Sunday, May 17, 2009

Principal Moves

A number of principal moves have been announced. Schools with design teams are in bold.

Roy Merca from Summit is moving to AS1
Ernie Severs from AS1 is moving to Sanislo
Debbie Nelson from Sanislo to Jane Addams
Chris Carter from Jane Addams to Hamilton
Katie Cryan Leary from Hamilton to Leave

Dewanda Cook-Weaver from Lowell (SpEd) to McGilvra
Jo Shapiro from McGilvra to Assistant Principal at Hamilton

Wayne Floyd from JSCEE (he was working on the Southeast Initiative) to Loyal Heights
Cashel Toner from Loyal Heights to Leschi
Jo Lute-Ervin from Leschi to TOPS
Clara Scott from TOPS to retirement

Mia Williams from Aki Kurose (interim) to Aki Kurose (permanent)
Kim Fox from Bryant (interim) to Bryant (permanent)

Linda Robinson from Bryant to Whittier
Cothron McMillian from Whittier to Brighton
Beverly Raines from Brighton to Lawton
Ed Noh from Lawton to... ???

Greg King from T T Minor to Lowell
Julie Briedenbach from Lowell to Thurgood Marshall
Winifred Todd from Thurgood Marshall to Dunlap
Greg Imel from Dunlap to Bailey Gatzert
Norma Zavala from Bailey Gatzert to Concord
Sandra Scott from Concord to Hawthorne
Sumiko Huff from Hawthorne to... ???

Stacey McCrath-Smith from Meany to... ???

There are FIVE concerns with the principal moves that I have heard:

1) Lack of community input on the decisions. With the added bonus of a possible policy violation with the lack of community participation in the case of TOPS, an alternative school.

2) Several of the schools involved in the principal moves have design teams. What was the role of the design teams in these personnel changes and does this reveal the whole design team process to be a public relations sham.

3) Questionable motivations behind the principal moves. Is there an effort to move strong principals to weak schools and weak principals to strong schools. Why should ANY school have a weak principal?

4) A number of the changes are made after the principal has served in their current location for only a year or two. These rapid changes in leadership are de-stabilizing to the schools and staffs and preclude any long-term reforms or improvement efforts.

5) Some of these moves appear unnecessary. Instead of moving A to B and B to C, why not just move A to C and leave B alone?

Are there other concerns or topics worthy of discussion?

I will edit this post with additions, corrections, and updates as I get them.

47 comments:

zb said...

Weird. Looking at a list like that makes it sure look like someone is playing a game of "musical principals." Does anyone understand it? The Shapiro move seems voluntary (from the letter). Is that true for the other moves, too? Principals preferring certain locations/schools to others, and using their seniority/interviews to move to more desirable positions?

Keepin'On said...

Cothron McMillian from Whittier to ??

SE Mom said...

"Clara Scott from TOPS to xxxx"

Clara is retiring, she is not moving to another school.

kellie said...

Kim Fox was already the interim principal at Bryant for this school year so next year will be her second year at Bryant.

Linda Robinson was on sabbatical for the year so she is returning to the system and then Whittier.

Roy Merca from Summit is moving to AS1.

Ernie Severs from AS1 is moving to Sanislo

Debbie Nelson from Sanislo is moving to the new Jane Addams.

Jules said...

Our Super has sent a firm management message by not consulting TOPS staff or parents on the new principal. TOPS is the District's school, not the staff's or parent's school. The Super is responsible for organizing a community of schools, not catering to the existing mindset of any one school. I'm both impressed and pleased.

SPSMom said...

Jules,

Are you a TOPS parent?

momster said...

zb, as mentioned in the other thread about principals, the move of cashel toner from loyal heights to leschi makes a lot of sense because of leschi's montessori program - even though she has only been at loyal heights for one school year.

she has several years of teaching and head teacher experience in a public montessori, and also attended a montessori school for some years as a child.

it seems reasonable that when there are involuntary moves such as closures (carter) plus voluntary personal decisions such as retirements (scott at tops, apparently) and leaves (cryan leary at hamilton), in a system that only includes so many positions and people, there is inevitably domino and other effect that affects the entire system - including principals and APs seeking the openings created by the incumbents' personal decisions.

