Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I don’t think the letter is the problem. It makes clear what is happening and that the principal doesn’t want it. The problem is central office is putting her in a role where she interacts with children again. She should stay in a role in central office where that won’t happen.
This is an effort to gut out CO?? Ha!
"We don't want to deal with her; YOU deal with her."
And someone apparently does like Dr. A.
Doesn't like Dr. A. Typo.
I feel bad for the principal. Central office is imposing this person on her, and yet she is the one who has to deal with the repercussions and must manage the AP. And from the letter, it does not sound like it is a temporary position, so Dr. A. is going to be stuck wtih her over the long term. I can't imagine the new AP is going to be getting offers elsewhere anytime soon.
Is it standard that central office appoints APs without consulting principals, or do principals normally hire their own APs?
I've seen APs inserted into schools where CO doesn't respect the principal, particularly in Title 1 schools where parents are less likely to object. A better process is also a committee interview from the local school community, made up of administrators, teachers, and a parent. The principal makes the final choice but is informed by community input.
Community meeting at Silver Creek? Nope must have missed that memo.
A meeting of administrators, teachers and school's PTA?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I don’t think the letter is the problem. It makes clear what is happening and that the principal doesn’t want it. The problem is central office is putting her in a role where she interacts with children again. She should stay in a role in central office where that won’t happen.
This is an effort to gut out CO?? Ha!
"We don't want to deal with her; YOU deal with her."
And someone apparently does like Dr. A.
Doesn't like Dr. A. Typo.
I feel bad for the principal. Central office is imposing this person on her, and yet she is the one who has to deal with the repercussions and must manage the AP. And from the letter, it does not sound like it is a temporary position, so Dr. A. is going to be stuck wtih her over the long term. I can't imagine the new AP is going to be getting offers elsewhere anytime soon.
Is it standard that central office appoints APs without consulting principals, or do principals normally hire their own APs?
I've seen APs inserted into schools where CO doesn't respect the principal, particularly in Title 1 schools where parents are less likely to object. A better process is also a committee interview from the local school community, made up of administrators, teachers, and a parent. The principal makes the final choice but is informed by community input.
Community meeting at Silver Creek? Nope must have missed that memo.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I don’t think the letter is the problem. It makes clear what is happening and that the principal doesn’t want it. The problem is central office is putting her in a role where she interacts with children again. She should stay in a role in central office where that won’t happen.
This is an effort to gut out CO?? Ha!
"We don't want to deal with her; YOU deal with her."
And someone apparently does like Dr. A.
Doesn't like Dr. A. Typo.
I feel bad for the principal. Central office is imposing this person on her, and yet she is the one who has to deal with the repercussions and must manage the AP. And from the letter, it does not sound like it is a temporary position, so Dr. A. is going to be stuck wtih her over the long term. I can't imagine the new AP is going to be getting offers elsewhere anytime soon.
Is it standard that central office appoints APs without consulting principals, or do principals normally hire their own APs?
I've seen APs inserted into schools where CO doesn't respect the principal, particularly in Title 1 schools where parents are less likely to object. A better process is also a committee interview from the local school community, made up of administrators, teachers, and a parent. The principal makes the final choice but is informed by community input.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I don’t think the letter is the problem. It makes clear what is happening and that the principal doesn’t want it. The problem is central office is putting her in a role where she interacts with children again. She should stay in a role in central office where that won’t happen.
This is an effort to gut out CO?? Ha!
"We don't want to deal with her; YOU deal with her."
And someone apparently does like Dr. A.
Doesn't like Dr. A. Typo.
I feel bad for the principal. Central office is imposing this person on her, and yet she is the one who has to deal with the repercussions and must manage the AP. And from the letter, it does not sound like it is a temporary position, so Dr. A. is going to be stuck wtih her over the long term. I can't imagine the new AP is going to be getting offers elsewhere anytime soon.
Is it standard that central office appoints APs without consulting principals, or do principals normally hire their own APs?
I've seen APs inserted into schools where CO doesn't respect the principal, particularly in Title 1 schools where parents are less likely to object. A better process is also a committee interview from the local school community, made up of administrators, teachers, and a parent. The principal makes the final choice but is informed by community input.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I don’t think the letter is the problem. It makes clear what is happening and that the principal doesn’t want it. The problem is central office is putting her in a role where she interacts with children again. She should stay in a role in central office where that won’t happen.
This is an effort to gut out CO?? Ha!
"We don't want to deal with her; YOU deal with her."
And someone apparently does like Dr. A.
Doesn't like Dr. A. Typo.
I feel bad for the principal. Central office is imposing this person on her, and yet she is the one who has to deal with the repercussions and must manage the AP. And from the letter, it does not sound like it is a temporary position, so Dr. A. is going to be stuck wtih her over the long term. I can't imagine the new AP is going to be getting offers elsewhere anytime soon.
Is it standard that central office appoints APs without consulting principals, or do principals normally hire their own APs?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I don’t think the letter is the problem. It makes clear what is happening and that the principal doesn’t want it. The problem is central office is putting her in a role where she interacts with children again. She should stay in a role in central office where that won’t happen.
This is an effort to gut out CO?? Ha!
"We don't want to deal with her; YOU deal with her."
And someone apparently does like Dr. A.
Doesn't like Dr. A. Typo.
I feel bad for the principal. Central office is imposing this person on her, and yet she is the one who has to deal with the repercussions and must manage the AP. And from the letter, it does not sound like it is a temporary position, so Dr. A. is going to be stuck wtih her over the long term. I can't imagine the new AP is going to be getting offers elsewhere anytime soon.
Is it standard that central office appoints APs without consulting principals, or do principals normally hire their own APs?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I don’t think the letter is the problem. It makes clear what is happening and that the principal doesn’t want it. The problem is central office is putting her in a role where she interacts with children again. She should stay in a role in central office where that won’t happen.
This is an effort to gut out CO?? Ha!
"We don't want to deal with her; YOU deal with her."
And someone apparently does like Dr. A.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I don’t think the letter is the problem. It makes clear what is happening and that the principal doesn’t want it. The problem is central office is putting her in a role where she interacts with children again. She should stay in a role in central office where that won’t happen.
This is an effort to gut out CO?? Ha!
"We don't want to deal with her; YOU deal with her."
And someone apparently does like Dr. A.
Anonymous wrote:How will an AP with ES experience handle MS issues?
Anonymous wrote:Parent at the school, my two cents:
I personally love Dr. A and the other remaining AP at the school. My child doesn’t interact all that much with APs in the first place because a good portion of their work with students is of a disciplinary nature so they get to know certain kids better than others.
I appreciate the transparency and honesty we always get from Dr. A. While I’d prefer a new admin without baggage, and while I think this person’s mistake would have resulted in termination in many workplaces that are not MCPS, I am also open to the idea that it was a highly unusual situation and I’m not sure how I would have handled going against police either. I’m willing to give this person a chance and see what the kids report, but with a watchful eye.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I don’t think the letter is the problem. It makes clear what is happening and that the principal doesn’t want it. The problem is central office is putting her in a role where she interacts with children again. She should stay in a role in central office where that won’t happen.
This is an effort to gut out CO?? Ha!
Anonymous wrote:How will an AP with ES experience handle MS issues?
Anonymous wrote:How will an AP with ES experience handle MS issues?