Part of me tells me they are oblivious, wholly disconnected from reality. They have no concept of the damage done to the community. I wouldn't let these guys manage a lemonade stand, let alone a budget of ~$140M
I agree. They don't think it is their fault. They should have apologized a long time ago. However, I am still hoping they will. The FB army is already starting to pounce ahead of the election and calling everyone who reads this blog MAGA.
Well, they've already done that but that's OK, they are entitled to whatever opinions they want to have - even if I disagree. I'm working on an opinion piece for here or the Roundtable. Everyone in Evanston should agree that we need functional schools that are not bankrupt. You can't do any of the equity stuff if you have no money or if the State takes over. This is not a zero sum game between "do equity work" or "finances" - you need the finances in order to do the equity work.
I know they don't like me but I'm hoping I can use my megaphone to help bridge this gap in the community - I have no beefs with anyone.
If they were really invested in equitable outcomes for kids they would be furious about how Horton fleeced the district, the increasing achievement gap, and how the district is driving money away from classrooms and into central office. It's nonsense.
Yes, this is what I'm saying! We've tried their policy prescription here and it didn't work. The disruptor guy who promised to solve all these issues just schemed us:
- He totally screwed up the Foster School Project, forget about the money: he promised the neighborhood a school and then did absolutely nothing and just left but plastered it all over his resume.
- He burned $2.5 million on a teacher residency program that absolutely screwed a bunch of mid-career Black folks trying to get into education
- He used his equity budget to give contracts to his friends, who then gave him consulting work in CPS.
- He used the capital funds to do stuff like buying fancy cars for the security team instead of .. building the Foster School.
Despite his constant insistence that he was equity forward, none of this stuff moved the ball on equity. And the Board was complicit in this by not holding him accountable at all.
IтАЩve been thinking a lot about the FB group I think youтАЩre referring to. ItтАЩs extremely rich of the five people who comment in that group to make any claims whatsoever about FOIA GRAS. That group is the most toxic public forum IтАЩve ever had the displeasure of being a part of. I stay in it because IтАЩm worried about the influence it might have over the board elections, given the sheer number of folks (albeit silent ones) in the group. Someone needs to step in. And IтАЩm quickly approaching a DNGAF mentality where I might just do it at some point.
A few things that really irk me about the existing one...
A) who elected the admins and mods? Are they representative of the 4500 members of the group or just a vocal minority that wants to have elevated position?
B) Those admins and moderators don't even consistently enforce adherence to the "Group Rules"...
-2: "Be Relevant" why are there so many posts around adult events that aren't specific to education and caregiving for K-8 kids?
-3: "No insults"...I see plenty of that going around!
-4: "Be Courteous. Create a welcoming environment. Use appropriate language and community standards for communication. No tone policing allowed and graciousness is expected" Absolutely laughable that this is a rule.
-5: "No Hate Speech or Bullying" The vocal few love to get into semantic arguments about what constitutes bullying, so I'll leave that alone, but the description of this one goes on to say "degrading comments about things like race, religion, culture, sexual orientation, gender or identity will not be tolerated." I've seen plenty of that be tolerated. Just because you use the spelling "whyte" in expressing your disdain and stereotyping an entire racial population of Evanston doesn't mean you're not making degrading comments.
-7: "Respect Privacy and Maintain Trust (Exceptions)" First, what are these "exceptions"? Second, the description says "What's shared in this group stays here". I realize I'm breaking that "rule" by making this post, but you also have some of the most vocal people on there saying things like "I HOPE a parent is screenshotting this to use it against you". The description also goes on to say "NEVER doxx, share anyoneтАЩs medical history, mental health status, **negative personal information** from elsewhere on the internet" -- oh, you mean like Lady Dog Whistledown didn't pull in negative personal info in from elsewhere on the internet?
-9: "Receiving Feedback - If you are the recipient of critical feedback and feel uncomfortable, stay calm and ask for clarification. Do not dismiss, belittle or mock." It is quite literally part of the playbook the shoutymcshouty pants posse to dismiss, belittle, and mock people they think have said something offensive, even if unintended.
Impact vs. intent doesn't give you carte blanche to be an asshole to people, full stop. But that's a big reason why, among 4500 members in that group, we have so little meaningful dialogue or community to show for it -- and why people seek anonymity where it's offered. For 99% of people it's not because we want to transact in racism, ableism, or otherwise attack or belittle marginalized communities. It's because so many people's concerns are disqualified or dismissed without being reasonably heard. It's amazing when you look at the admins, their "rules" they don't really bother enforcing, and their seemingly unwavering support for current/recent boards and admins, you realize the similarities between the two in how they selectively respect rules and guidelines.
