Ludlow-Taylor principal suddenly leaving?

[Anonymous]

She should do both. However based on what we know she may or may not. Let's hope for the best for everyone's sake.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And yes, she will get a hell of a fight if she decides to take the focus off of the top tier kids and shifts it to the low performers. She should tread lightly.

Anonymous wrote:Principal Smith had just started pull outs for high achievers — in part because their PARRC scores last year showed regression among high 4s/low 5s and that’s actually what killed them on some of the OSSE star rating metrics. The fact it was motivated by test scores is dumb but fairly predictable, but I hope Principal Daniel and the new AP keep those pullouts. I’m all for additional help for underperforming kids, but if you’re pitching class content at getting kids to 4 on PARRC, I want additional supplementation for kids who probably get 4s and even 5s if they didn’t even go to school. I don’t mean super geniuses, I mean regular smart kids from privileged enough backgrounds that tests accurately reflect their capabilities and who now make up a big chunk of the school. I don’t want plenty of 4s on PARRC to be the only undifferentiated goal.

Who says she can't do both? That's what should be happening, although a slightly greater focus on earlier learners makes sense. If I see my advanced learner slip, I wouldn't necessarily take it up with the principal but the teacher.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:She should do both. However based on what we know she may or may not. Let's hope for the best for everyone's sake.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And yes, she will get a hell of a fight if she decides to take the focus off of the top tier kids and shifts it to the low performers. She should tread lightly.

Anonymous wrote:Principal Smith had just started pull outs for high achievers — in part because their PARRC scores last year showed regression among high 4s/low 5s and that’s actually what killed them on some of the OSSE star rating metrics. The fact it was motivated by test scores is dumb but fairly predictable, but I hope Principal Daniel and the new AP keep those pullouts. I’m all for additional help for underperforming kids, but if you’re pitching class content at getting kids to 4 on PARRC, I want additional supplementation for kids who probably get 4s and even 5s if they didn’t even go to school. I don’t mean super geniuses, I mean regular smart kids from privileged enough backgrounds that tests accurately reflect their capabilities and who now make up a big chunk of the school. I don’t want plenty of 4s on PARRC to be the only undifferentiated goal.

Who says she can't do both? That's what should be happening, although a slightly greater focus on earlier learners makes sense. If I see my advanced learner slip, I wouldn't necessarily take it up with the principal but the teacher.

Honestly, LT is in a bad spot with Smith quitting so late. We are lucky to be getting someone who has a reasonably good review from other schools. I'm sure Ms. Daniel wouldn't have taken the job if she wasn't interested in it. Having someone who is very knowledgeable about at-risk kids will be good, because serving them effectively will make things better for everyone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: I actually agree with the comment directly above this one. The school is solid. The leadership is just the face of the school. There is a strong team of hardworking staff behind the scenes - people running things whose names you don't know because they intentionally stay behind the scenes.

With that said I am hoping that Daniels does well. It has been challenging for black females leading elementary schools in areas that are quickly gentrifying. She should be prepared to go toe to toe with some of the more vocal (and covert) parents at the school.

What do we know about her so far?

I agree the school is strong and will likely be fine. But TBH I wouldn't pick her to lead a gentrifying school. She was an AP at our school and I think she did a good job (and the kids totally loved her), but I always felt like she kind of had a wall of professionalism up and I couldn't really get to know her. And she had a more top-down attitude than the principal did, or at least the principal knew how to be top-down while seeming collaborative. Ms. Daniel was young and not as experienced at the time-- maybe she's better now. I hope being at Langley gave her more experience with a gentrifying school and what it's like to have a motivated group of gentrifying preschool parents.

you realize she’s running the school for everyone, not just the “motivated group of gentrifying preschool parents,” right? and your digs at her for being professional? wtf?

I liked that she focused on that at-risk kids. But it makes me wonder why the principalship of LT is appealing to her. Tunning LT requires being good at dealing with higher-income parents, even though they are ridiculous and oblivious sometimes. The principal that we had was more skillful in managing them. It's a good thing that she was always professional, but she seemed to keep people more at arms length, compared to the principal (who honestly was a bit too chatty with parents). LT is going to be just fine. I was just kind of surprised because I always felt her career passion was with at-risk kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Again I think it was a poor placement for both her and the new AP because as you said LT is more about appeasing the very involved parents more than issues with the children. Yes there a few behavior issues and staff personality conflicts but the biggest role in that position is to keep those parents happy. Sad but true.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: I actually agree with the comment directly above this one. The school is solid. The leadership is just the face of the school. There is a strong team of hardworking staff behind the scenes - people running things whose names you don't know because they intentionally stay behind the scenes.

