Staffing at Norwalk schools’ central office continues to the be a hot topic at the city’s Board of Education meetings. This week, for the second meeting in a row, Superintendent Susan Marks pushed for a new position that would take over the functions of several eliminated positions.
“There were five positions cut, I’m asking for one back,” she said.
The Norwalk central office administration lost the director of elementary education, instructional specialist for grants, instructional specialist for academically talented/social studies, IT staff and secretarial staff. At the close of budget season in June, the Board of Education agreed to let Marks reorganize and add central office staff with funds that were unallocated.
“The position is to support curriculum and instruction,” said Marks. The primary functions would be overseeing grants, academically talented education, and afterschool and other programs.
"It’s a big job with supervisory responsibilities,” said Marks, explaining why she made the job a director level job with a salary of approximately $150,000. Marks said she and Assistant Superintendent Tony Daddona will still be solely responsible for evaluating principals.
Board members appeared divided about the proposed position. Sue Haynie, Glenn Iannaccone and Heidi Keyes spoke in favor of the position. But the idea met resistance from Board member Steve Colarossi, who questioned whether Marks could create a less senior position. He also questioned why the position reported to the COO as opposed to the assistant superintendent.
During public comments, teachers union president Bruce Mellion said that job was too broad in scope. “It’s not a position for one person. It’s not doable in its current format.”
The board did not decide on the position but Marks also outlined how the central office could be reorganized. The proposed plan included a department of school performance -- not tied to the administrators union -- that would evaluate the district’s principals. She also proposed year-round instructional specialists, an expanded role for teachers to work on district projects, and more resources for human resources, community outreach and public relations.
Friday, August 5, 2011
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
The 10 month grants position that was eliminated had several summer school programs associated with it. The only other responsibility of any consequence mentioned here is adding Academically Talented to the job description. How does Susan Marks create a job that skips from a 10 month administrator's position to a Director's position with such a small addition? Makes no sense. There aren't even any administrator evaluations attached to the job.
ReplyDeleteWhy does this position not report to the Asst. Superintendent?
The Norwalk Hour stated that the money to support this position is being taken from a professional development grant. Is that even legal?
Why take money from professional development funds? Do our teachers not need professional development?
I thought the cost of benefits were included when funding for a new position is calculated. This is only the salary for a director's position. Benefits add what, another $20,000 to that figure?
Nothing seems to add up here.
Cut the 100K+ do-nothings in the Central Orifice!
ReplyDeleteI know! Another administrator at Central Office! Just what we need!
ReplyDeleteAnyone who thinks that the central office is overstaffed with administrators is ill-informed or is simply not paying attention.
ReplyDeleteAnyone board of education member who thinks that the central office can possibly function effectively with so little staff is not worthy of a position on the board.
Anyone who thinks the teachers' union president should have a voice in the organization of the central office is adding to the problems of the district.
The superintendent has acknowledged the need for a reorganization of the Central Office. Her efforts are laudable. However, it is critical to recognize that the Board of Education, for better or worse, is charged under the City Charter with the creation of all positions within the school department.
ReplyDeleteSpecifically, Section 1-516 of the Charter directs as follows: "Said Board shall appoint a Superintendent of Schools and such number of assistants, principals, teachers, nurses and janitors as it may deem necessary and prescribe their respective terms of office and duties." The members of the BOE remain those citizens charged with evaluating and implementing any plan that creates new positions.
The difficulty I faced in making some very tough budget decisions in June was having to decide between some central office jobs and positions that I believe are critical in the elementary schools. I didn't necessarily vote to cut central office positions because I felt that the positions were not needed, but because I firmly believed that those funds were more critically needed in the classroom.
The position as suggested by the superintendent can not, based upon my private sector business experience, function properly for several key reasons: it reports to the COO yet would have authority over mostly academic functions, it is considered a "Director" yet has no staff reporting to it and the duties of the position require that this "Director" rely upon staff over whom she would have no direct authority (and over whom her boss would have no direct authority).
I have repeatedly suggested that many of the functions that need to be handled can be undertaken by a skilled employee who is NOT AT THE LEVEL OF A DIRECTOR.
One suggestion is to create, in the Executive Services Group, a post who would serve as an administrator under the Asst. Supt. and who would be responsible for grants implementation, coordination of efforts with private funding groups, oversight of the school lotteries and enrollment data and many of the general coordination functions suggested by the superintendent (such as the after school programs). The Asst. Supt. for Curriculum and Instruction would need to be responsible for the Academically Talented Program and oversight of this new position. Consequently, the responsiblity for principal evaluations could fall to the superintendent (at least temporarily).
