Hayfield Principal Moving to Gatehouse

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And for every “promotion” to Gatehouse the county could be hiring 3 new teachers with the salary saved if the employee was let go instead of being “promoted”.

Meh. I’m not so sure. It’s really difficult to fire someone if they haven’t done something like shown up to work completely wasted and stealing funds. He could’ve easily fought it and then the county would’ve paid out a lot more in legal fees.

He barely showed up to work. Most of the time he was "working from home". Is that what a Principal should do?

No. Of course not. What is your point and how is it related to the post you are replying to?

You can read I assume? Someone said there are no reasons for him to be fired. I’m giving one. Usually not showing up for your job is a good reason.

Are you really this dense? FCPS would have to show a pattern of him not showing up for work and the impact that had on operations. They would have to show that he was warned about it and given an opportunity to correct it. Do you know how difficult that is to do when your supervisor (the region asst supt) doesn’t even work in the same location? I’m not saying that this behavior is acceptable. What I’m saying is that it’s really difficult for an employer to fire someone for this reason. The same holds true for teachers. Unless they’re doing g something so publicly egregious, it’s really, really difficult to fire someone who is sub-par. Not impossible. Just difficult.

[Anonymous]

There is a multi-year DCUM thread on FCPS' "Failed Principal to Central Office pipeline". Interested folks should search for it, then weep.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And for every “promotion” to Gatehouse the county could be hiring 3 new teachers with the salary saved if the employee was let go instead of being “promoted”.

Meh. I’m not so sure. It’s really difficult to fire someone if they haven’t done something like shown up to work completely wasted and stealing funds. He could’ve easily fought it and then the county would’ve paid out a lot more in legal fees.

He barely showed up to work. Most of the time he was "working from home". Is that what a Principal should do?

No. Of course not. What is your point and how is it related to the post you are replying to?

You can read I assume? Someone said there are no reasons for him to be fired. I’m giving one. Usually not showing up for your job is a good reason.

Seems like the football mess would have been enough.

Are you really this dense? FCPS would have to show a pattern of him not showing up for work and the impact that had on operations. They would have to show that he was warned about it and given an opportunity to correct it. Do you know how difficult that is to do when your supervisor (the region asst supt) doesn’t even work in the same location? I’m not saying that this behavior is acceptable. What I’m saying is that it’s really difficult for an employer to fire someone for this reason. The same holds true for teachers. Unless they’re doing g something so publicly egregious, it’s really, really difficult to fire someone who is sub-par. Not impossible. Just difficult.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And for every “promotion” to Gatehouse the county could be hiring 3 new teachers with the salary saved if the employee was let go instead of being “promoted”.

Meh. I’m not so sure. It’s really difficult to fire someone if they haven’t done something like shown up to work completely wasted and stealing funds. He could’ve easily fought it and then the county would’ve paid out a lot more in legal fees.

He barely showed up to work. Most of the time he was "working from home". Is that what a Principal should do?

No. Of course not. What is your point and how is it related to the post you are replying to?

You can read I assume? Someone said there are no reasons for him to be fired. I’m giving one. Usually not showing up for your job is a good reason.

Are you really this dense? FCPS would have to show a pattern of him not showing up for work and the impact that had on operations. They would have to show that he was warned about it and given an opportunity to correct it. Do you know how difficult that is to do when your supervisor (the region asst supt) doesn’t even work in the same location? I’m not saying that this behavior is acceptable. What I’m saying is that it’s really difficult for an employer to fire someone for this reason. The same holds true for teachers. Unless they’re doing g something so publicly egregious, it’s really, really difficult to fire someone who is sub-par. Not impossible. Just difficult.

Maybe they should be at will employees like most Americans are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And for every “promotion” to Gatehouse the county could be hiring 3 new teachers with the salary saved if the employee was let go instead of being “promoted”.

Meh. I’m not so sure. It’s really difficult to fire someone if they haven’t done something like shown up to work completely wasted and stealing funds. He could’ve easily fought it and then the county would’ve paid out a lot more in legal fees.

He barely showed up to work. Most of the time he was "working from home". Is that what a Principal should do?

No. Of course not. What is your point and how is it related to the post you are replying to?

You can read I assume? Someone said there are no reasons for him to be fired. I’m giving one. Usually not showing up for your job is a good reason.

Are you really this dense? FCPS would have to show a pattern of him not showing up for work and the impact that had on operations. They would have to show that he was warned about it and given an opportunity to correct it. Do you know how difficult that is to do when your supervisor (the region asst supt) doesn’t even work in the same location? I’m not saying that this behavior is acceptable. What I’m saying is that it’s really difficult for an employer to fire someone for this reason. The same holds true for teachers. Unless they’re doing g something so publicly egregious, it’s really, really difficult to fire someone who is sub-par. Not impossible. Just difficult.

