Posts about Michelle Rhee

Rhee reassigned Pope away from his position as principal of the successful Hardy Middle School in May 2010 over the objections of many parents, teachers and students. We now know that this issue was in her mind when she made that decision.

Instead, Rhee tasked Pope with designing and eventually leading a new arts-focused magnet middle school that was to open in Fall 2011. Design and funding concerns have delayed the new school's implementation for a year.

Hardy Middle School, located at the northern edge of Georgetown, draws 85% of its students from the out-of-boundary lottery. Only 15% of its students come from within its boundary of Georgetown, Burleith, Glover Park and Palisades. 75% of its students are black, while the surrounding neighborhoods are much more white.

The debate over reassigning Pope

Pope's supporters have mounted a vocal campaign to return Pope to Hardy that continues to this day. While some of Pope's support has come from in-boundary parents, the vast majority of those testifying at hearings and leading the campaign for Pope's reinstatement are out-of-boundary parents.

These parents have claimed that Rhee's removal of Pope as principal was an attempt to "whitewash" the mostly black school by replacing him with a principal who will reach out to in-boundary families. As evidence, they point to a meeting Rhee held with parents of students attending Key Elementary, in the Palisades, which feeds into Hardy. The subject of the meeting, held at a private home in the Palisades, was the dissatisfaction of Key parents with Hardy.

Rhee and her staff never publicly explained what, if anything, Rhee wished that Pope had done differently at Hardy. This silence left a void that has been filled with the claims of Pope's supporters that Rhee removed Pope because he wouldn't reach out to in-boundary, usually white, parents of elementary school children to recruit them to attend Hardy.

It now appears that, while Rhee and her deputies viewed Hardy Middle School as unwelcoming to in-boundary white students, they viewed it as far more unwelcoming to poor students. Rhee and her staff were convinced that Pope was filtering out poor students when selecting out-of-boundary applicants.

The lottery and a principal's discretion

Children enrolled in DCPS get automatic admission to the school whose boundary includes their home. If a school has more spaces than the principal's projection of in-boundary student enrollment, it conducts a lottery for students from elsewhere in the District to make up the difference.

DCPS conducts the lottery, whose process doesn't consider a student's race, income level, or academic ability. However, there is also a waitlist for students who don't get admitted through the standard lottery, and principals have much more leeway there.

Furthermore, it's up to the principal how many out-of-boundary spaces to make available through the lottery. The fewer lottery spaces, the more students will need to be pulled from the waitlist. It's this waitlist process which education officials believed Pope used to admit students from more well-off families.

While Hardy had been a typical neighborhood school when Pope became principal, Pope added an arts focus to Hardy and instituted a special application process that included a site visit by applicants.

Most principals select out-of-boundary students off of their waiting list in the order in which they entered the waitlist, that is, blind. Parents have often wondered if Pope selected out-of-boundary students blind as well, or if he used information from the application process to cherry-pick certain students off the out-of-boundary waitlist.

Education officials, Whitmire says, became convinced that Pope was doing just that:

To Rhee and her staff, it looked as if Pope's student selection process at Hardy weeded out lower-income black children who might not fit in (read: be disruptive) and possibly even special education students.

Whitmire spoke with Pope, and writes that "Pope takes strong exception to the suggestion that his application process discriminated against any students."

However, the conclusion of Rhee's staff was that "a selection process that separates out the 'wrong' sort of black families, as Rhee and her staff concluded Pope was doing, was just wrong."

Why prefer out-of-boundary, well-off students?

Why would a principal try to increase admissions of out-of-boundary students, particularly out-of-boundary students that are economically advantaged?

According to the former DCPS official, a common problem in big city school systems is principals who try to fill up their buildings with out-of-boundary students in order to reduce complaints from parents.

In-boundary parents often feel more entitled to complain about teachers, curricula, and other school conditions. Out-of-boundary students and their parents, on the other hand, tend to be more appreciative of the opportunity to attend the school.

Why would a principal go even further and filter low-income students out of the out-of-boundary waitlist? Low income students do have a greater likelihood of creating disciplinary problems. Reducing their numbers would help a principal to improve discipline at the school. That would also build even more support from the other parents.

