Wednesday, May 11, 2011

Support For Martin Floe

From IHS PTSA:

For Supporters of Martin Floe there will be a demonstration of support at the Stanford Center on Thursday 5/12 at 5:15 p.m.  Enfield deigned to give the community one 15 minute face-to-face meeting with parent and faculty representatives.

FYI (Charlie alerted me to this):

From School Board Policy B61.00:

"The Board of Directors shall:...

Elect principals and teachers upon recommendation of the Superintendent."

The Board retains final authority to hire principals.

In addition, the Board has ALL of the duties, authority and responsibility. They LEND some of those duties and authority to the superintendent, but they reserve the right to recall any or all of those duties and authority.

So, if Floe appeals, it will be the Board who decides.  There are 4 people who, I believe, want to be reelected and they are basing a decision on an interim superintendent's input.  

They might want to think long and hard about this decision.

Posted by at
Labels: , , ,

23 comments:

RogerReadyRanger said...

Thank you Melissa. The power of blogs and social media has never really been apparent to me until this process. The FB page "Friends or Martin Floe" has over 800 members in under 24 hours.

5/12/11, 5:36 AM
KG said...

Maybe these 800 could get excited about the fact the District is cutting many of the elementary school counselors, which is far more important than one principal being removed.

Well I guess that is not going to happen, since the SEA president did not even send their members a membership action to come and protest this decision on behalf of the employees who are the very safety net for the children.

Just a thought.

5/12/11, 6:20 AM
RogerReadyRanger said...

I am outraged. The Seattle Times article quotes Dr. Enfield as saying "looking at the data, we knew it (Ingraham) could be better." They fired a principal who had years of good performance reviews based on some unidentified data? There are three primary questions for Dr. Enfield. 1) Precisely what data did you rely on and what did it show? 2) Specifically how do you envision Ingraham getting better? 3) Did you consider whether abruptly removing a long time, well beloved leader from a school might make that school substantially worse?

Dr. Enfield also says she'll meet with us, if invited. Shortly, she will receive a formal invitation to an Ingraham community meeting to be held on one of the following dates: May 16, 17, 19, 23 or 24 in the evening at Ingraham's library. We will let you know which date she accepts.

5/12/11, 6:25 AM
Anonymous said...

Thank you, MotherOf2 - that really is ridiculous. What a terrible decision Enfield has made. Martin Floe is a good principal who has done so much to make IHS strong. We chose it over our neighborhood HS, Roosevelt - and would do so again in a heartbeat.

- parent

5/12/11, 6:53 AM
Charlie Mas said...

In addition to everything else, I strongly recommend a boycott of the MAP test as a protest against this personnel action by the District.

High school students don't need the MAP test for anything. They certainly don't need it to graduate. The MAP test only serves the interests of the Education Reform forces in the District, such as the interim superintendent, the executive director of schools in the NW region, and whatever transitional person they hire for the short-term to replace Mr. Floe.

5/12/11, 6:54 AM
Anonymous said...

Enfield has shown her true colors on this one. Loyalty and honor? Respect for decades of dedicated hard work? Not in her world.

Back-stabbing and sacrificing honest, hard-working people in order to grease the skids for the Ed Reform movement - the ultimate giant sellout of the U.S. public education system to the Billionaire Oligarchs, including Geek in Chief Gates, is what it's all about.

Remember the "if we were a business" nonsense? Well, what business would fire one of its most beloved employees, alienating its customer base by doing so? Is that "good business?" Is it readily apparent to everyone that these people will say and do anything to get what they want?

Data, data, data...can be manipulated and isolated to support any position, and why Twain coined the phrase, "Lies, damn lies, and statistics."

Loyalty means nothing in a world ruled by Gates & Co. Watch your backs, everyone.

WSEADAWG

5/12/11, 7:46 AM
Kate Martin said...

The part of the business model that SPS may want to incorporate is 360 degree transparent evaluations. Students, parents, teachers, admin, .... It seems ironic that with the almost 100 principals we have, only 1 got an unsatisfactory review last round and then we see this? It's no secret to families that there are a fair number of principals in need of improvement, yet one that has student, parent & teacher support, but not admin apparently, gets canned. Certainly students, parents and teachers could and perhaps should develop their own evaluation system for principals.

5/12/11, 8:04 AM
SP said...

Doesn't the School Board have the final vote on hiring/firing Principals? If so (and in any case), letters should also go to the Board!

5/12/11, 8:31 AM
Patrick said...

Is there anyone who works for the District above the level of principal who's worth keeping on?

5/12/11, 8:53 AM
Chris S. said...

Any parent can opt any child out of the MAP with a simple letter to the principal. I am not sure if students have the right to opt themselves out, or what the "consequence" would be if a student simply refused to take it, but I'm betting lots of parents would be behind this action.

5/12/11, 9:20 AM
Chris S. said...

Sample opt-out language, adapted from Juanita Doyon:

To: ________________________________, Principal

__________________________________ School;


My student, ____________________________, will not be participating in [MSP/MAP] Assessments during the current school year. I understand that it is my legal right as parent/guardian to opt ______________________________(student) out of state and district testing.
I also understand that the school will provide appropriate, alternative, learning activities during testing times

Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. Please consider this document my official opt out statement. I will not sign any additional form(s).

5/12/11, 9:25 AM
Chris S. said...

Final opt-out comment: You do not need to give a reason. At some schools, counselors have called parents for a reason, or to discourage them from opting out after the receipt of a letter. You are under no obligation to explain yourself. If you are warned about bad effects to the student, teacher, or school, refer the caller to district leadership, the school board, and OSPI.