This is but one suggestion for achieving the goal of assuring that critical functions have persons directly responsible for their implementation while keeping costs as low as possible.
Mr. Colarossi,
ReplyDeleteMaybe you can help me to understand your thinking better, but given the current level of staffing of the central office, it is physically impossible for one person to be superintendent of schools and to do an effective job of evaluating 19 principals. You have to consider the responsibility any evaluator has to the people being evaluated, especially if there are a few who aren't performing to district expectations. Believe me, there are at least a few such principals. Have you considered that the effective evaluation of a principal requires the evaluator to be in the school on a fairly regular basis and to observe daily operations there, in addition to meeting with the principal? Oh, and then there is the rest of the job of being a superintendent of schools, a job that I would never want because it is so difficult. Are you aware of another urban district of comparable size that has a superintendent who evaluates 19 principals? I am not.
As I recall, Dr. Sloan evaluated the principals, but he had a far larger central office administrative staff to do much of the other work.
I truly do sympathize with the terrible choices the board of education must make, but the evaluation of the people hired to be the educational leaders of Norwalk's 19 schools is a critically important job, one that has not been done effectively for a very long time.
Most schools have staffs of at least 40 people-- that staff is evaluated by the principal and assistant principal. For non-tenured teachers in the schools, they are evaluated at least 3 times each school year.
ReplyDeleteThere would certainly be some tough scheduling choices that would need to be made. And, there would be nothing to prevent those evaluation duties being split between the superintendent and asst. superintendent.
Admittedly, I do not presuppose that my suggestion would be perfect-- it would obviously need to be the subject of careful review and evaluation by the superintendent and would need to be examined by the members of the BOE. It is, however, an option. I think it is an option that could be juxtaposed against the original plan of creating a top-tier Director at a very high salary.
Also, regarding the complexity of evaluating the 19 principals, the stop-gap Director position being suggested by the superintendent would have no oversight or evaluation of the principals, so that duty would fall entirely upon the Asst. Supt. of Curriculum and Instruction. I suppose that one could speculate that if the superintendent believes that the Asst. Supt. could perform those duties then there must be a belief that one person can perform that function.
Steve is absolutely right. Save the taxpayers money by making the position less than a director's position and let that person report to the Asst. Superintendent.
ReplyDeleteThe Superintendent should be evaluating the elementary principals and the Assistant Superintendent should evaluate the secondary principals. This makes tremendous sense.
I hope the rest of the BOE thinks as clearly as Steve.
No more $150,000+ benefits administrators at the money pit. We can't afford it!
ReplyDeleteI don't like either scenario, but I would prefer to have the superintendent evaluate the secondary people because there are fewer of them. This is not out of sympathy for this (or any) superintendent; it is only because it is more realistic. If the superintendent is to do the job she was hired to do, she doesn't have the time to evaluate 12 elementary principals. Even 7 secondary people will be a lot, but the difference of 5 is significant.
ReplyDeleteBut there is another reason. The Assistant Superintendent has been far too cozy with a couple of the secondary principals, as is evidenced in their behaviors. It's time for a change.
If you really look at the behaviors of the principals, it is the elementary principals who need to be evaluated by the top gun.
ReplyDeleteBy the way, unless you are privy to the written evaluation of a person, you don't know what is really going on. An evaluator must remain friendly and supportive of a 'less than' administrator. Remember the administrator's union is extremely strong. It is almost impossible to get rid of an administrator unless the person does something incredibly horrible. Showing support and friendliness does not mean that written evaluations are positive. What you see is not necessarily what goes on behind closed doors.
This is NOT an invitation to ruin anyone's career. I am simply stating a general statement about evaluations and how one should not 'assume' what is going on. If you want to blast any administrator you may not like, this is not the forum for that. Be an adult and tell him/her to his/her face.
From what I'm reading, consensus seems to be that the Asst. Supt or the Supt. need to be the ones to evaluate the Principals.
ReplyDeleteWhat about the rest of the suggestions?
Will any of this really be of a concern to us with sons + daughters in the lower grades?