NESeattleMom said...

Isn't Chris Carter coming to Hamilton from African American Academy (not Jane Addams)

dan dempsey said...

Dear NESeattle Mom,

You need to keep a sharp eye on the bouncing ball as do I.

You may be right or not.

Chris Carter, Principal at AAA from 2007-2009; this spring the announcement was he will be one of two co-principals at Jane Adams.

Looks like only a forensic analysis of the dirt on his shoes will tell us if he ever made it near Jane Adams.

On paper Mr. Carter is coming from Jane Adams. As always real life in the SPS may be different than what is on paper.

Tom said...

I am sorry. I think I am missing something in the argument from Jules. Who's district is this? The "District" does not exist as an entity onto itself, and needs to be responsive to the children, the parents, and the staff. "Our Super" will be gone within a few years, leaving what is left to the students, the parents, and the staff. I'll still be here, and so will my children.

seattle citizen said...

Well put, Tom.

owlhouse said...

Add to that, Tom, that by appointing a principal with no community input, the Super is acting in violation to board policy C54.00.

I'm all for strong managers in our district. I'd like them to follow the rules, policies, protocols and laws put in place to govern the district.

From the district's "For Families" page, "Education is about everyone taking a vital role in the process—parents, school staff and community members—to create an effective experience for all children." Seems to me, the schools belong to, and are the responsibility of ALL of us.

Melissa Westbrook said...

Jules, I thought you might be pulling our collective legs at first but saying you're pleased and impressed, well then, I guess you are serious.

Let's take your thought further. The "district" doesn't exist except as a public entity. We the voters - we're the public. We own the buildings, tax ourselves to pay staff, etc. So it's not the district's anything.


Yes, Dr. Goodloe-Johnson can be as tough as she wants but it'll be a lonely place to be. Harshness doesn't inspire your staff or your teaching corps. It doesn't make parents trust you because it may only a matter of time until YOUR school is next. It only makes people mark time until the inevitable occurs - the superintendent leaves or is exited. Or, we once again vote off a majority of the school board.

You are right; she makes the decisions and while she doesn't have to bow to any "mindset", she does have to be aware that schools such as TOPS are successful because of the parents and the staff. (This does not mean she should discount ANY school's opinion, though.)

SPSMom said...

Melissa Westbrook said...it all,

There is no "district" rather a public entity, and there are policies that need to be followed, as set by the board. And there is a policy violation at TOPS and AS#1.

Jules, is this OK with you?

Charlie Mas said...

Odd. Still no news releases or statements on the District web site.

WS said...

Maybe because most if not all of these were announced three months ago? I remember quite clearly because we had the Sanislo move a few days before the district went public with the changes. This post from our site has the full text of the district news release issued in early February.
http://westseattleblog.com/blog/?p=14151

Tim said...

I guess I am surprised by all the controversy here. It seems like a district as large as this has to make changes and respond to retirements, closures etc. I really can't imagine having some months long timeline for input into these kind of staffing decisions. What would be the result? Plenty of staff paid to go to meetings (wasteful!) to hear input from a diverse and often divergent "community."

We are not one monolithic community with one idea - and as far as I can tell, most people are only getting involved (with the notable exceptions of some of the people who write in here) when their own idea of how things ought to be is threatened. If this communtiy were really going to come to consensus, then it would take a huge amount of time...

And of course, personnel records are not public. No way would this group of inputters be allowed to see what is in the personnel records - so the decisions they are providing input to, would be based only on hearsay evidence - gut feelings about effectiveness, and a few test scores thrown in - not boss to employee direct, day-to-day observations.