Having never been a member of the FB group, what I donтАЩt understand is why people continue to post there, let alone engage in pointless arguments with what sounds like the group of trolls serving as admins.
Also, if itтАЩs not a D65 affiliated group, what is stopping someone from starting a splinter group?
I think it's exactly as Megan explained. Unfortunately, it's not as simple as just starting a new group. I think there actually is one. But there would have to be a more effective means of bringing people over from the one in question. So then you have this problem that certain people seem to have larger megaphones to an audience of 4500 people with a vested interest in D65. I think that number amounts to about 1/2 of the votes cast in the 2023 election!
Additionally, many who would otherwise comment there have come here for a similar purpose. Only real difference is we just have a comment section vs. having dedicated forums and threads not necessarily tied to a specific post Tom published.
It would also be helpful if a D65 parent started a new D65 Facebook group that is not beholden to a single ideological viewpoint. Many parents may be interested in a new forum.
Therapists did this earlier this month. ThereтАЩs a group on Facebook called TIPP (therapists in private practice). It became an absolute cesspool of ideological hate. Bullying or banning anyone who swayed from a very narrow worldview of who is the oppressed and how to navigate anti-racist/anti-imperialist therapy. It has 25k and many people did not join for the same reasons. Many joined to be up to date with professional news, updates, resources. Anyway, a group was formed called the NTIPP (new therapists in private practice). NTIPP is sooopoo much safer. There is no sudden crash of a discussion that derails the process of discourse into shame. ItтАЩs fascinating to feel the difference having been in both online spaces. Despite what TIPP says about NTIPP, itтАЩs not a MAGA playground. ItтАЩs just the information without the burning down of peopleтАЩs spirits.
If you start it, I recommend the New D65 Parents & Guardians. ND65P&G.
There is one! Been a little quiet lately but maybe that's because the other group has been occupied with other things and it's hard to spin the tsunami of bad news that keeps coming.
Absolutely. A notable plaintiff in a lawsuit brought against the City of Evanston has been using screenshots of people's comments on facebook ... to try to prove that there's a Global Conspiracy against him?
Truly unhinged and reprehensible behavior. As if something on a facebook group for D65 students is grounds for city commission members to say that a large community outcry is just "white people shit".
Specifically, Tone Police, there are screenshots in this lawsuit (which Tom has previously written about) being used from the Evanston CASE group, which is for parents of kids with special educational needs in the Evanston school districts. It takes a special kind of person to think it's ok to screenshot things from this kind of group and use it for their lawsuit.
IтАЩm hoping people in this community are finally seeing through the тАЬeveryone who doesnтАЩt agree with us is a racist, white supremacist Trump supporterтАЭ argument. ItтАЩs fascist and it doesnтАЩt get us any closer to solving these huge problems in D65.
And also like, there are very few actual Trump supporters here. I'll post about when the precinct data comes in but like .. there are probably more people running for the D65 board right now than there are Trump supporters in Evanston. In 2016, Gary Johnson got more votes...
Not to mention there were probably more third-party/write-in voters among that group of activists (which, that's their prerogative, but ironic to call everyone else MAGA). They also did this type of deflection during the Haven issues when a group of parents wore red in support of teachers to a school board meeting (newsflash, "red for ed" is a thing and not just for the GOP). It's also neither here nor there because none of the self-described equity-focused candidates achieved better outcomes for marginalized populations in Evanston and now they're all leaving the board, while many of the incoming group will probably pull things in the other direction toward cost controls and improving test scores. If we'd had more of a balance of interests on the board over the past 6 or so years we could have possibly had more oversight of finances/Horton's admin while advancing some of these other programs, collaborating with the city, NU and other community organizations. Compromise is not easy, but that's generally how elected bodies have to work.
How we got here is kind of on us - we're lucky to have this wide of a slate to choose from this cycle, and the current momentum is probably going to push things a certain way like you said. I don't think the answer is putting four people with an exemplary financial background up there simply to get us out of the red and I'm concerned about the notion of us going too hard in that direction. You want your board to be unified, but they should be a great blend of
...competencies, vision, ideas, and most importantly, willingness to clearly define criteria through which we should hire and evaluate a superintendent - and the administration they assemble.