I mean no disrepect to any particular individual, but I still cannot understand how one person can enter a school building, sit down at a table, and review a principal's performance unless there is specific input from students, parents, and staff. And yes, I say students. There are specific criteria regarding schools that only the students can evaluate. For example, no one knows if all students feel safe in their particular school at all times. So often, we hear that bullying is addressed by administrators or that it doesn't exist in their schools, but how is this sort of thing measured? This and other key criteria require feedback from those who are directly impacted on a daily basis. Numbers provide the best accuracy, and the more numbers, the better. The online surveys are a step in the right direction, but are these to be given serious weight in the evalution process? Obviously, if you see a weakness validated by data, you need to work from there. Likewise, strengths can be targeted and recognized. Until we begin to bring all invested parties into the evaluation process, we cannot recognize the evaluation system as fair, particularly when teachers are evaluated by those who are not accountable themselves. Thank you.
ReplyDeleteMy opinion, and my opinion only, is that student ratings of teachers and principals can be very misleading. I remember a teacher who was 'best friends' with her students, but who was a terrible teacher. Students loved her, but learned virtually nothing that year. A good teacher or a principal must draw the line and create a good and safe learning environment for students. On many occasion this may mean appearing tough. If these professionals are going to be evaluated by parents and students, it might change their behavior. I don't think that's in the best interest of our students. Perhaps good evaluations should be left in the hands of those who are trained. We just need to make sure they are doing their jobs. Call the evaluator with problems if you are a parent. Better yet, direct your complaints in writing to a teacher or administrator with a carbon copy to the superintendent. Then see if anything is done about it.
ReplyDeleteAll rested and back from vacation and catching up on the blogs...how about this for an idea of how to objectively evaluate the principals?
ReplyDeleteLast spring, I took the position of doing away with the Director of Elementary position (not person), given that I didn’t think that one person could be held responsible for evaluating the principals at this juncture in US education due to the fierce lobbying efforts by many to keep things status quo and come up with every excuse known to man as to why they can’t be evaluated fairly. Plus, you can't do anything about it anyway.
What about interim measures for principals that objectively collected a variety of KPIs (Key Performance Indicators) by building?
Quite frankly, why doesn’t the board authorize Dr Marks to hire clerical staff to compile the following types of hard teacher and student data on a per building basis and start benchmarking the elementary, middle and high schools. Certainly that might get folks to straighten up and fly right or at least provide insight into school operations beyond student test data.
A short list of things to track might include the following:
Teacher
• turnover
• grievances and complaints
• absences
• average years of service by teacher/subject
• % of teachers rated average
• % of teacher rated exceptional
• % of teachers in need of improvement
Student & Parent Data
• CMT etc.test data
• Suspension data
• Student absences
• Transfers out of district
• Attrition from elementary to middle
• # of Lawsuits
• # of Complaints
Objective data like this coupled with the pending school climate survey for staff and parents seems to me to be a pretty good place to start and would yield an un-biased assessment of where school administration and management issues lay, allowing the Superintendent or the BoE to begin questioning principals on why their schools seem to yeild best practices or alternatively ask why they think their operational data is not consistent with their peer groups in the city. Analyze whether their is a correlation between adult operational behavior or data and student achievement? Just a thought.
Would sure make for some intersting discussion!
Tracking performance indicators like this for Norwalk principals is an excellent idea and would give the entire community a better idea of how their home schools are doing and what is being done well. What could be done better.
ReplyDeleteStudents, parents and teachers in a couple of schools would be very afraid to file a complaint or grievance. Teachers are even afraid to try and transfer out. Retaliation is a given. We all know which schools these are. We've known for a decade, and it's worse now than it ever was as the administrator's power has grown and solidified.
ReplyDeleteNice to see an interesting debate about how to evaluate the principals. It's about time.
ReplyDeleteAlso good to see at least one BoE member stepping up to encourage a little public discussion.
For what it's worth, I think they (CO) need to figure out how to work with fewer Directors-- for the life of me, I don't understand how you pay someone over $130K but they have no one they supervise.
6;21---That's the NPS way! The taxpayer is a bottomless pit whose function is to pay for these do-nothing administrators.
ReplyDelete6:09-- wish I could say you're wrong, but that seems to be the way past superintedent's have done business.
ReplyDeleteWhen you think about the message the BoE sent by cutting all those high salaried jobs in the Central Office, wouldn't you think that Supt. Marks would take the hint? Don't try to make a top-tier job when the most outspoken BoE officials are TELLING YOU that the work be done by a lower paid staffer.
Is it the taxpayers the superintendent doesn't respect or just the people we elected to the Board of Ed?
Pay attention to how they vote when it comes time to see if this job is a director's job or a lesser paying job. Sue Haynie votes with the superintendent no matter what the superintendent asks for. As for the superintendent, let's see if she hears the call for lower paying positions. If not, well........
ReplyDeleteMarks is on the right path. People need to trust her. She fired Fay and I'm sure Daddona will be "retiring" very soon. Marks got rid of the entire special education administration in just one year. Now she needs to work on cleaning up a few ineffective principals and Norwalk will be on the right track. This mess did not happen over night.
ReplyDeleteWhy does Superintendent Marks egregiously support this director's position? It sounds like the BoE is willing to add another position at central office, but at a lower paying salary. Why can't she just accept that and be appreciative that she will be given additional staff when there are no funds for students? Why is she risking her own career to support a certain favorite friend? Does anyone have an answer? It makes no sense to me.
ReplyDeleteWhy are so many people on this blog so critical of the new superintendent? The woman has been here 1 year and is doing good things for the students and repuation of this City. The rumors and gossip suggesting she's been plotting and scheming for one particular individual, when everybody knows who the schemers are is ridiculous! These are the people who've been in NPS for a gazillion years and taking money from students.
ReplyDeleteWhy, 5:26? Because the truth is the truth. The facts are the facts. My question to you is, why can't you see what is right in front of you? Are you in denial or are you this person who is being protected? Everyone is talking about what is happening!
ReplyDeleteSounds like a bunch of over paid secretaries and para's complaining. Give the taxpayer some room to breath in this city!
ReplyDeleteWhat big favor has the Supt. done for the taxpayers? What has the Supt. done for our kids? She tried to cut teachers and aides in the elementary schools!
ReplyDeleteStop blaming the crtiques, the paras and the unions for the new Supt.'s mistakes. Maybe if she admitted she was wrong once in awhile the people who work with her would be supportive.
I spoke to a number of teachers recently who expressed intense dislike for the new Supt. Their reason? Non support for the classroom.
ReplyDelete@1:12 - Really? It was her fault the budget was cut? Teachers and administrators represent a large sum of money once you include salary and benefits. Norwalk is one of the highest paying cities in CT. The previous post is correct. You are squeezing the taxpayer way too much. Look at the economy and unemployment rate!!! Be thankful you have a job!!
ReplyDelete2:44, I think there is a misunderstanding here. The poster you are vehemently against is only trying to state that Mark's staunchly stood by her decision to cut elementary classroom positions and not to cut a central office position. No one disagrees that cuts had to be made. It's where the superintendent chose to wield the ax that was in question.
ReplyDeleteI am seriously worried about several of the previous posters (especially if you are teaching my kids.) You want to blame the new superintendent for the budget cuts and painful decisions this school district has had to make? Look around folks. 10% unemployment, Washington DC politicians doing nothing, the stock market crashing, home foreclosures and you want to blame the Supt for your classroom? OMG! Who got you guys to drink the Koolaid?
ReplyDeleteIs there a serious lack of comprehension here? NO ONE is blaming the supt. for the cuts. I repeat, NO ONE IS BLAMING THE SUPT. FOR THE CUTS. It's where she chose to cut. The teachers don't want cuts to come out of their classrooms if there are other places to cut.
ReplyDeleteThis superintendent is doing a great job given that she inherited a big mess from the previous super, is doing lots of things with no money plus bringing in non-taxpayer dollars and has a bunch of whinny micromanaging board members to deal with.
ReplyDeleteThis hysterical cry about the superintendent's "choice" to cut classroom positions, while keeping a central office administrative position is sheer lunacy. She was faced with an ugly decision about how best to reconcile the budget, a budget that doesn't begin to support current staffing levels.
ReplyDeleteClassroom teachers haven't liked any superintendent since Ralph, who was superintendent of the NPS when it was a different system from what it is now. They don't like her because she concluded that she identified the central office position as a higher priority than a couple of classroom teachers? What if she had made the teachers the higher priority? Then they would have complained bitterly about the school(s) that got the additional staff. Face it. This is a no-win for Dr. Marks.
Finally, the central office is so lean that it cannot do the work that it should to provide any support whatsoever to the schools, hence, to the classroom teachers. Even with this new administrative position, there is still a net loss of administrators in the central office.
The sad history of this declining school system is that of special interests who want all of the sacrifices to be made by others, never by them. Even sadder is that there is an element that is unhappy unless it is complaining about someone, second-guessing the decisions that they don't even understand.
Enough.
This supt has made it her primary objective to get out into the public and win herself support, hiding the fact that she has done nothing to close the achievement gap in Norwalk. Her face time has translated into a perception that she is a great supt. She's good but not great!
