Can You Believe It?
I was reading the article on the new Chief Sealth principal at the West Seattle blog and editor Tracy Record pointed out something I overlooked
School starts on September 7th so now we are just under a month away from start-up. Seems like we were just waiting for school to end and summer to start.
Oh right - still waiting for summer to start (weather-wise).
School starts on September 7th so now we are just under a month away from start-up. Seems like we were just waiting for school to end and summer to start.
Oh right - still waiting for summer to start (weather-wise).
Comments
If you read the CHS CSP you will see that Kinsey was responsible for ensuring "Teachers will use MAP data to identify group and individual skill levels in order to develop instructional plans" and:
"Teachers will meet with students and their families in order to discuss academic progress.
Math teachers and advisors will be a point of contact for families regarding math progress.
The objective of this activity is to partner with families to support student learning at home. This activity is ongoing."
This must be what Enfield means when she (endlessly) uses the phrase "instructional leader." That must be the person with the whip.
Particularly those related to MAP data. MAP is useless for instructional groupings and differentiating instruction. If you group students based on subscores, getting the group wrong is a 50-50 proposition. The variabiliy of MAP subscores is extreme.
As to the career trajectory. Is an asst principal with these duties truly that much more valuable than a teacher? 75% more valuable?
I have no issues with Mr. Kinsey. He will prove himself, but not at the expense of already hardworking teachers. Chief Sealth is our assignment HS and I won't tolerate single-minded "data-driven" leadership.
The system for staffing schools on the basis of projected enrollment is neither rational nor transparent. The fact that Board directors dismissed concerns about enrollment projections by putting their faith in staff belies the claim that any of them has learned his or her lesson.
Peter Maier is particularly disingenuous in his claim that he's "learned his lesson" from his past mistakes. The understaffing of Ingraham, a high school in his region, was brought to his attention in the spring, and he dismissed those concerns, even though he was offered hard data that should have undermined his blind faith in staff.
DWE
You're a teacher, yes? Do you just resent and have a bone to pick with all principals or just this one?
Not a teacher. Nope. Why, do you just resent or have a bone to pick with teachers?
I want teachers to spend more time teaching and working with students, and less time placing sticky notes on growth charts in the faculty lounge.
But now that you mention it, those last two math duties...how realistic are they if parents at home can't make heads or tails of the math curriculum? Wouldn't it be more effective to have math tutors and academic intervention specialists? Better textbooks? The multi-tiered system of supports I keep hearing about? This will have greater impact on actual learning than (ever growing numbers of) administrators leaning on teachers.
TC
And then of course there are the highly experienced principals like Martin Floe....
Principal Training Summit
Sealth's new principal (literally) Kinsey:
11 years total in the field (all in SPS).
Most recent 3 yrs at Cleveland as AP (last year AP of 1/2 of the 9th & 10th grades only).
That leaves 8 years:
Hale HS- Dean Of Academic Interventions
Eckstein MS- House Administrator (2 yrs)
Meany MS- 7th grade LA/SS teacher.
Let's give him the benefit of the doubt- maybe 3 years as a middle school teacher? And the rest of the 8 years total in interventions & administration? Where do people like this gain the necessary experience to be able to be an instructional leader for high school level teaching? No wonder Enfield's letter is vague about his fast-track career!
The MAP training sessions included this.
Two points: One, MAP is still an uncertain measurement - a teacher should use that number to set goals? Or should it be a broader discussion, rather than just, "hey kid, you can move from 198 to 210 this year, right"? Shouldn't other factors be discussed, if a discussion is held? It sounds like mirmac believes, as do I, that the intent of the admin was to force teachers to have MAP conversations.
Second point:
Substantive conversation about a student probably takes at least fifteeen minutes, maybe twenty.
Multiply that by 150 students and you have 50 hours of discussion....
But really, the main point is point one: Using MAP to drive t hese discussions is silly. Just more standardization.