Why is it assumed that if there must be a "weak" principal being moved anyway? Also possible is that the staff themselves asked, for personal reasons, to be moved. Even possible is that they don't want to share that with the community. Or maybe the unique talents are better suited somewhere else...

I get that there is a lack of trust in the decisions of the district. I also can see why there is a lack of trust. But that doesn't mean that every decision they make should be opened up to a longer timeline with more input that in the end just gets more people thinking a bad decision was made and that they inputted but weren't heard. (Can anyone name a decision where all the parties walked away satisfied, regardless of ability to input?)

How many principal moves here? Minus retirements and building closures, in a district with what, a hundred schools? It seems like a small number overall...

Melissa Westbrook said...

Well, the district isn't one community and probably not even individual schools. And it is correct that we do see principal changes every single year.

However:

-I challenge the assumption that district staff know schools better than the people who inhabit them; namely, staff and parents. We know our community and how it works best (especially if it is one that is successful). It is not a waste of time to ask how the people who will feel the biggest effect feel.

-I served on a principal search committee and found it very useful. We were all capable people (including the two students on the committee - this was high school). We were able to use our differing knowledge of the school to come together and figure out what would serve our community best. It didn't take that much time (two meetings plus a training session). We did not base our decision on any hearsay evidence.

-what feels worrisome this year is the amount of shifting of principals. I haven't seen that before and it feels a bit like musical chairs. To first announce there will be 2 principals at Jane Addams and then decide no, and then have to figure out who goes where is confusing to the public.

-I would agree with Helen about how it turned out for Whittier. We had a great running school under Greg Imel and I truly believe he thought it could stay that way easily. It didn't. Whittier is still a good school but has had a lot of principal issues. That does hurt a school and it hurts morale. The belief that if a school is doing well, then a principal with not as much success will not hurt it is wrong. It's a gamble.

-"Can anyone name a decision where all the parties walked away satisfied, regardless of ability to input? That's true of any government decision. But in a democracy, the ability to hear about how decisions are made and give input is crucial.

seattle citizen said...

If even to receive input, community collaboration is important. Whether that input is acted on is another matter - The Supe IS "in charge," yet their are some constraints on her unilateral action, such as the Principal Selection Committees (which have offered community opportunity for input) and Board Policy C54.00, which states that "instructional, support and administrative staff are at the school by choice," indicating that they are not assigned but instead choose to be in that school.
Both of these things show that there HAS been community input and choice in principal selection; to have assignments made without any input is a change, and perhaps not a good one.
As Melissa says, the school community knows their situation: They can offer substantive rationales for decisions the Supe might then make. Someone wrote on this thread that it's a "boss-employee" relationship, that the Supe knows the "day-to-day" qualifications of the principals. Really? All of them? All of their skills? Don't they spend ninety percent of their time on site, rather than at JSCEE?

SolvayGirl1972 said...

Well said Melissa.

Perhaps Tim does not realize how much autonomy a principal has over the culture and policies of an individual school. Since the District has been allowing each school to develop its own system regarding everything from uniforms to recess, a "bad fit" principal can create a tremendous amount of turmoil in a school — perhaps coming in wanting to change how everything is done.

That can be a serious problem and does not even take into account the possibility of a "weak" principal. And Tim...there are, unfortunately, weak links in the chain of command at SPS.

Again, as one who has lived through a very long session of "musical principals" at an SPS school (NINE principals—including interims—in SIX years), the process can be devastating to a school community.

WV: thersti — we're thersty for change at SPS all right!

seattle citizen said...