ReplyDeleteHas everyone forgotten that she was going to cut at least 15 teachers from the classroom? And fought to keep her Dir. of elementary ed?
Thank you to the two BOE members who put up a stink and stopped her!
When are we going to hear from her on how she will raise the bar of our kids' education? They are being forgotten...
7:33 - Do you know what and where the achievement gap is? Have you studied the data? Have you had even one meaningful conversation with Dr. Marks about her plans and about the work she has done to date?
ReplyDeleteHere is another "damned if you do, damned if you don't" accusation. People complained bitterly that Dr. Corda was never in the schools, and so Dr. Marks made it her business to be in the schools as often as possible. She has addressed this major concern, and in return, you accuse her of being concerned only about getting out into the public to win support.
Are you at least as critical of the assistant superintendent in charge of curriculum and instruction for not closing the achievement gap? He has been in the district for at least 35 years, serving as a central office administrator for many years. Are you at least as critical of the principals who have also worked for the school system for a long time, but who have not produced the desired results?
At least partial fairness to her, though, you said that the superintendent is "good but not great."
Can't we try supporting her? Can't we try adopting the attitude that we are willing to make compromises and sacrifices for the good of the school system, hence, the students? Too much of this is a spitting contest, and that makes no one look good.
In my humble opinion, i don't think there is a problem with Dr. Marks or our school system. The problem is from all those that have nothing else better to do but complain and blame, and use blog sites such as these to spew their venom.
ReplyDeleteNo one is perfect. These are the cards we are dealt...so let's move forward and bring positive change to the Norwalk Public School System
6:43, don't support anyone blindly. There is plenty of evidence, factual evidence, that this supt. isn't doing a good job. She shines at winning over the apples, but most of the apples don't have a clue about education. One in particular is in it for the power.
ReplyDeleteAs for the declining school system, where do you get your limited information? Have you heard our test scores are up? The CALI model is working! Did you know that the supt. had nothing to do with the CALI model?
The negative comments here and throughout this blog about the supt. are justified. Where there is smoke, there is a fire. You are in serious denial.
@6:43 What would you do differently?
ReplyDeleteI would eliminate ALL the asst. prrincipals in the elementary schools--there's $ 3 million right there. Then I would remove all the DEAD WOOD in the central orifice--there's $10 million right there.
ReplyDeleteThat's $7 million from central office, what positions do you have in mind?
ReplyDeletePlease note that the person who posted at 7:52 is not the person who posted at 6:43. I am that person.
ReplyDeleteI do believe that at least two of the assistant principal positions can be eliminated, as can a housemaster position at NHS, which has far fewer students than it once did. I'm not sure about BMHS because I don't have enough information about the administrative needs there. Another position that can and should be eliminated is that held by Bruce Morris. What possible justification is there for this job, with its salary and benefits cost?
As far as cutting teaching positions in any of the schools, I would ask the principals to give me impact statements about cuts, which is what Dr. Marks no doubt did.
6:22: You speak about CALI as though that were a model that Norwalk developed. It is a model developed by the state department of education, and it has been implemented in many (most?) districts across the state.
I don't know the extent to which the superintendent is involved with the CALI model, but she won't have much opportunity at all if she has to evaluate the principals, in addition to overseeing the other work of a superintendent.
As for my knowledge of the school system, I say only that you don't know who I am and what I know, but I know quite a bit.
8:22, I never said the CALI model was developed in Norwalk. BUT someone had to implement it here and carry it through. It wasn't the superintendent. She had no part of it. As for supervising principals, if the system wants change, that's how their going to get it. It's a matter of priorities. This supt. has time to lunch with her favorites, so evaluating principals could be a stop off after lunch. Surprise visits provide some very worthwhile information.
ReplyDeleteAs for you knowledge of the school system, I have to wonder if you are the sole supporter of the superintendent up there.(or the secretary of the supporter) If you are, I know exactly who you are. If you are in the schools, your vision is very limited.
The CALI model was implemented extremely well in Norwalk. I have heard that the State Dept. is using Norwalk as the model for the state. That's certainly a feather in the cap of the person who has implemented it here.
ReplyDelete9:58 - She wasn't in Norwalk yet when CALI was developed and implemented.
ReplyDelete10:23 - I have many connections throughout the state, and I have never heard the SDE refer to Norwalk, except to its dysfunction.
11:17, looks like you are the person I think you are. Perhaps you are only looking for the negatives from the SDE? They have high praise for the implementation of the model in Norwalk.
