Principal Announcements

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:For the posters who are bemoaning the principals who left last year for example do you even know why some of them left? How do you know that they were necessarily a good fit for the school that they were leaving? Or how do you know that they were promoted? How do you know that they weren't moving? Because within those categories of questions I just mentioned fall most of those principals.

My school had a new principal this year and she is A much better for than te person who was fired at the end of last year. I don't think churn is bad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:For the posters who are bemoaning the principals who left last year for example do you even know why some of them left? How do you know that they were necessarily a good fit for the school that they were leaving? Or how do you know that they were promoted? How do you know that they weren't moving? Because within those categories of questions I just mentioned fall most of those principals.

Whatever the reason they left, excessive churn is not a good thing for any organization.

A lot of the 'other reasons' are also indicative of systemic problems. Some decide to leave, move etc because of issues and/or the writing's on the wall for them. Better to leave than be fired.

[Anonymous]

Once upon a time, Bunker Hill was the cream of the crop in NE DC. Well, one bad principal had many bad ideas and bad things happened. The school lost 150 students in one year. The charter school boom took almost all of them. From January 2000 - June 2007 there were 6 principals. Bunker Hill never recovered from the train wreck of principals. From 2007 - 2014 there have been 4 that I know of. All of my teacher friends were gone and found greener pastures elsewhere. Bunker Hill = 10+ principals in 14 years.

The reason for the churn is multi-faceted. There are many variables. Nevertheless, anyone who takes a principalship in DCPS is on a suicide mission.

Teacher and Administrative Churn — It’s Not A Bug, It’s A Feature of Education Deform in DC and Elsewhere (article)

https://gfbrandenburg.wordpress.com/2013/07/17/teacher-and-administrative-churn-its-not-a-bug-its-a-feature-of-education-deform-in-dc-and-elsewhere/

[Anonymous]

i'd be really interested in knowing which of those schools on that list from 2014 actually have a principal that is worse now than the one that was there before. I would wager that in almost every case the principal is better than the one before. In most cases I would say the principle is a lot better than the one that was there before such as Ludlow Taylor, HD Cooke, Lafayette, Turner, Ballou, Hearst, CW Harris, Plummer. The one exception I'd make is Simon and she retired.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Once upon a time, Bunker Hill was the cream of the crop in NE DC. Well, one bad principal had many bad ideas and bad things happened. The school lost 150 students in one year. The charter school boom took almost all of them. From January 2000 - June 2007 there were 6 principals. Bunker Hill never recovered from the train wreck of principals. From 2007 - 2014 there have been 4 that I know of. All of my teacher friends were gone and found greener pastures elsewhere. Bunker Hill = 10+ principals in 14 years.

The reason for the churn is multi-faceted. There are many variables. Nevertheless, anyone who takes a principalship in DCPS is on a suicide mission.

Teacher and Administrative Churn — It’s Not A Bug, It’s A Feature of Education Deform in DC and Elsewhere (article)

https://gfbrandenburg.wordpress.com/2013/07/17/teacher-and-administrative-churn-its-not-a-bug-its-a-feature-of-education-deform-in-dc-and-elsewhere/

I've also heard a lot of departing teachers say they leave b/c DCPS is career suicide. And they leave VERY early in the year, not wanting to stick around so incompetent and mean spirited principals can run their professional names into the ground.

So yes DCPS needs to work hard to bring in QUALITY leaders who can lead these talented, highly sought after teachers they bring in. And once they get those people, they need to retain them.

[Anonymous]

The article brings up a really good point that DCPS needs to look at honestly.

Teachers at high poverty schools are more likely to get lower IMPACT scores than those at low poverty schools.

That's because students at the low poverty schools have greater issues of truancy, behavior problems and just don't perform as well academically. With 50% of a teacher's IMPACT score being student achievement, a gifted, earnest hardworking teacher gets slammed. So what incentive would she have to work there.

Principals play into this game by scoring the teachers low to justify the low student achievement, knowing damn well the kids aren't showing up or doing the work and that the teacher is busting her ass. He's trying to keep his job by throwing teachers under the bus. So there's high turnover the next year. Students still aren't doing the work or showing up. Then the principal gets canned.

It's a vicious cycle and game DCPS needs to stop playing.

Working in a low performing DC school is churn and career suicide for all. Who'd want it?

[Anonymous]

Exactly ^ I left a high poverty school because I was told I would never be scored fairly because the ME's would not be able to justify any high scores. Since I have been at my new school, I have been highly effective with no problems.

[Anonymous]

Again, I keep repeating this point in my head: no one can effectively run a school in just one year. One of the biggest jobs of a principal is to KNOW people. Know the kids. Know the teachers. Know the administration. If they're disconnected, if there's no chance of tenure, the entire thing falls apart. I seriously, seriously would like to know why this isn't a painfully obvious point that is taken into account. School reform isn't school reform--it's school churn. New charter schools, new tests, new curriculum, new staff. There's so much more money to be made that way than by actually teaching. It is not like elementary education is rocket science--it really is not. A great deal of the job is just being there, being there FOR the kids, the school and the community.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Again, I keep repeating this point in my head: no one can effectively run a school in just one year. One of the biggest jobs of a principal is to KNOW people. Know the kids. Know the teachers. Know the administration. If they're disconnected, if there's no chance of tenure, the entire thing falls apart. I seriously, seriously would like to know why this isn't a painfully obvious point that is taken into account. School reform isn't school reform--it's school churn. New charter schools, new tests, new curriculum, new staff. There's so much more money to be made that way than by actually teaching. It is not like elementary education is rocket science--it really is not. A great deal of the job is just being there, being there FOR the kids, the school and the community.

Are there principals being let go after just a year?
In my DCPS, a principal was let go after seven years in which she utterly failed in her job. We desperately needed someone new. And the person who came in has really begun to turn things around. There is a LOT more work to do, no doubt, but I had zero confidence that the last principal would be able to do it even if she had been there 10 years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Again, I keep repeating this point in my head: no one can effectively run a school in just one year. One of the biggest jobs of a principal is to KNOW people. Know the kids. Know the teachers. Know the administration. If they're disconnected, if there's no chance of tenure, the entire thing falls apart. I seriously, seriously would like to know why this isn't a painfully obvious point that is taken into account. School reform isn't school reform--it's school churn. New charter schools, new tests, new curriculum, new staff. There's so much more money to be made that way than by actually teaching. It is not like elementary education is rocket science--it really is not. A great deal of the job is just being there, being there FOR the kids, the school and the community.

Are there principals being let go after just a year?
In my DCPS, a principal was let go after seven years in which she utterly failed in her job. We desperately needed someone new. And the person who came in has really begun to turn things around. There is a LOT more work to do, no doubt, but I had zero confidence that the last principal would be able to do it even if she had been there 10 years.

Then that's another issue why were they allowed to sit there for 7 years, they don't have tenure? Even if the principal that is hired is better than the one before (as a PP mentioned), if this is happening on a yearly basis, then regardless of whether the new one is better or not, there is still a personnel issue as they hired the previous principals. The school reform model of churn and burn is clearly not effective, but it does a good job of shifting the blame to teachers and principals, and murking the test data as everything keeps changing from year to year. Teachers and principals don't make policy.

[Anonymous]

The school reform model of churn and burn is clearly not effective, but it does a good job of shifting the blame to teachers and principals, and murking the test data as everything keeps changing from year to year. Teachers and principals don't make policy.

This. Exactly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Exactly ^ I left a high poverty school because I was told I would never be scored fairly because the ME's would not be able to justify any high scores. Since I have been at my new school, I have been highly effective with no problems.

This happens to A LOT of DC teachers a teacher's IMPACT will read as if she's a bumbling illiterate who drools and has a tick.

The next year she'll be a highly effective hero at a high performing school.

This is an issue Henderson and Kamras need to look at honestly as the issue is OBVIOUS and the evaluation system needs to be tweaked so that it's fair and doesn't send teachers running for the hills.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

The school reform model of churn and burn is clearly not effective, but it does a good job of shifting the blame to teachers and principals, and murking the test data as everything keeps changing from year to year. Teachers and principals don't make policy.

This. Exactly.

+2

But when you've reduced education to a number's game (w/zero regard for poverty, homeless, academic deficits, crime, behavior/school safety) this is what you get.

[Anonymous]

The new principal of Bunker Hill ES is Kara Kuchemba. An experience administrator from within DC Public Schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Exactly ^ I left a high poverty school because I was told I would never be scored fairly because the ME's would not be able to justify any high scores. Since I have been at my new school, I have been highly effective with no problems.

This happens to A LOT of DC teachers a teacher's IMPACT will read as if she's a bumbling illiterate who drools and has a tick.

The next year she'll be a highly effective hero at a high performing school.

This is an issue Henderson and Kamras need to look at honestly as the issue is OBVIOUS and the evaluation system needs to be tweaked so that it's fair and doesn't send teachers running for the hills.

DO you really think Henderson and Kamras -- and many others in DCPS administration and city government --- don't already know this? Of course they know it -- how could they not? The question is why do they perpetuate this system? Are they in some kind of weird denial? Is there something in it for them to perpetuate a system that is turning out -- under their watch -- just as all the critics and nay-sayers said it would? If so, What? why do they remain on staff in the midst of this debacle?