She's Not the Only One
There was this funny/sad article in the NY Times about Blackberry manners in today's world. I had to admit that Dr. Goodloe-Johnson behavior at Board meetings with her Blackberry crossed my mind. Then I got to this part of the article:
"Still, the practice retains the potential to annoy. Joel I. Klein, the New York City schools chancellor, has gained such a reputation for checking his BlackBerry during public meetings that some parents joke that they might as well send him an e-mail message."
There's a thought - we could either text her during meetings or hold up newspapers and pretend to read when she starts talking and see how she likes it.
"Still, the practice retains the potential to annoy. Joel I. Klein, the New York City schools chancellor, has gained such a reputation for checking his BlackBerry during public meetings that some parents joke that they might as well send him an e-mail message."
There's a thought - we could either text her during meetings or hold up newspapers and pretend to read when she starts talking and see how she likes it.
Comments
Both Klein and MG-J are Broad Foundation Directors and surely Santorno would like to join the group.
Perhaps we could get some WA DC observers to watch Michelle Rhees and report on her Blackberry manners.
But, I can see how turning to another source (especially a teeny one that results in breaking eye contact, changing focus, etc.) during face to face conversations would be very distracting to the other person. They should stop, or figure out some way to try to get the same information they're getting via blackberry. My guess is that they are not shopping online during the meetings, but that they are getting the kinds of notes assistants would push over in front of them on paper in the olden days. They could return to that method, which would be less distracting
I'd be willing to stake a few dollars betting they're catching up on email, checking in on friends and family, making social appointments, all the things they'd be doing at home from 5-10pmish if they didnt have to do this pesky community engagement thingy...
I am shocked at your response.
Here I thought that MG-J was sending out emails to Senior Staff and others as to who was going to respond to each person testifying and appropriately follow up on the items brought up in each public testimony. We were guaranteed that would be happening.
Don't you think that is the case? ..... well call me gullible.
Here is the thing for me, a lot of times the public testimony is painful for anyone to sit through, uniformed, and repetative. I would much rather have the Sup earning her money by doing things during those two hours than sitting there doing nothing. But that is just me.
It's a public hearing. In this context, texting circumvents the fact that it's public, unless everything furtively conveyed between the players makes it into the record.
I stepped just outside the double doors and was literally pounced on by Ruth Medsker (?sp) and another woman I didnt know/recognise and told that the information I had delivered in my testimony was wrong... the information came from our principal and I was sure I had quoted him directly and correctly. They implied he had lied...
Several days later, I was speaking with another principal and he confirmed the information conveyed to me by our principal was accurate and that all school staff had been emailed the same information...
I was so mad - they were obviously upset that I had brought forward into the public arena discrediting information that was not necessarily widely known and they were in 'damage control' mode... and they were single-mindedly tunnel-visioned and insensitive enough to make it hard for me to take care of my child's needs - I had to insist several times as they were pushing themselves at me/us that we needed to find a bathroom NOW....
Because of this and numerous other examples on the part of Staff and the Superintendent and to a lesser degree the Board, I have no trust and very little respect left...
I dont believe and accept anything that's presented now at face value... I need to check and confirm for myself... and what a sad state of affairs that is when the public have no faith left in the public servants that are supposed to protect and act in the best interests of a powerless, vulnerable population - children/students, who are totally at the mercy of whatever the adults determine and do.
I listened to the programme this morning, and was idly wondering why and how such a large divide has been created between what parents think are changes that need to be made for the better, and the changes being pushed by the Super and the Board...
The changes are so far away from internationally-recognised research and reform implemented successfully in other countries that what's going on here makes no sense, UNLESS there is another agenda operating under the surface...
I wondered if it would be a worthwhile exercise to assemble information/research about effective education reform and school-based management and examples of where its been implemented and the outcomes (pros and cons) and compare it to what the Broad Foundation and Gates et al propose and promote... and see for ourselves what really is going on here in Seattle...
And IF what's going on is obviously aligned with the Broad/Gates path, perhaps even verifiably directly influenced by these groups, then maybe we can take action (legal) action to stop this before it becomes a fait accompli....
What do you think?