Norwood Middle School: What do you love? Not love?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you think the solution is approaching the division heads, you should read some of the other threads here about Norwood and experiences with the division heads. Not all share that favorable view. Some of us have had extremely negative experiences with at least one of them.

In terms of teachers, there is nowhere to note, for example, that teachers themselves are misspelling words on the spelling lists or missing marking things wrong on tests. I should not have to regrade each of DC's tests to see how he really did. There are also teachers who answer e-mails requesting a meeting with "Johnny's doing great! Why do we need a meeting?" This is after several e-mails and notes that went unanswered. And ERB results? Forget it. Teachers say talk to admin and admin says talk to teachers. It's an endless (and pointless) loop.

I don't agree that retention of bad division heads is a Head issue. My understanding is that the board decided to retain the division heads after this year despite the concerns. That is on the board. My understanding is also that the board convinced the head to retire now and that it was not his decision.

Completely agree. The makeup of the board is very distressing. Very bad timing to retire the head when there was already so much transition in the division heads.

To answer your question about what do we love? The children are wonderful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
My understanding is that the board decided to retain the division heads after this year despite the concerns.

The board does not make personnel decisions below the level of the head of school.

[Anonymous]

I am not sure that retiring the head now was a bad idea. If not now, when?
The division heads are not the whole problem.
The issue is more about teacher competence, made up curricula, and lack of motivation.
They see no reason to listen to experts, and there is a great deal of arrogance.
The board has tried to make changes, but they have little power. They know the deal, they liked the head, but they knew he had to go.
This year some ugly players were sent away, at least that is a start. There's still an easy 25% more very bad people who need to be given their walking papers.

[Anonymous]

I also support current head going. Had a strong long tenure but I believe it is time for some new ideas. This will also allow the new division heads some freedom to implement some good changes they bring to the table. I am not so sure they had such freedom with current head in place. I am not unhappy with the teachers we have had - as a whole they have been really great. Of those we felt less good about, we were happy with departures announced last week. We still believe Norwood is a great school and are disappointed with all the trash talk on this forum. Curious to see the parent chats for our childrens' grades to see how many walk the walk in public...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I also support current head going. Had a strong long tenure but I believe it is time for some new ideas. This will also allow the new division heads some freedom to implement some good changes they bring to the table. I am not so sure they had such freedom with current head in place. I am not unhappy with the teachers we have had - as a whole they have been really great. Of those we felt less good about, we were happy with departures announced last week. We still believe Norwood is a great school and are disappointed with all the trash talk on this forum. Curious to see the parent chats for our childrens' grades to see how many walk the walk in public...

I doubt that they will be able to do much. If there is a strong new head, she/he might not be open to other ideas.
BTW, the school will need a strong head.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am not sure that retiring the head now was a bad idea. If not now, when?
The division heads are not the whole problem.
The issue is more about teacher competence, made up curricula, and lack of motivation.
They see no reason to listen to experts, and there is a great deal of arrogance.
The board has tried to make changes, but they have little power. They know the deal, they liked the head, but they knew he had to go.
This year some ugly players were sent away, at least that is a start. There's still an easy 25% more very bad people who need to be given their walking papers.

Are you talking about the Board or the teachers?

And which experts are they not listening to?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not sure that retiring the head now was a bad idea. If not now, when?
The division heads are not the whole problem.
The issue is more about teacher competence, made up curricula, and lack of motivation.
They see no reason to listen to experts, and there is a great deal of arrogance.
The board has tried to make changes, but they have little power. They know the deal, they liked the head, but they knew he had to go.
This year some ugly players were sent away, at least that is a start. There's still an easy 25% more very bad people who need to be given their walking papers.

Are you talking about the Board or the teachers?

And which experts are they not listening to?

The teachers. Maybe more than 25%. Many of them have no idea what normal capabilities of any child should be certain ages. Real inconsistency in instruction and nothing really flows well.
Expert consultants have come through over the years. They don't tell everyone when it is happening.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not sure that retiring the head now was a bad idea. If not now, when?
The division heads are not the whole problem.
The issue is more about teacher competence, made up curricula, and lack of motivation.
They see no reason to listen to experts, and there is a great deal of arrogance.
The board has tried to make changes, but they have little power. They know the deal, they liked the head, but they knew he had to go.
This year some ugly players were sent away, at least that is a start. There's still an easy 25% more very bad people who need to be given their walking papers.