You definitely don’t know what dense means. You also contradicted yourself. Someone said you need reasons to fire him and I gave one. How the proof is gathered is a different conversation. Was he a terrible principal and deserve to be fired for MANY reasons? Absolutely. You are getting worked up over nothing. Calm down.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And for every “promotion” to Gatehouse the county could be hiring 3 new teachers with the salary saved if the employee was let go instead of being “promoted”.

Meh. I’m not so sure. It’s really difficult to fire someone if they haven’t done something like shown up to work completely wasted and stealing funds. He could’ve easily fought it and then the county would’ve paid out a lot more in legal fees.

He barely showed up to work. Most of the time he was "working from home". Is that what a Principal should do?

No. Of course not. What is your point and how is it related to the post you are replying to?

You can read I assume? Someone said there are no reasons for him to be fired. I’m giving one. Usually not showing up for your job is a good reason.

Are you really this dense? FCPS would have to show a pattern of him not showing up for work and the impact that had on operations. They would have to show that he was warned about it and given an opportunity to correct it. Do you know how difficult that is to do when your supervisor (the region asst supt) doesn’t even work in the same location? I’m not saying that this behavior is acceptable. What I’m saying is that it’s really difficult for an employer to fire someone for this reason. The same holds true for teachers. Unless they’re doing g something so publicly egregious, it’s really, really difficult to fire someone who is sub-par. Not impossible. Just difficult.

Maybe they should be at will employees like most Americans are.

Good luck staffing schools with at-will employees. DCUM posters get upset when teachers or other school staff are out for maternity leave or other family/medical issues. At-will employees can quit at any time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And for every “promotion” to Gatehouse the county could be hiring 3 new teachers with the salary saved if the employee was let go instead of being “promoted”.

Meh. I’m not so sure. It’s really difficult to fire someone if they haven’t done something like shown up to work completely wasted and stealing funds. He could’ve easily fought it and then the county would’ve paid out a lot more in legal fees.

He barely showed up to work. Most of the time he was "working from home". Is that what a Principal should do?

No. Of course not. What is your point and how is it related to the post you are replying to?

You can read I assume? Someone said there are no reasons for him to be fired. I’m giving one. Usually not showing up for your job is a good reason.

Are you really this dense? FCPS would have to show a pattern of him not showing up for work and the impact that had on operations. They would have to show that he was warned about it and given an opportunity to correct it. Do you know how difficult that is to do when your supervisor (the region asst supt) doesn’t even work in the same location? I’m not saying that this behavior is acceptable. What I’m saying is that it’s really difficult for an employer to fire someone for this reason. The same holds true for teachers. Unless they’re doing g something so publicly egregious, it’s really, really difficult to fire someone who is sub-par. Not impossible. Just difficult.

You definitely don’t know what dense means. You also contradicted yourself. Someone said you need reasons to fire him and I gave one. How the proof is gathered is a different conversation. Was he a terrible principal and deserve to be fired for MANY reasons? Absolutely. You are getting worked up over nothing. Calm down.

The football scandal wasn’t even ever proven. The school was bashed in the media and bsred by the states high school league on som "I’m white and I say so stuff”. The principal has been a victim of racism/white supremacy.

[Anonymous]

The principal and coach only kept their jobs because they were black. Look at the Fairfax situation. They quickly put that coach on leave before any investigation was complete and they have no direct evidence tied to the head coach much like the Hayfield situation.

[Anonymous]

Principals who screwed up got promoted to Gatehouse. What can we expect.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why do we have so many people employed at Gatehouse?

Our principal/VP to student ratio is around 500 students per admin. Plus however many teachers and support staff. Our teachers have a ratio of 150-170 students per teacher.

Surely the Gatehouse ratio of Gatehouse to staff should be similar.

Right now, they sit at around 2000 non school based administrative/Gatehouse employees. That is only around 90 students per Gatehouse level full time employee.

Something is very wrong with their staffing formulas.

I heard that in Prince William some of their central office staff were assigned to different positions at schools to help out during the first week. Things like cafeteria monitors, classroom assistant, that sort of things. I loved the idea that PWCS at least acknowledges that manpower can be helpful to the schools and there isn't a bubble around the office keeping them there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And there it is. All the “adults” promoted and pay increases and the students and left with their mess

They warehoused Bonitatibus (former TJ principal) there as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The principal and coach only kept their jobs because they were black. Look at the Fairfax situation. They quickly put that coach on leave before any investigation was complete and they have no direct evidence tied to the head coach much like the Hayfield situation.

No need to throw the gaslighting into the conversation.

[Anonymous]

This is not a promotion, idiot.

[Anonymous]

What I find interesting in his email to staff is that he specifically mentioned "applied, interviewed, accepted". He didn't want it to look like this new role was just given to him, that he was being removed from his school & handed/gifted a county-based leadership position.

That said, those of us who have been in Ffx for the long haul know differently/better.

[Anonymous]

Applied interviewed and accepted doesn't mean anything other than he sent an application in and interviewed. Doesn't mean he wasn't forced to move.