The concern of many DCPS officials, in other words, was this. By transforming Hardy Middle School into a haven for economically-advantaged African-American students, Pope was able to deliver discipline and academic results that pleased previous superintendents while making entitled in-boundary parents, and poor students, problems for other principals to deal with.

It's unclear if Pope received permission from DCPS to base his out-of-boundary waitlist selections solely on information from his admissions process, or whether the process was intended by DCPS merely to set expectations of out-of-boundary students.

The former DCPS official suspects that former superintendents didn't ask many questions about the admissions process because Pope was known as a principal who was in control of his building. Rhee and her staff, however, saw the demographic data, according to Whitmire, and started asking questions.

A look at the data

A look at demographic data for DC schools lends support to this claim, while it also raises questions about whether weeding out poor students was Pope's intent or simply the effect of running a de facto magnet school.

No middle school in DC has as large a gap between the percentage of African-American students and the percentage of economically disadvantaged students as Hardy Middle School. Students are typically classified as economically disadvantaged if they qualify for free or reduced price lunches.

The percentage of low-income students is generally closely correlated with the percentage of African-American students at DC schools. The other 9 Grade 6-8 schools admit on average 87% as many low-income students as black students.

Hardy, on the other hand, had 420 students in the 2009-2010 school year, 312 (75%) of whom were African-American and 170 (41%) of whom were low-income. Hardy thus admits only 54% as many low-income students as black students.

If Hardy admissions looked like the other 9 schools, low-income students would make up 272 students, or 65% of the student body. This is a far higher increase of students (102 students, or 24%) than any expect to see from in-boundary students in the near future, and one that would mostly result from only 3 years of blind admissions.

Is there a reasonable explanation for this unique disparity at Hardy Middle School? One possible explanation is that any school with an admissions process is going to weed out poor students.

In fact, a look at Washington's magnet high schools shows demographics similar to that of Hardy Middle School.

Perhaps the unique demographics of Hardy were not the result of any specific intent to make poor students another principal's problem. Perhaps they were the unintended effect of using an application process to select students off of the Hardy waitlist with the best essays and in-person interviews.

The future of Hardy and Pope

Leaders of the campaign to reinstate Pope at Hardy complain about a rise in disruptive behavior and a drop in commitment to the arts program in the current school year.

It's revealing to note, however, that the current year's admissions waitlist was managed last summer not by Pope, who had been reassigned by then, but by his successor. Is this change simply a result of Hardy becoming more welcoming to economically disadvantaged students?

Leaders of the campaign to reinstate Pope also argue, as noted above, that the removal of Pope as principal of Hardy was an attempt to make Hardy more acceptable to in-boundary white families. Ironically, however, the change to a blind admissions process will make that more difficult.

Admitting students more randomly will likely increase the number of poor students at Hardy by up to 100 students in only 3 years. Sadly, that would statistically also increase the number of disciplinary problems, likely making Hardy less appealing for parents choosing between Hardy and private schools.

Is this right or wrong?

Should a middle school that had been open to out-of-boundary students regardless of economic status have been transformed into one disproportionately closed to poor students?

Should the plea of Pope's supporters to maintain this system be denied for reasons of economic equity?

The big difference between the magnet high schools mentioned above and Hardy is that the magnet schools were created as magnet schools, whereas Patrick Pope transformed Hardy, with some degree of DCPS approval, into a de facto magnet school.

Given the dire state of child poverty, which is a moral stain on our city, this seems like a bad idea. A better idea would be to create a new middle school that is explicitly a magnet school, thus increasing educational options for all students. This is, in fact, exactly what Chancellor Henderson says she is doing.

The new magnet middle school will be the first in the DC school system. Placing Pope at the helm of the new school would leverage his real strengths in building magnet schools versus running a standard neighborhood school. Chancellor Henderson's plan with regard to Hardy and a new magnet middle school thus enables us to focus on increasing educational options for all children regardless of race or economic status.

During her tenure, Rhee did make efforts to listen to the community and hear from parents, teachers, and principals. Although the media spin paints her as completely disconnected from the ground level, she and her staff did spend a hefty amount of time outside the central office.

I'm glad that she isn't crawling away into the shadows. Her ability to grab the spotlight helped her fundraise and drew well-deserved attention to the issues facing our schools.

The problem is that her mantra of putting the needs of students before the needs of grown-ups is too polarizing. You're either with her or against her. And while her action-oriented leadership may have its benefits, it doesn't leave much room for those who may have a different (but potentially valid) perspective towards what's best for their children.

For the most part, I found myself agreeing with those who suggested that her vision might be well intentioned but overly simplified, failing to deeply examine what it is that she's promoting and the nuances behind her claims. The type of education that she'd like students to have can't be boiled down to test scores, or a glut of bad teachers, or vague notions of equal access.

The issues are more complicated than her mission allows us to explore. How can I sign up to support her cause if I'm unable to understand exactly what she's intending to do, other than raise money and generate additional rhetoric?

If she can achieve her goal of gaining a million supporters and raising a billion dollars in just one year, she will certainly have solidified her image as a powerful force within education reform. A piece of me hopes that she will be successful. After all, I'm happy anytime the country starts to care more deeply about the type of experience students are having within our schools, or tries to energize others around these problems.

Her famous quote that "collaboration and consensus-building are quite frankly over-rated" recognizes that waiting around to get every last person on the same page can greatly impede progress, especially when trying to get past self-serving interests. But is she the right person to transition into a grassroots advocacy role, after earning a reputation as a tough-as-nails executive?

Here's what I'd like to see her do, improving on areas where she fell short within DC:

• Generate conversation with like-minded organizations. I don't see many solid partnerships prominently listed on her site, which screams "trail-blazer" much more loudly than anything else.

• Channel funds towards boosting the infrastructure of school districts that are ill-equipped to maximize the value of the information they are collecting, fully implement promising initiatives, and operate more efficiently.

• Encourage ongoing collaboration with research and evaluation experts that can help her understand the evidence for or against policy decisions, rather than taking data at face value.

• Follow through on her emphasis on parental and community engagement, showing the world that she's more willing to connect than they might think.

For right now, however, my mouse will continue to hover over the "join" button on her home page, waiting to see how her big announcement plays out. I'll keep my fingers crossed that it ends up benefiting kids everywhere.

Gray has steadfastly refused to talk about appointments, except for assuring everyone that he would fire Peter Nickles. That's probably the smart move from his standpoint; Presidential candidates refuse to talk about Cabinet appointees too. However, it also complicates our task of choosing.

At least we have a pretty good idea of who would run departments if Adrian Fenty is reelected, though it's worth keeping in mind that we don't even know for sure that Fenty will keep all his people. Traditionally, all members of the cabinet resign after a mayor is reelected, so he can select his new cabinet members. We have no reason to think he'll replace anyone in particular, but he might.

Most discussion here has revolved around Harriet Tregoning, Gabe Klein, and Michelle Rhee. I'll try to read the tea leaves for you on all three.

When we spoke, Gray had glowing things to say about Harriet Tregoning. And no, I don't think he was just telling me what I want to hear, since Gray has said similar things in the Council. His description of Tregoning's strengths also resemble many of the qualities he's said he wants in a cabinet appointee, so there's a good hope he might try to keep her on.

In fact, maybe he could promote her. What if Gray made her the deputy mayor for planning and economic development? She's doing a great job with planning. Her agency already meets the gold standard on process, which Gray would insist upon, but they also still achieve tangible results like Fenty touts. I believe that results and inclusive, communicative process needn't be mutually exclusive; today's OP is living proof of that.

Gray has made positive comments about the work Michelle Rhee has done, though he's also said school reform has to be bigger than any one person. That's probably true, though changing horses could also introduce opportunities to derail reform. Gray might well ask Rhee to stay but only if she's willing to work a little on interactions with the public. Edited to add: Rhee has said she wouldn't stay if Gray were elected, but it's not clear whether that's just an empty threat meant to help Fenty, or not.

One Gray staffer familiar with the Fenty cabinet suggested that perhaps Rhee has learned some of her more controversial behaviors, like refusing to meet with people, from the Mayor himself. Rhee was new to high-level government work when she joined the Fenty Administration (as was Gabe Klein), and therefore, this person noted, she hasn't had other role models. Might Rhee (and maybe others) be becoming more arrogant than necessary under Fenty's tutelage?

Speaking of Gabe Klein, what about DDOT? There, we have less to know as Gray hasn't worked directly with Gabe Klein much. Commenter jeff worries that Sarah Campbell could become DDOT Director. She replied that she doesn't want the job.

Of course, even if she's not DDOT Director, she might end up with a role over budgets, like she has today, including over transportation. However, Gray is pretty unhappy with how the streetcar saga played out, which will hopefully influence that decision. Plus, she's not a one sided caricature; she's done some good work on the Council's budgets and pushed for some good outcomes along the way as well.

Others on Gray's staff, like legislative counsel Rob Miller who also represents Gray on NCPC, are excellent, and should be part of a possible Gray administration. Another official not affiliated with Gray pointed out to me that if Gray gets elected, people like Rob will also be in a position to mentor the new Council chairman's staff, most of whom will be new and might not see very strong leadership from the new chairman himself.

Unfortunately, the potential Gray appointments have to remain a big question mark. We know who we'll get with Fenty, some good, some not so much. We have a few hints about who we might get with Gray, but we'll have to vote without solid knowledge.

I titled this series, "Should urbanists be nervous about Vince Gray?" Ultimately, I would say we should not be. There are some unknowns, but there are also many promising signs. The race is very close, and if Gray should win, I am optimistic that he would continue the progress DC has made.

Therefore, we have two candidates who would maintain forward momentum. Which to vote for? Next week, I'll talk about Adrian Fenty and my conversation with our incumbent Mayor.

1. What really happened with the streetcar funding?

2. Gray says he supports streetcars. Does he "support streetcars" like the Committee of 100 and Phil Mendelson support streetcars (only if they have absolutely no impact on any views, anyone's parking, slow down any drivers, or annoy a single person), or does he really, actually support them?

3. Gray has talked about wanting more planning. If he's Mayor, would Gray maintain the momentum toward projects like the streetcar and simply add some more public communication and/or creation of planning documents, or would the planning slow down the process?

4. Would Gray have handled bike lanes differently? Would fewer have gone in because there would have had to be a longer and slower planning process? Or would stakeholders have been able to participate more in the design of lanes like the Pennsylvania Avenue bike lane?

5. Would Gray have handled sidewalks differently? Would he have intervened in DDOT's decisions in cases like the sidewalks in North Portal Estates, where Fenty overruled DDOT for political reasons?

6. Gray is from a fairly car-dependent part of Ward 7. Fenty is from a fairly car-dependent part of Ward 4. Both probably have neighbors whose reaction to bike lanes is to oppose anything that interferes with car flow. Is that Gray's view?

7. Would Gray keep Harriet Tregoning? Or promote her? What about Gabe Klein?

8. How supportive is Gray of Smart Growth? Would he push to add housing opportunities and retail around Metro stations? Would he stand firm despite opposition from the perennial opponents of such measures?

9. Many groups and individuals who traditionally spend most of their effort opposing growth and change rather than supporting a certain vision for growth and change are supporting Gray. Will that support make him obligated to stop projects they don't like?

10. Under Mayor Fenty, DMPED often pushes to get development projects done quickly, but often at the expense of getting a good project that will work with the long-term needs of DC. How would Gray balance the need to get development done with the fact that, once done, projects will be around for 50 years or more?

11. Mayor Fenty is widely criticized for the way he makes appointments to board and commissions, selecting fellow triathletes and/or developers for zoning positions, for example. How would Gray approach appointments?

12. Would OCTO under Gray keep getting small yet tangible projects completed which add value for people, like Where's My Bus and the open source feed of Circulator positions, which OCTO achieved with minimal time and resources?

13. No discussion is complete without education. Many younger residents of DC feel that regardless of tone or appearances of impropriety, the Mayor's number one job is to improve the schools in time for their young children or future, unborn children to be able to get a good education in public schools. Would Gray put any of that momentum in jeopardy?

14. If Gray becomes Mayor, what is his vision for how the District would be different in 20 years?

Are there other questions on your mind? What do you think about Gray in these areas? Next, I'll describe the answers I received as well as what I believe thus far would happen under a Gray administration.