a socialist (although I do know the difference between apostrophes and possessives).

    Here's the thing: I absolutely disagree with all of your assumptions, including the ridiculous idea that San Francisco is attempting to create equal outcomes.

    So there is no point in me trying to dissuade you or even explain what I think; you will assume (as you are now) that I either am too dim to understand what you're talking about or that I am being inexcusably blithe.

    I have now said this to you at least twice, by the way.

    When California fixes the mess of Prop. 13, it will be time for all private money to leave the schools. Until then, no-strings-attached funding that enables me to give my students the education I deserve I'll take. There is no lack of moral compass in doing so - while observing that taking money from people who are stridently opposed to public education for all (the Waltons, for instance) as Michelle Rhee did is deeply problematic.

    I recognize that it is easier for you, Mr. Krause, to either intentionally misread what I am saying or just not read it at all. Regardless, your inability to respond to the point does not excuse your intolerable insults. I see no purpose in responding to any comment you make in the future.

    ReplyDelete
  49. E Rat:

    First of all, I'm not Don Krause.

    You've managed to stick your nose in on the Charter Schools thread and suggest that CACS somehow unfairly discriminates against racial minorities in their application process. That didn't go over so well.

    Now you're here, trying to suggest that *any* private funding to schools, public or charter, is tying your hands in the classroom.

    You're obfuscating about discussing my question. The city does not provide equality of opportunity.

    Listen to what Omar Khalif has to say. SFUSD policies have been so ideological for so long that they no longer have a functioning public middle school in the Bayview. That's really something.

    ReplyDelete
  50. The problem with this blog or any San Francisco blog talking about education, is that ANY anonymous comment made could easily be Don Krause speaking. He enjoys tremendously, creating dissent anywhere he goes just to get a thrill out of it. He has demonstrated over and over that he has no feeling for others. He's only about himself period.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Yes, blame Don Krause for everything.

    Let's not forget that after Don started posting under a google account, all posts claiming to be Don ceased. It is crystal clear that the same people who posted as Don did so just to throw gas on the fire. Now they claim he is the problem.

    I don't care what Don has to say. He has a right to say it without this concerted attempt to misrepresent him in public.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Any anonymous blog could easily be Don Krause? It could easily be anyone. What kind of stupidity is this?

    From what I've read so far it doesn't appear as if Don is dissuaded by this criticism. These kinds of personal attacks are what is wrong with the blog.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Second that. Isn't this the pot calling the kettle black? Very few people post in name so what right do they have to accuse anyone of identity fraud?

    ReplyDelete
  54. This is the reason people don't post in their own name. I give credit to those that do.

    ReplyDelete