5/12/11, 9:28 AM
Melissa Westbrook said...

KG, there have been several protests about elementary counselors at several Board meetings (including parents).

No, the Board doesn't not approve hiring and firing of principals. That is the Superintendent's job. That said, they certainly have the power (and obligation) to tell the Superintendent what they hear from constituents and advise her about considering ramifications of future hirings/firings based on that input.

There are good people above the principals (Phil Brockman is one who comes to mind) and at administration headquarters. Towards the top it is certainly unstable and wobbly. You have interims at the top levels and several below them who support the ed reform agenda.

5/12/11, 9:30 AM
Nancy said...

Did not know that about MAP test, Anon., I thought it was to acertain where kids were at. Interesting.
Is it verifiable fact that the MAP is used to assess faculty and principals?

5/12/11, 9:44 AM
dan dempsey said...

What a completely bad joke ... this is insanity. For Enfield to say anything about data and improvement is a real stretch.

How is that "Building Trust" going now?

Look back on her repeated actions as CAO that ignored the data. The recommendations that came before the Board that were rubber-stamped by at least four directors time and time again, were pure Ed Reform.

The only data I see that has been relevant to either Enfield or MGJ is a 1 to 1 correspondence between ED REFORM propaganda and their recommended actions. Unfortunately the Board rubber-stamps every ED Reform action that comes before them.

The Board has only one employee, the Superintendent. They refused to allow any meaningful public input into Enfield's selection as interim Superintendent by slamming it through from public notice to passage in the 22 hours from Tuesday night announcement to Wednesday board meeting. .... Betty Patu gets it .... too many 6-1 votes.
==========
Looking at the data....
Enfield went to New Tech Sacramento and took Sundquist and Martin-Morris to a school that they thought was a STEM school..... there were no New Tech STEM schools in California.

Enfield recommended New Tech for an $800,000 contract at Cleveland despite the fact that the data showed NTN schools to be expensive under performers.

She and MGJ produced two highly inaccurate action reports in regard to New Tech pushing the $800,000 contract.

So now she thinks the data shows that Ingraham HS can do better......(better than what?) thus Mr. Floe needs to go. While the 100% lame k-12 math direction staggers on with Dr. Enfield's complete support.

If I was a director, I would immediately begin an analysis of all Enfield's actions when she was CAO. Some of her CAO actions were illegal. It is time to search for a new interim Supt. and fire Dr. Enfield with cause.

Dr. Enfield's fraud in submission of documents to the Superior Court in support of her bogus action report of March 12, 2010 constituted Forgery as well as another violation of RCW 28A 645.020. She signed the documents that submitted the evidence to the court in the New Tech Network appeal. She failed to certify that documents submitted to the court were correct as required by law. .... Attorney Scott Stafne has this failure to submit documents certified to be correct still grinding its way to an appeals court hearing. All the briefs have been submitted, now comes the wait for a hearing date.

Neither the Board members nor the Central Administration has much concern for either the law or policies unless it suits them. Check the data.

Good Luck to Mr. Floe and everyone at Ingraham in resisting a slam dunk system.

---------
Seattle sure needs 4 new school directors. Does Peter Maier have an opponent yet?

5/12/11, 9:47 AM
Charlie Mas said...

From School Board Policy B61.00:

"The Board of Directors shall:...

Elect principals and teachers upon recommendation of the Superintendent."

The Board retains final authority to hire principals.

In addition, the Board has ALL of the duties, authority and responsibility. They LEND some of those duties and authority to the superintendent, but they reserve the right to recall any or all of those duties and authority.

5/12/11, 9:51 AM
Charlie Mas said...

Also, according to Policy B61.00, the School Board has the duty to "Act as final appeal for school personnel, citizens, and students."

If Mr. Floe appeals the decision, it will fall to the Board to decide it.

5/12/11, 9:52 AM
dan dempsey said...

A guy in Central Admin that may be doing the job... in spite of the circumstances is Dr. Eric Anderson. He was in Research Evaluation and Assessment. He put out a couple of very good reports. If he is still around, he is likely worth keeping.

Brad Bernetek practiced outright deception to push the Ed Reform agenda as well as push anything the Central Admin wanted pushed. Brad used REA to support propaganda, not as a department to investigate issues and analyze data to assist in making better decisions.

So who is interpreting the data that shows Mr. Floe needs to go? Enfield has a horrible track record in data interpretation.... was Bree assisting her in interpreting the data?

5/12/11, 9:59 AM
Anonymous said...

Boy, did Enfield step in it or what. That's what happens when you listen to a twit like Bree

grumpy

5/12/11, 1:06 PM
Anonymous said...

Tell Bree to turn the MAP "growth chart" right side up.

grumpy

5/12/11, 1:07 PM
Charlie Mas said...

I don't think the decision to dismiss Mr. Floe was based on student achievement data. If it were, then Dr. Gary would have been dismissed, as would Gail Everly. No one has turned in worse student achievement numbers, yet they remain on the payroll.

No. The decision to dismiss Mr. Floe was based on something else, something that Ms Dusseault found utterly intolerable. I have no basis for making any conjecture about what the cause could have been, but there is just no way it could have been student academic outcomes.

5/12/11, 1:16 PM
Anonymous said...

http://www.scribd.com/doc/55297909

Looks like Ingraham grads do pretty well at the UW....

Mr. Ed

5/12/11, 1:17 PM
Bird said...

It does seem like this was a serious misstep for Enfield if she's interested in keeping her position as Sup.

Floe's removal will be a great way to drive parents to vote against the current school board.

5/12/11, 1:18 PM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)