I think part of the problem is that in so many of our systems, in order to fix this problem we were pretty big changes and people to do extra work. In this case above, someone needed to take ownership and be like "Yes, I am the person responsible for this and going to identify other high performing kids and work to advocate for them" .. …
I think part of the problem is that in so many of our systems, in order to fix this problem we were pretty big changes and people to do extra work. In this case above, someone needed to take ownership and be like "Yes, I am the person responsible for this and going to identify other high performing kids and work to advocate for them" .. and maybe there are lots of people in the administration who want to do that (or maybe there aren't). But good leaders find way to empower staff to make things better and take risks.
The leadership approach here has been: shove all the staff and teachers into a couple of hours of questionably effective training, write some six figure checks to consultants, and check off the box.
I’d think that the head of curriculum, if even slightly decent at their job, could have a huge influence here. All of these administrators —and there are so many of them — get paid a lot of money….and for what? How are they measured year in and year out in terms of objectives & deliverables? How do you end up with numbers like this and still have a job? By hoping no one notices? By counting on the fact that the community is in a zombie like state?
I mean, even the Superintendent's contract doesn't even have numeric goals, just broad statements about doing things! This kind of stuff needs to start at the top - the Board consistently giving Superintendents fluffy contracts sets the tone:
Like, even Larry Gavin said that contract is unusual and the goals part is barely even compliant with the state rules regarding Superintendent contracts. If we can't even set numerable expectations for a Superintendent, how can we expect them to set it for staff?
And if you look at budget spending over the last 5 years, it's clear that nobody was looking at any budgets or had any idea how much money was being spent or by whom. It sure looks, from the outside, like a total free for all.
Do you recall if this is consistent with Horton's contract? Or did they reduce the quantifiable goals in part because they realized it's a bad look for them to hand an extension to someone who's not even hitting the goals they laid out?
I think part of the problem is that in so many of our systems, in order to fix this problem we were pretty big changes and people to do extra work. In this case above, someone needed to take ownership and be like "Yes, I am the person responsible for this and going to identify other high performing kids and work to advocate for them" .. and maybe there are lots of people in the administration who want to do that (or maybe there aren't). But good leaders find way to empower staff to make things better and take risks.
The leadership approach here has been: shove all the staff and teachers into a couple of hours of questionably effective training, write some six figure checks to consultants, and check off the box.
I’d think that the head of curriculum, if even slightly decent at their job, could have a huge influence here. All of these administrators —and there are so many of them — get paid a lot of money….and for what? How are they measured year in and year out in terms of objectives & deliverables? How do you end up with numbers like this and still have a job? By hoping no one notices? By counting on the fact that the community is in a zombie like state?
I mean, even the Superintendent's contract doesn't even have numeric goals, just broad statements about doing things! This kind of stuff needs to start at the top - the Board consistently giving Superintendents fluffy contracts sets the tone:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/14bdH3MVr6MBuhcXk2V_Mh9HuGhjNm2QG/view
Like, even Larry Gavin said that contract is unusual and the goals part is barely even compliant with the state rules regarding Superintendent contracts. If we can't even set numerable expectations for a Superintendent, how can we expect them to set it for staff?
And if you look at budget spending over the last 5 years, it's clear that nobody was looking at any budgets or had any idea how much money was being spent or by whom. It sure looks, from the outside, like a total free for all.
Do you recall if this is consistent with Horton's contract? Or did they reduce the quantifiable goals in part because they realized it's a bad look for them to hand an extension to someone who's not even hitting the goals they laid out?
His was pretty fluffy too, but there were at least some actual quantifiable things:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1k7_NAQqulFUwyTlA7pszX56dRIg0H3Jx/view
Her expectations are basically just hand waving
But then they gave him a pass on the quantifiable things, right? No point in having them if you're not going to stick to them!
Yeah they renewed his contract and I am not sure to what degree they evaluated performance
One of the reasons given for Dr. Goren being let go was “failure to meet academic benchmarks”.
Oh how far we’ve fallen.
Beardsley has got to get the ax.