Reply to New opposition petition to the Maury-Miner boundary proposal from DME

Forum Index » DC Public and Public Charter Schools

Reply to "New opposition petition to the Maury-Miner boundary proposal from DME"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Sorry to pivot the conversation, but I just listened to the DME recording and scrolled to the section on the recommendation for the cluster working group to begin no earlier to 2027.  You can clearly hear a short discussion on why that timeframe does not work and DME seemed to make a note of it, possibly moving the working group to one year from now, so 2025.  Giving time for the Miner principal to acclimate does not make sense given the constant principal turnover there - this would push the working group out indefinitely.  One year from now would be sufficient.  Second, principals are expected to start their jobs prepared on day one, so giving time to acclimate doesn't make sense.  I guess we'll find out what is said at the Maury meeting tomorrow.[/quote]

I disagree with this. Given the “constant principal turnover there,” it makes sense to establish strong leadership before doing anything about this cockamamie cluster idea, which should be (if anything) a last resort. Establishing strong leadership at Miner would be easier, faster, and less disruptive to other schools than the cluster idea, with at least as strong a prospect of improving academic outcomes (as would countless other evidence-based interventions).

Moreover, if the thesis is to pair the schools, rather than to have Maury take over Miner, then having weak or ineffective leadership at Maury will handicap the whole scheme. [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics