That Takoma Principal Part 2

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Clayton is a nice guy. Don’t believe these stories.

Are you saying it didn't happen? Did he say that or did he not?

DP. He absolutely did say it. And also, in some ways, he really is a nice guy. I truly believe he cares deeply about each and every kid at Takoma - he has a heart for them and it's a warm environment in that regard. But he's not a good manager or administrator, he has a tendency to be extremely defensive and prickly and he gives out favors to friends vs nurturing talent wherever it is found. He treats teachers like his pawns instead of colleagues. And he is -- I cannot stress this enough -- an abysmal communicator. He rambles, he digresses, he backtracks, he alludes, he repeats, and in the end: he has conveyed no information.

He's a human person, not a monster or a saint. But I don't think his personality is right for a principal position and I don't think he's doing a good job.

This is a pretty good summation of Clayton. I would just add, he also lies incessantly. Whatever he tells you to your face will be the complete opposite he shares with someone else. Whatever is the easiest answer for him to let you leave thinking he is a "nice guy", so I can see why people are easily fooled by that

Not at Takoma, but this is interesting because we are at a school people love but I have similar feelings about our principal. He plays favorites (teachers and families) and deflects problems. Some communication is good, some not. He does many good things and people think there is no bad. He is a human person, not a monster or a saint. But if you view any principal as one or the other, there can be issues down the road in ignoring real problems or creating fake problems.

This is a classic “fine-time” leadership problem. A principal who genuinely cares about students but struggles to take negative feedback and address problems constructively. Their good intentions to protect friends and reward loyalty end up creating divisions, lowering morale, and pushing talented teachers outside the inner circle to quietly leave. Over time, the school is left with mostly loyal yes people rather than high performing staff, which hurts the quality of education and ultimately affects students.

This is literally the personality DCPS selects for when hiring principals - they want yes-people who will do whatever central office says and not bring them problems.

Well that clearly failed here as he spent last night trying to defend protecting a teacher who has been verbally and emotionally abusing children for two years and blamed the parents for it all

I don't think he was defending her per se. He can't tell her HR/Union business. That is a violation of her privacy so if you take privacy as defending than ok.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:By making this messy, we have allowed others to distract us from why we are here.

There is a teacher who is acting in a way that is mentally and emotionally damaging to children.

There is a man who is shielding her, creating distractions, making any excuses that serve him, hoping it blows over, and not exercising his responsibility to protect said children.

These are the things we cannot lose focus on.

Children are asking adults to help. Do we turn our backs and get distracted from that, or do we demand change?

Katie Larkin is the instructional superintendent. Make it impossible for her to ignore this.

So if the confidential DCPS process, the details of which could not be shared at the PTO meeting, finds the allegations unsubstantiated, will DCPS and the principal take no action and simply continue as usual for this teacher and the affected students? That outcome would be deeply concerning.

DC is a one-party consent state. I wonder what the laws about students recording audio in class are.