I totally agree. I think having different competencies including education backgrounds, financial understanding, and management/ hiring experience are all helpful. An equity lens is key across the board, yet they also have to be pragmatic (if our finances are mismanaged, all kids suffer and disadvantaged kids suffer the most!) and be willing to probe things from admin on the behalf of constituents. Obviously there's no perfect equation, but I thought some of the current board campaigned differently than they presented on the board (at least publicly) тАУ there was a lot of moving in lockstep. I am empathetic to the stress that was brought on by our district being brought to national attention for certain things (like the pandemic reopening) and Chicago media (Haven, Bessie Rhodes) that exacerbated local tensions as well. (I'm cool with people using the media to get stories out like parents did, I just know personally it would cause me stress to be making decisions in that spotlight.)
Agree with a lot of this. I think we need to have more clarity on what we mean when we say "an equity lens". It's impossible to serve an entire population of kids with a goal of having all kids reach their full potential and have every initiative or offering materially close the gap. It seems like the e-word has been thrown around so much so that it's become performative instead of it being implied that it's simply woven into our areas of focus.
I also think we have to be clear how we're tying initiatives or programs explicitly intended to improve equity to some vision for what "success" looks like. Then we can identify which efforts are having the strongest impact and continue/grow those, while moving on from ones that cannot clearly demonstrate the desired impact. This doesn't mean we're "moving away" from an equity mission. It just means we shouldn't simply be blindly throwing resources at a major issue without any idea of how to determine if it's having the ROI.
I think a good example of equity lens is the City's stupid leaf blower ban. They passed this ban a few years ago and gave people requirements to upgrade all the leafblowers. Some big vendors invested serious money - more than $50k in electric leaf blowers, chargers, etc.
Then the deadline comes along and there are all these solo operation guys that didn't upgrade, so the City starts giving out last minute grants for people to buy this equipment, citing equity and racial concerns. But now the people who spent $50k to be compliant are like "what the hell."
If they had just frontloaded all this stuff by using their equity lens and doing outreach to the little guys early on, they could've avoided this kind of situation and saved money.
So, are the departing board members going to apologize to the community, or just walk away whistling from the wreckage?
https://i.imgflip.com/9awcz5.jpg
Part of me tells me they are oblivious, wholly disconnected from reality. They have no concept of the damage done to the community. I wouldn't let these guys manage a lemonade stand, let alone a budget of ~$140M
I agree. They don't think it is their fault. They should have apologized a long time ago. However, I am still hoping they will. The FB army is already starting to pounce ahead of the election and calling everyone who reads this blog MAGA.
Well, they've already done that but that's OK, they are entitled to whatever opinions they want to have - even if I disagree. I'm working on an opinion piece for here or the Roundtable. Everyone in Evanston should agree that we need functional schools that are not bankrupt. You can't do any of the equity stuff if you have no money or if the State takes over. This is not a zero sum game between "do equity work" or "finances" - you need the finances in order to do the equity work.
I know they don't like me but I'm hoping I can use my megaphone to help bridge this gap in the community - I have no beefs with anyone.
If they were really invested in equitable outcomes for kids they would be furious about how Horton fleeced the district, the increasing achievement gap, and how the district is driving money away from classrooms and into central office. It's nonsense.
Yes, this is what I'm saying! We've tried their policy prescription here and it didn't work. The disruptor guy who promised to solve all these issues just schemed us:
- He totally screwed up the Foster School Project, forget about the money: he promised the neighborhood a school and then did absolutely nothing and just left but plastered it all over his resume.
- He burned $2.5 million on a teacher residency program that absolutely screwed a bunch of mid-career Black folks trying to get into education
- He used his equity budget to give contracts to his friends, who then gave him consulting work in CPS.
- He used the capital funds to do stuff like buying fancy cars for the security team instead of .. building the Foster School.
Despite his constant insistence that he was equity forward, none of this stuff moved the ball on equity. And the Board was complicit in this by not holding him accountable at all.
Thank you for everything you are doing. I can't imagine how things would be in this district if you didn't start this blog.
IтАЩve been thinking a lot about the FB group I think youтАЩre referring to. ItтАЩs extremely rich of the five people who comment in that group to make any claims whatsoever about FOIA GRAS. That group is the most toxic public forum IтАЩve ever had the displeasure of being a part of. I stay in it because IтАЩm worried about the influence it might have over the board elections, given the sheer number of folks (albeit silent ones) in the group. Someone needs to step in. And IтАЩm quickly approaching a DNGAF mentality where I might just do it at some point.
A few things that really irk me about the existing one...
A) who elected the admins and mods? Are they representative of the 4500 members of the group or just a vocal minority that wants to have elevated position?
B) Those admins and moderators don't even consistently enforce adherence to the "Group Rules"...
-2: "Be Relevant" why are there so many posts around adult events that aren't specific to education and caregiving for K-8 kids?
-3: "No insults"...I see plenty of that going around!
-4: "Be Courteous. Create a welcoming environment. Use appropriate language and community standards for communication. No tone policing allowed and graciousness is expected" Absolutely laughable that this is a rule.
-5: "No Hate Speech or Bullying" The vocal few love to get into semantic arguments about what constitutes bullying, so I'll leave that alone, but the description of this one goes on to say "degrading comments about things like race, religion, culture, sexual orientation, gender or identity will not be tolerated." I've seen plenty of that be tolerated. Just because you use the spelling "whyte" in expressing your disdain and stereotyping an entire racial population of Evanston doesn't mean you're not making degrading comments.
-7: "Respect Privacy and Maintain Trust (Exceptions)" First, what are these "exceptions"? Second, the description says "What's shared in this group stays here". I realize I'm breaking that "rule" by making this post, but you also have some of the most vocal people on there saying things like "I HOPE a parent is screenshotting this to use it against you". The description also goes on to say "NEVER doxx, share anyoneтАЩs medical history, mental health status, **negative personal information** from elsewhere on the internet" -- oh, you mean like Lady Dog Whistledown didn't pull in negative personal info in from elsewhere on the internet?
-9: "Receiving Feedback - If you are the recipient of critical feedback and feel uncomfortable, stay calm and ask for clarification. Do not dismiss, belittle or mock." It is quite literally part of the playbook the shoutymcshouty pants posse to dismiss, belittle, and mock people they think have said something offensive, even if unintended.
Impact vs. intent doesn't give you carte blanche to be an asshole to people, full stop. But that's a big reason why, among 4500 members in that group, we have so little meaningful dialogue or community to show for it -- and why people seek anonymity where it's offered. For 99% of people it's not because we want to transact in racism, ableism, or otherwise attack or belittle marginalized communities. It's because so many people's concerns are disqualified or dismissed without being reasonably heard. It's amazing when you look at the admins, their "rules" they don't really bother enforcing, and their seemingly unwavering support for current/recent boards and admins, you realize the similarities between the two in how they selectively respect rules and guidelines.
Having never been a member of the FB group, what I donтАЩt understand is why people continue to post there, let alone engage in pointless arguments with what sounds like the group of trolls serving as admins.
Also, if itтАЩs not a D65 affiliated group, what is stopping someone from starting a splinter group?
I think it's exactly as Megan explained. Unfortunately, it's not as simple as just starting a new group. I think there actually is one. But there would have to be a more effective means of bringing people over from the one in question. So then you have this problem that certain people seem to have larger megaphones to an audience of 4500 people with a vested interest in D65. I think that number amounts to about 1/2 of the votes cast in the 2023 election!
Additionally, many who would otherwise comment there have come here for a similar purpose. Only real difference is we just have a comment section vs. having dedicated forums and threads not necessarily tied to a specific post Tom published.
It would also be helpful if a D65 parent started a new D65 Facebook group that is not beholden to a single ideological viewpoint. Many parents may be interested in a new forum.
Moderating that would be my personal nightmare
Therapists did this earlier this month. ThereтАЩs a group on Facebook called TIPP (therapists in private practice). It became an absolute cesspool of ideological hate. Bullying or banning anyone who swayed from a very narrow worldview of who is the oppressed and how to navigate anti-racist/anti-imperialist therapy. It has 25k and many people did not join for the same reasons. Many joined to be up to date with professional news, updates, resources. Anyway, a group was formed called the NTIPP (new therapists in private practice). NTIPP is sooopoo much safer. There is no sudden crash of a discussion that derails the process of discourse into shame. ItтАЩs fascinating to feel the difference having been in both online spaces. Despite what TIPP says about NTIPP, itтАЩs not a MAGA playground. ItтАЩs just the information without the burning down of peopleтАЩs spirits.
If you start it, I recommend the New D65 Parents & Guardians. ND65P&G.
There is one! Been a little quiet lately but maybe that's because the other group has been occupied with other things and it's hard to spin the tsunami of bad news that keeps coming.
https://facebook.com/groups/243765297320242/
Be careful because they screenshot everything. IтАЩve left almost every Evanston group for this reason.
Absolutely. A notable plaintiff in a lawsuit brought against the City of Evanston has been using screenshots of people's comments on facebook ... to try to prove that there's a Global Conspiracy against him?
Truly unhinged and reprehensible behavior. As if something on a facebook group for D65 students is grounds for city commission members to say that a large community outcry is just "white people shit".
Specifically, Tone Police, there are screenshots in this lawsuit (which Tom has previously written about) being used from the Evanston CASE group, which is for parents of kids with special educational needs in the Evanston school districts. It takes a special kind of person to think it's ok to screenshot things from this kind of group and use it for their lawsuit.
Are you guys talking about the Bird case?
Yes
That's a wild one
IтАЩm ok with that. It canтАЩt go on like this.
IтАЩm hoping people in this community are finally seeing through the тАЬeveryone who doesnтАЩt agree with us is a racist, white supremacist Trump supporterтАЭ argument. ItтАЩs fascist and it doesnтАЩt get us any closer to solving these huge problems in D65.
And also like, there are very few actual Trump supporters here. I'll post about when the precinct data comes in but like .. there are probably more people running for the D65 board right now than there are Trump supporters in Evanston. In 2016, Gary Johnson got more votes...
Not to mention there were probably more third-party/write-in voters among that group of activists (which, that's their prerogative, but ironic to call everyone else MAGA). They also did this type of deflection during the Haven issues when a group of parents wore red in support of teachers to a school board meeting (newsflash, "red for ed" is a thing and not just for the GOP). It's also neither here nor there because none of the self-described equity-focused candidates achieved better outcomes for marginalized populations in Evanston and now they're all leaving the board, while many of the incoming group will probably pull things in the other direction toward cost controls and improving test scores. If we'd had more of a balance of interests on the board over the past 6 or so years we could have possibly had more oversight of finances/Horton's admin while advancing some of these other programs, collaborating with the city, NU and other community organizations. Compromise is not easy, but that's generally how elected bodies have to work.
How we got here is kind of on us - we're lucky to have this wide of a slate to choose from this cycle, and the current momentum is probably going to push things a certain way like you said. I don't think the answer is putting four people with an exemplary financial background up there simply to get us out of the red and I'm concerned about the notion of us going too hard in that direction. You want your board to be unified, but they should be a great blend of
...competencies, vision, ideas, and most importantly, willingness to clearly define criteria through which we should hire and evaluate a superintendent - and the administration they assemble.
I totally agree. I think having different competencies including education backgrounds, financial understanding, and management/ hiring experience are all helpful. An equity lens is key across the board, yet they also have to be pragmatic (if our finances are mismanaged, all kids suffer and disadvantaged kids suffer the most!) and be willing to probe things from admin on the behalf of constituents. Obviously there's no perfect equation, but I thought some of the current board campaigned differently than they presented on the board (at least publicly) тАУ there was a lot of moving in lockstep. I am empathetic to the stress that was brought on by our district being brought to national attention for certain things (like the pandemic reopening) and Chicago media (Haven, Bessie Rhodes) that exacerbated local tensions as well. (I'm cool with people using the media to get stories out like parents did, I just know personally it would cause me stress to be making decisions in that spotlight.)
Agree with a lot of this. I think we need to have more clarity on what we mean when we say "an equity lens". It's impossible to serve an entire population of kids with a goal of having all kids reach their full potential and have every initiative or offering materially close the gap. It seems like the e-word has been thrown around so much so that it's become performative instead of it being implied that it's simply woven into our areas of focus.
I also think we have to be clear how we're tying initiatives or programs explicitly intended to improve equity to some vision for what "success" looks like. Then we can identify which efforts are having the strongest impact and continue/grow those, while moving on from ones that cannot clearly demonstrate the desired impact. This doesn't mean we're "moving away" from an equity mission. It just means we shouldn't simply be blindly throwing resources at a major issue without any idea of how to determine if it's having the ROI.
I think a good example of equity lens is the City's stupid leaf blower ban. They passed this ban a few years ago and gave people requirements to upgrade all the leafblowers. Some big vendors invested serious money - more than $50k in electric leaf blowers, chargers, etc.
Then the deadline comes along and there are all these solo operation guys that didn't upgrade, so the City starts giving out last minute grants for people to buy this equipment, citing equity and racial concerns. But now the people who spent $50k to be compliant are like "what the hell."
If they had just frontloaded all this stuff by using their equity lens and doing outreach to the little guys early on, they could've avoided this kind of situation and saved money.
Ironic, given they behave just like MAGA
When you behave autocratically, it doesnтАЩt matter if you are from the left or the right; you get the same crappy results.
My money is walking away saying тАЬDid I do this?"