Here's SOME relevant Board Policy:

Principals: Board Policy
E03.00 Revised March 1996
It is the policy of the Seattle School Board to cooperate with and to encourage involvement of Seattle's various communities, governments, and business and service organizations as partners in the educational process of the district’s students.
Reference: Effective Schools Seminar Report, February 1982
Cross Reference: E53.00 Priorities for School and Community After-Hours Use

E10.00 Revised Aug. 2004
It is the policy of the Seattle School Board to encourage and support family involvement in education, at home, in our schools and communities, and in school governance. The Board recognizes the diversity of family structures, circumstances, and cultural backgrounds and respects families as important decision-makers for their children’s education. The Board is committed to the creation and implementation of culturally inclusive and effective school-family partnerships throughout the School District and in each school, and believes these partnerships to be critical to the success of every student.
Reference: Effective Schools Seminar Report, February 1982
Leave No Child Behind Act of 2001 - 1118
Cross Reference: School-Family Partnership Procedure E10.01

F20.00 Revised April 1996
It is the policy of the Seattle School Board that the District is to encourage and facilitate the formation and ongoing functioning of school governance structures, such as, but not limited to, local site councils, leadership teams, and/or school management teams. Such entities will be formed to advise and work with the building principal/program manager and building staff in facilitating continuous improvement of student achievement.
The District will, within the limits of law, policy and human and fiscal resources, work with schools to provide the stability and continuity necessary to execute schools’ strategic plans consistent with each school’s needs and the strategic goals of the District.
Such governance structures are empowered and limited in function by procedures adopted by the Seattle School Board.
References: Board Procedure F20.01 – Establishment and Operation of school
Governance Structures
Board Procedure F20.02 – Specific Areas of Involvement for School
Governance Structures
Board Procedure F21.00 – Specific Areas of Involvement Reserved to the
District (Superintendent and/or Board).
Cross References: Board Policy C07.00 - Development and Implementation of Curriculum
Board Procedure C32.01 - Instructional Materials Complaints
Board Policy C43.00 - Teaching Methods

F20.02 Revised April 1996
Within Board policy and procedures, District guidelines, and State and Federal Regulation, and with exceptions noted in Board-Adopted Procedure F21.00, each school governance structure may have many areas of involvement. Examples of the areas are listed below:
....Staffing: A. Selection or transfer of the local principal and assistant principal(s).
The principal reports to the Superintendent or his/her designee. The
Superintendent, with School Board approval, has the final responsibility and authority for principal selection. All contractual and District policy, procedures and processes will be met. When a vacancy occurs, governance structures may send to the Superintendent their ideas and recommendations for the type of person to be principal/program manager of their school/program.
For transfers or new hires, the governance structure will be able, at their request, to interview potential candidates. Following the interview process, the governing structure will be able to report strengths and weaknesses of each candidate to the Superintendent and, recognizing that the Superintendent makes the final decision, may indicate which candidate(s) best fit the “ideas and recommendations: (see paragraph a.) previously submitted to the Superintendent.
B. Evaluation of the principal
School governance structures will be an important source of information to the Superintendent in the evaluation of principals and assistant principals, in accordance with the District’s process of administrator evaluation.

TechyMom said...

Does anyone know anything about Dewanda Cook-Weaver, who might be moving to McGilvra? Confirming the rumor would be great, but also anything about what kind of leader she is, what her priorities are, whether she's likely to be as supportive of the efforts of teh PTA as Jo Shapiro has been, etc.?

zb said...

When are school assignments going to come out? (I mean, for kids who participated in on-time enrollment?)

adhoc said...

School assignments are supposed to go out by the end of May. So, hopefully within the next two weeks we should hear something.

Rebecca said...

The SPS Enrollment home page says school assignment letters will be mailed on Wednesday, May 20.

Charlie Mas said...

Update on Cothron McMillian. She is going to Brighton.

Also, it has been circulated that Beverly Raines, the current Brighton principal who is moving to Lawton is only a year from retirement. This would mean inconsistent leadership at Lawton. That means all long-term projects end and none start for at least two years.

Monica H said...

Sorry to butt in, but I don't know where else to post this. It's about the design teams and their promises. I received this from another Lowell parent today...

"It has come to my attention that, despite being told otherwise, there is a chance there will be no "standard" classrooms for our kids next year. From what I understand, the Design Team is still considering creating all multi-age classrooms at the 1st and 2nd grade level. I have rather strong feelings regarding this, and before I talk to the design team, I thought it would be better to have an idea how the rest of the people involved feel.

There are several different classroom styles which I will briefly explain (sorry to those of you who already are in the know!)

Standard: What we have this year. Kids of varying abilities all the same age.
Multi-age: Kids from two different grade levels (in equal numbers). Generally the teacher teaches grade specific curriculum one year, then switches for the next. i.e. Next year the classes would be mixed 1st/2nd and the teacher would teach the science and social studies units from the 2nd grade curriculm (since we already did first grade) and the following year the remaining kids (now 2nd graders) and the incoming 1st graders would study the first grade curriculum. Areas such as reading, math and writing would hopefully be adjusted to each child's needs. The kids usually have the same teacher 2 years in a row.
Split: Kids are from two different grade levels-not necessarily in equal numbers. The two different grade level curricula are taught to their respective kids. Sometimes kids travel to another class to receive instruction in science, social studies or wherever necessary. You may have the same teacher two years in a row depending on if another split is needed the following year, and which grade the teacher teaches the following year. Often, schools try to ensure kids aren't in a split two years in a row, unless requested by the parent.
Looping: The teacher remains with the same kids for 2 years and the teacher teaches a different curriculum each year (1st this year, 2nd next). After the 2nd year, they return to the lower grade where the process begins again. Kids are all in the same grade.

Part of my concern regarding the Multi-age is the fact that I don't feel my kids were particularly challenged this year and I envision it being harder to do when there are 1st graders in the class. This is why I included the second question on my brief, 2 question survey.

I'd appreciate you taking a minute to fill out the survey so I can have more to go on when I next contact Greg and the Design Team.

http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=HDRh9bah9OvXzbpWHNoRAQ_3d_3d

Treena, Julita, Jana, Mark/Diane and Monica-if you know folks from your classes who will be at Lowell, could you please forward this to them, the more responses I get the better idea I have if this is worth pursuing. "

Are we being hoodwinked yet again? I feel like we've been played for fools....

hschinske said...

Dunno what's happening right now, but a bit of historical context: traditionally at Lowell children have NOT been in multi-age classrooms two years in a row. I don't know if that has changed recently. What used to be the philosophy is that they tried to make up the multi-grade classrooms based on grouping some of the oldest children in the younger grade and some of the youngest children in the older grade, so that as far as possible there would be not much over a year's gap between youngest and oldest, and their developmental stages might be similar. That is, the students would still need two different levels of math and so forth, but they would be as likely as any class to have similar levels of wiggliness, for similar discipline methods to be appropriate, that kind of thing.

Helen Schinske

hschinske said...

I'm not eligible to complete the survey, but how can "amount of homework" be judged from "strongly inadequate" to "very acceptable", even when content is judged separately? "Strongly inadequate" suggests that there isn't half enough homework, and many parents want to express the opposite, that there is too much homework.

Helen Schinske

dj said...

I am not sure how the Lowell parents have been "played for fools." I thought it was pretty clear throughout the various proposals to split the school that there was no concrete or promised up side for the students involved in the split and that there were a lot of possible down sides (multi-age classrooms being one that I specifically recall being suggested to respond to the fact that the split might mean that one school or the other would have half-empty classrooms, and we know that small classes aren't something the district will permit now).

dj said...

Oh, and now that I have checked out the survey -- I agree with Helen that the homework amount question doesn't permit easy answering, because in my view the homework amount is "too much" and that view is bottomed on the fact that much of it seems to be make-work; my six-year-old spends more time every week cutting out words for one day's homework than she does on the substance of the rest of the week's homework.

seattle parent said...

back to Principal Moves:

I talked to a longtime teacher today who reminded me that our whole district is in "Step Two" of the NCLB Act. This means that the district must start making changes to jumpstart their academic improvement progress.