With that said I am hoping that Daniels does well. It has been challenging for black females leading elementary schools in areas that are quickly gentrifying. She should be prepared to go toe to toe with some of the more vocal (and covert) parents at the school.

What do we know about her so far?

I agree the school is strong and will likely be fine. But TBH I wouldn't pick her to lead a gentrifying school. She was an AP at our school and I think she did a good job (and the kids totally loved her), but I always felt like she kind of had a wall of professionalism up and I couldn't really get to know her. And she had a more top-down attitude than the principal did, or at least the principal knew how to be top-down while seeming collaborative. Ms. Daniel was young and not as experienced at the time-- maybe she's better now. I hope being at Langley gave her more experience with a gentrifying school and what it's like to have a motivated group of gentrifying preschool parents.

you realize she’s running the school for everyone, not just the “motivated group of gentrifying preschool parents,” right? and your digs at her for being professional? wtf?

I liked that she focused on that at-risk kids. But it makes me wonder why the principalship of LT is appealing to her. Tunning LT requires being good at dealing with higher-income parents, even though they are ridiculous and oblivious sometimes. The principal that we had was more skillful in managing them. It's a good thing that she was always professional, but she seemed to keep people more at arms length, compared to the principal (who honestly was a bit too chatty with parents). LT is going to be just fine. I was just kind of surprised because I always felt her career passion was with at-risk kids.

Wow. Do you honestly think that being principal of ANY school is "all about appeasing the very involved parents?" Sometimes I feel grateful that my (white, privileged) kid has an IEP because it gives me a whole lot more perpspective, insight, and appreciation for the extremely hard work it takes to run a school (any school). You seem far to invested in your own status as a "very involved parent" than you do in being able to discern what it actually takes to run a school.

[Anonymous]

Right.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Again I think it was a poor placement for both her and the new AP because as you said LT is more about appeasing the very involved parents more than issues with the children. Yes there a few behavior issues and staff personality conflicts but the biggest role in that position is to keep those parents happy. Sad but true.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: I actually agree with the comment directly above this one. The school is solid. The leadership is just the face of the school. There is a strong team of hardworking staff behind the scenes - people running things whose names you don't know because they intentionally stay behind the scenes.

With that said I am hoping that Daniels does well. It has been challenging for black females leading elementary schools in areas that are quickly gentrifying. She should be prepared to go toe to toe with some of the more vocal (and covert) parents at the school.

What do we know about her so far?

I agree the school is strong and will likely be fine. But TBH I wouldn't pick her to lead a gentrifying school. She was an AP at our school and I think she did a good job (and the kids totally loved her), but I always felt like she kind of had a wall of professionalism up and I couldn't really get to know her. And she had a more top-down attitude than the principal did, or at least the principal knew how to be top-down while seeming collaborative. Ms. Daniel was young and not as experienced at the time-- maybe she's better now. I hope being at Langley gave her more experience with a gentrifying school and what it's like to have a motivated group of gentrifying preschool parents.

you realize she’s running the school for everyone, not just the “motivated group of gentrifying preschool parents,” right? and your digs at her for being professional? wtf?

I liked that she focused on that at-risk kids. But it makes me wonder why the principalship of LT is appealing to her. Tunning LT requires being good at dealing with higher-income parents, even though they are ridiculous and oblivious sometimes. The principal that we had was more skillful in managing them. It's a good thing that she was always professional, but she seemed to keep people more at arms length, compared to the principal (who honestly was a bit too chatty with parents). LT is going to be just fine. I was just kind of surprised because I always felt her career passion was with at-risk kids.

Wow. Do you honestly think that being principal of ANY school is "all about appeasing the very involved parents?" Sometimes I feel grateful that my (white, privileged) kid has an IEP because it gives me a whole lot more perpspective, insight, and appreciation for the extremely hard work it takes to run a school (any school). You seem far to invested in your own status as a "very involved parent" than you do in being able to discern what it actually takes to run a school.

[Anonymous]

Who is the new AP?

[Anonymous]

She was the AP at Langley when we were there, and we loved her. She will be great at LT.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And yes, she will get a hell of a fight if she decides to take the focus off of the top tier kids and shifts it to the low performers. She should tread lightly.