Are you talking about the Board or the teachers?

And which experts are they not listening to?

The teachers. Maybe more than 25%. Many of them have no idea what normal capabilities of any child should be certain ages. Real inconsistency in instruction and nothing really flows well.
Expert consultants have come through over the years. They don't tell everyone when it is happening.

Are your criticisms based on experience in other schools?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not sure that retiring the head now was a bad idea. If not now, when?
The division heads are not the whole problem.
The issue is more about teacher competence, made up curricula, and lack of motivation.
They see no reason to listen to experts, and there is a great deal of arrogance.
The board has tried to make changes, but they have little power. They know the deal, they liked the head, but they knew he had to go.
This year some ugly players were sent away, at least that is a start. There's still an easy 25% more very bad people who need to be given their walking papers.

Are you talking about the Board or the teachers?

And which experts are they not listening to?

The teachers. Maybe more than 25%. Many of them have no idea what normal capabilities of any child should be certain ages. Real inconsistency in instruction and nothing really flows well.
Expert consultants have come through over the years. They don't tell everyone when it is happening.

Are your criticisms based on experience in other schools?

Unfortunately, yes.
The board does a good job.
The head of school has done his best to protect the teachers (admirable in a way), when he's gone, they might be exposed.
If you are trying to pick a fight, you won't get one from me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not sure that retiring the head now was a bad idea. If not now, when?
The division heads are not the whole problem.
The issue is more about teacher competence, made up curricula, and lack of motivation.
They see no reason to listen to experts, and there is a great deal of arrogance.
The board has tried to make changes, but they have little power. They know the deal, they liked the head, but they knew he had to go.
This year some ugly players were sent away, at least that is a start. There's still an easy 25% more very bad people who need to be given their walking papers.

Are you talking about the Board or the teachers?

And which experts are they not listening to?

The teachers. Maybe more than 25%. Many of them have no idea what normal capabilities of any child should be certain ages. Real inconsistency in instruction and nothing really flows well.
Expert consultants have come through over the years. They don't tell everyone when it is happening.

Are your criticisms based on experience in other schools?

Unfortunately, yes.
The board does a good job.
The head of school has done his best to protect the teachers (admirable in a way), when he's gone, they might be exposed.
If you are trying to pick a fight, you won't get one from me.

No, not trying to pick a fight. Just trying to understand. We're joining from another school next year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not sure that retiring the head now was a bad idea. If not now, when?
The division heads are not the whole problem.
The issue is more about teacher competence, made up curricula, and lack of motivation.
They see no reason to listen to experts, and there is a great deal of arrogance.
The board has tried to make changes, but they have little power. They know the deal, they liked the head, but they knew he had to go.
This year some ugly players were sent away, at least that is a start. There's still an easy 25% more very bad people who need to be given their walking papers.

Are you talking about the Board or the teachers?

And which experts are they not listening to?

The teachers. Maybe more than 25%. Many of them have no idea what normal capabilities of any child should be certain ages. Real inconsistency in instruction and nothing really flows well.
Expert consultants have come through over the years. They don't tell everyone when it is happening.

Are your criticisms based on experience in other schools?

Unfortunately, yes.
The board does a good job.
The head of school has done his best to protect the teachers (admirable in a way), when he's gone, they might be exposed.
If you are trying to pick a fight, you won't get one from me.

No, not trying to pick a fight. Just trying to understand. We're joining from another school next year.

OK, I am sorry, I was being defensive.

[Anonymous]

Bump

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Bump

nothing has changed, the dust has to settle. Will wait until 2014 for new head. The best they can do now is start to ask for evaluations from parents on each teacher, at least they will have objective information that will help them with discharges in the future.

[Anonymous]

What about getting rid of the new lower school head. She is awful!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What about getting rid of the new lower school head. She is awful!

100% DISAGREE