ReplyDeleteI know people who teach CALI courses for the state, and not one of them has ever referred to Norwalk as a model for CALI implementation. Perhaps you can name a few SDE people who have said this, so I can ask them to confirm your claim.
ReplyDelete3:53 PM, I believe you are suffering from cognitive distortions. You reject the positives by finding some absurd way to try to disqualify them. I will not feed into your illness.
ReplyDeleteEveryone else, Dr. Marks knows the truth that Norwalk is looked to as a model for CALI. Ask her.
In the meantime, 3:53, I can understand now why your position was eliminated. Good luck in your new position.
To 11:17 a.m. - Uh, you might want to see if you can get the November 2010 DDDMT/CALI meeting minutes and read the comments made by Mr. Logee of the State Department of Education about Norwalk's progress. You might be surprised.
ReplyDeleteYawn
ReplyDeleteI posted at 3:53. In an effort to stop an injustice to someone who has a certain administrator in his/her crosshairs, I assure you that I am not a Norwalk administrator whose position was eliminated.
ReplyDeleteI think that we are missing the point. While Norwalk has implemented the CALI model well it doesn't negate the problems that still exist. The Principals have not been evaluated properly since Dr. Sloan left. (and he did not have Directors of elementary ed or secondary ed or an Assistant Superintendent) The people who have held these positions do not go into the schools and work with Principals. While they may be and have been nice people they do not have the abilities or leadership skills to do this.The recent article about Briggs again highlights that no one oversees what is going on in the schools.
ReplyDelete4:25, I am not interested in debating with you. You are most certainly either that person or someone who writes for her, possibly her secretary. Your knowledge of what is going on, the state dept. contacts, etc. belie your stated identity.....unless you are the superintendent. I will not respond to this nonsense any longer. I'm sure you will, since you have a need to look for the negatives.
ReplyDeleteI'm confused and so have a question for the NPS staff posting: Is this thread about a particular central office position or about the need to effectively evaluate principals?
ReplyDeleteThe annonymous character assasinations directed at various NPS staff is of little interest to most parents.
Since there seems to be no agreement on WHO should evaluate Principals...but there is agreement that Principals should have accountability beyond student test scores...what do NPS staff think of the KPIs that I posted earlier? How would you evaluate the Principals?
Put away the pitchforks, and douse the bonfires. The way you are carrying on is outrageous, and the attacks are personal.
ReplyDeletePlease let's pull together, get ready for the start of a new school year, and do what is best for our students. All of your sniping, hiding behind anonymity, is destructive and pathetic.
Dr. Sloan was great, but that was decades ago. Schools were different, education was different, and we all know that Norwalk was a different place. Sloan also had music and art, p.e., math, science, and language arts supervisors. We haven't had supervisors in a very long time. He had qualified human resources and finance people, as well as strong assistant superintendents, to carry out the work of running the district. Central office has been decimated, right down to the secretarial level, and the place is empty. There is no one to support the schools, and we are out there on our own.
We are expecting Dr. Marks to do more with so much less.
Stop your cowardly attacks and get to work. And no, I have nothing to do with any of the eliminated positions - so don't bother going there.
I have heard that this new director's position is up for approval at the Board meeting this Tuesday night. Outrageous!
ReplyDeleteSigh. Here we go again. SOMEONE NEEDS TO DO THE WORK!
ReplyDeleteI wonder how much outcry there would have been (or if the job would have been eliminated at all) if the 'good old boy' had been in the position.
Yes, someone needs to do the work. But not at the director's level. How about saving the taxpayer some money and create it at the administrator's level? How many tax paying citizens in Norwalk want to pay for the difference in salary? Not many, I'll bet, since it's at least a $40,000 difference.
ReplyDeleteLet's close this discussion since we keep going over the same ground.
ReplyDeleteBefore we close, let me just say that Lisa has some excellent criteria with which to evaluate principals. It was my suggestion further up that all invested parties be involved in the process. To address concerns that were mentioned by subsequent posters, students would not be evaluating a personality, per se, but rather their own safety and/or building climate. I think they could do an accurate job of that. Disgruntled teachers or parents would become lost in the data. Those are easily dismissed. You can see where the strengths and weaknesses lie when you deal with numbers. Again, Lisa, thank you for your well thought out suggestion. Let's move forward.
ReplyDeleteYes, let's have the kids, the parents and the community rate the principals and the schools and track the information with publicly available key performance indicators.
ReplyDelete