Anonymous wrote:Principal Smith had just started pull outs for high achievers — in part because their PARRC scores last year showed regression among high 4s/low 5s and that’s actually what killed them on some of the OSSE star rating metrics. The fact it was motivated by test scores is dumb but fairly predictable, but I hope Principal Daniel and the new AP keep those pullouts. I’m all for additional help for underperforming kids, but if you’re pitching class content at getting kids to 4 on PARRC, I want additional supplementation for kids who probably get 4s and even 5s if they didn’t even go to school. I don’t mean super geniuses, I mean regular smart kids from privileged enough backgrounds that tests accurately reflect their capabilities and who now make up a big chunk of the school. I don’t want plenty of 4s on PARRC to be the only undifferentiated goal.

Who says she can't do both? That's what should be happening, although a slightly greater focus on earlier learners makes sense. If I see my advanced learner slip, I wouldn't necessarily take it up with the principal but the teacher.

Not if it’s a school-wide resources prioritization though. I totally support pullouts — even more pullouts — for kids who are behind grade level, but there should also be pullouts for high performers. Schools should meet kids where they are to the extent possible, not just strive for fine across there board, especially when that means no value added for 25-33% of each class.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Who is the new AP?

AP Broussard.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Right.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Again I think it was a poor placement for both her and the new AP because as you said LT is more about appeasing the very involved parents more than issues with the children. Yes there a few behavior issues and staff personality conflicts but the biggest role in that position is to keep those parents happy. Sad but true.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: I actually agree with the comment directly above this one. The school is solid. The leadership is just the face of the school. There is a strong team of hardworking staff behind the scenes - people running things whose names you don't know because they intentionally stay behind the scenes.

With that said I am hoping that Daniels does well. It has been challenging for black females leading elementary schools in areas that are quickly gentrifying. She should be prepared to go toe to toe with some of the more vocal (and covert) parents at the school.

What do we know about her so far?

I agree the school is strong and will likely be fine. But TBH I wouldn't pick her to lead a gentrifying school. She was an AP at our school and I think she did a good job (and the kids totally loved her), but I always felt like she kind of had a wall of professionalism up and I couldn't really get to know her. And she had a more top-down attitude than the principal did, or at least the principal knew how to be top-down while seeming collaborative. Ms. Daniel was young and not as experienced at the time-- maybe she's better now. I hope being at Langley gave her more experience with a gentrifying school and what it's like to have a motivated group of gentrifying preschool parents.

you realize she’s running the school for everyone, not just the “motivated group of gentrifying preschool parents,” right? and your digs at her for being professional? wtf?

I liked that she focused on that at-risk kids. But it makes me wonder why the principalship of LT is appealing to her. Tunning LT requires being good at dealing with higher-income parents, even though they are ridiculous and oblivious sometimes. The principal that we had was more skillful in managing them. It's a good thing that she was always professional, but she seemed to keep people more at arms length, compared to the principal (who honestly was a bit too chatty with parents). LT is going to be just fine. I was just kind of surprised because I always felt her career passion was with at-risk kids.

Wow. Do you honestly think that being principal of ANY school is "all about appeasing the very involved parents?" Sometimes I feel grateful that my (white, privileged) kid has an IEP because it gives me a whole lot more perpspective, insight, and appreciation for the extremely hard work it takes to run a school (any school). You seem far to invested in your own status as a "very involved parent" than you do in being able to discern what it actually takes to run a school.

Can you write your comments at the bottom after you quote?

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

Looks like the new AP that was hired a few months ago just left too...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Looks like the new AP that was hired a few months ago just left too...

Took a principal job in PGCPS. Seems like she’d been checked out for a little while. I wasn’t impressed so I don’t think it’s any great loss, but damn the school can’t get a break.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Looks like the new AP that was hired a few months ago just left too...

Took a principal job in PGCPS. Seems like she’d been checked out for a little while. I wasn’t impressed so I don’t think it’s any great loss, but damn the school can’t get a break.

Whaaat? Why? Guess people were right that it was a strange job for her.

[Anonymous]

Definitely a rough go for the staff I’m sure. Any idea what their plan is?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Looks like the new AP that was hired a few months ago just left too...

Took a principal job in PGCPS. Seems like she’d been checked out for a little while. I wasn’t impressed so I don’t think it’s any great loss, but damn the school can’t get a break.