Maybe some of the principal moves are related to this? I don't know, just asking if anyone knows the NCLB status of any of the impacted schools?

Charlie Mas said...

The District-wide NCLB status does not require the District to re-assign principals. It was a good thought, but that's not it.

I can't help thinking that if they just moved Winifred Todd from Thurgood Marshall to Hawthorne they could have left Greg Imel at Dunlap, Norma Zavala at Bailey Gatzert, and Sandra Scott at Concord. If they had just put Wayne Floyd at TOPS they could have left Cashel Toner at Loyal Heights and Jo Lute-Ervin at Leschi. If they had just put Linda Robinson at Lawton they could have left Cothron McMillian at Whittier and Bevery Raines at Brighton. Even if they had to move Ms McMillian, they could have moved her to Lawton and left Beverly Raines at Brighton.

Why all of the extra moves?

Another day and still no press release from the District.

TechyMom said...

If it were NCLB-related, wouldn't they be moving Karen Andrews at Madrona? (In step 4, likely to go into step 5 after this year's WASL is graded)

SPSMom said...

"If they had just put Linda Robinson at Lawton they could have left Cothron McMillian at Whittier"


Remember your post about Whittier several weeks ago, that is your answer there.

Also, we do not know how many, if any, of these moves were prompted by the principals themselves. What I hope is that all the principals are happy with their assignments because forced moves simply will not work!

There is no press release because they are still trying to figure out how to dance their way out of the Alt School policy violation, with the blessing of the board, of course.....or maybe the board will force the super to adhere to the policy which means two schools will need a new process!

emeraldkity said...

I have been on several principal /teacher hiring committees in SPS, when the school committee was able to have input into the decision-
Although the candidates that were chosen by the district were an uneven bunch- one I wouldn't hire to walk my dog- and a few others who just wanted in the district- not really a fit for our school.

The approved choice from that decision stayed three years.- I guess which is unfortunately typical in SPS.

Because our school had a unique identity, the school was promised better candidates next time, including a national search.

Unfortunately, the district didn't think they would have to make good on their word so soon, and the interview pool was pretty dry when we needed the next principal- BUT, even though we were assigned a " temporary" principal- we were also given the chance to meet and interview, in the case that the candidate was absolutely unsuitable.

A committee of teachers and parents decided that even though the candidate was clearly not an alternative educator and had little interest in becoming such, that she would be fine for the one year period- at which time we would again meet with the community to determine to resume the search for a principal or not.

It was a difficult year- given that the assignment was not permanent, the school community did not expect for the principal to attempt to dismantle longstanding programs and attack closely held values of the teachers/students and families, some who had been in the building for decades.

However- we HAD, been given the opportunity at the outset, to hire or not & we were given the opportunity at the conclusion of the year to make permanent or not.

We did decline to make the position permanent- and that has it's own story, but I can only imagine, if an administrator had been assigned to the school, without even the input that we had, how much bloodier it could have been.

Im not saying that the principals are poor choices- I don't know most- some I have heard of & think they could be a great fit- but teachers/families/students, stay in a school much longer than the year or two that some principals do and they are at least as important to the success of the school.
To behave as if their experience and insight is superfluous, is arrogant and increases the divide between those in the schools and those out.

Maureen said...

Why all of the extra moves?It sort of reminds me of how they move Catholic priests from parish to parish every five years so they won't develop too close ties with the families they serve. Is that the point; to remind them that they work for the District and not for the families or the teachers (as Jules' post implied)?

emeraldkity said...

If I was a cynical person- I would think that by moving principals around every couple years might be motivated by

thinking that Principal A would be a quick fix for School D- but either the school started moving either the " right way" and District then wanted to move the " magician" to another school
or seeing that anticipated progress was actually continued decline so needed to move them to a "better fit" ASAP-
or parents/teachers were starting to compare notes and build a case about the suitability of the hire- so the principal was moved before it could hit the papers.


In the past we have had to get at least a few principals out of retirement- in order to head schools- that bailed them out when particularly bad principals finally were booted-
but have they changed procedures so that only effective principals are still in the system or are they still holding their breath that " best intentions" means something?

Josh Hayes said...

I'm sure someone can correct me on this, but I have the vague understanding that principals - or, I guess, Principals - have their own negotiated contract with SPS. I further understand that there are seniority issues addressed in that contract -- so displaced Principals can bump others with less seniority, much as other certified professionals in SPS can.

In other words, this may not be down to the district directly, but rather, a consequence of school closures and related stuff.

Again: this is just what I've gleaned from conversations with other possibly ignorant parents, so dump a whole cup of salt on it. I'm as willing as anyone to impute questionable motives to SPS central, but I'm not sure this is (directly at least) their fault.

Melissa Westbrook said...

Josh, the principals do have a union (PASS) and I know less about it than SEA. And certainly school closures makes the situation that those principals at closing schools have to go somewhere. Maybe Charlie's query about "why move B if A could just go straight to C?" is about seniority?

But the speed and lack of any staff/parent participation seems discomforting. I guess it's because if you see it happening at someone else's school, you think it could happen at yours. If you are a part of the day in and day out at a school, you see the effect of a principal, good, bad or indifferent.

seattle parent said...

The contracts, including the SEA teachers and for the principals are all on the Labor Negotiations tab on the SPS website homepage.

http://www.seattleschools.org/area/laborrelations/cba.xml

Also, lots of interesting reading there about proposed contact changes from both sides.

Charlie Mas said...

We have, at long last, a press release from the District on Principal Moves dated May 19.

It announced:
Cothron McMillian from Whittier to Brighton
Chris Carter from AAA to Hamilton
Katie Cryan Leary from Hamilton to Leave
Beverly Raines from Brighton to Lawton
Cashel Toner from Loyal Heights to Leschi
Wayne Floyd from the JSCEE to Loyal Heights
DeWanda Cook Weaver from Lowell (Asst) to McGilvra
Jo Shapiro from McGilvra to Hamilton (Asst)
Jo Lute-Ervin from Leschi to TOPS

north seattle mom said...

So how many principals are there in the system? This looks like 20% of principals are moving this year. Is that typical?

SPSMom said...

So we can assume that the violation of policy for the Alternative school appointments is A-OK?

So, why have policies if that do not have to be followed?

Very diconcerning.

Charlie Mas said...

When policies are violated, it not only makes that policy meaningless, but diminishes the significance of every policy. More, it makes the policymaking body, the Board, meaningless.

The Board is supposed to make policy, which must include enforcing it. But the Board has no mechanism, no process at all, for enforcing Policy.

Take this example. Suppose that the Board insisted that the Superintendent get community participation in the selection of principal for TOPS. How would they do that? No one Board member speaks for the Board. They would have to vote on it. Can any of us imagine that? Can any of us imagine the Board voting to direct the Superintendent to follow a specific policy in a specific case?

Here's something interesting:
According to Policy B61.00, it is the superintendent's duty to "Recommend candidates for election as principals or teachers." but it is the Board's duty to "Elect principals and teachers upon recommendation of the Superintendent."

I think this has more to do with hiring than assignment, but it is up to the Board to interpret it. It could be read to mean that the Superintendent only recommends principal assignments to the Board, but that the Board needs to approve them.

mom2two said...

Anyone know anything about the abrupt move of McGilvra's principal a few days ago...
http://madisonparkblogger.blogspot.com/2010/01/mcgilvra-principal-is-out.html


http://madisonparkblogger.blogspot.com/2010/01/day-two-for-mcgilvras-new-principal.html

Charlie/ Melissa, do you know?
Thanks

waterweim said...

I wonder if anyone bothered to do a background check on Greg King and the circumstances surrounding his moves from Atlanta City Schools and Fulton County Schools' Hamilton E. Holmes Elementary.
http://www.wsbtv.com/news/14730384/detail.html