A friend in Bluffton suggested I read the front page article in today's (Wednesday) Bluffton Today entitled "School ‘Coaches’ Sidelined"
"District’s top educators put in less influential roles".
http://npaper-wehaa.com/bluffton-today;see-1WB8Atd5BSNNGNIu#page-1
In the article Dr. Truesdale is quoted as saying a year ago that these four top educators in the district would become Academic Improvement Officers. "They were to coach district schools to “high levels of student achievement and student effectiveness,”. A year later, she says their services are no long required. One has left the district, one has taken the public information officer's place, one is in charge of the added 20 days for students who don't pass the PACT test and some other academic initiatives and one will be working to coordinate programs for the new Bluffton Schools as they come on-line. In the meantime, all 28 school principals are now reporting directly to the Superintendent.
How can you expect to improve academic performance in schools by removing qualified people from leadership positions and having the principals report to the busiest person in the district. So busy, I am told, that the 28 principals have not received any of the state mandated reviews by the Superintendent since she arrived a year ago?
When Dr.Truesdale announced the creation of Academic Improvement Officer positions a year ago I applauded her initiative. As a former administrator it made a lot of sense to me in a district as segmented as Beaufort County to have an Assistant Superintendent(Academic Improvement Officer) in each of the four distinct clusters. I could see the opportunity for these proven education leaders to provide operational support, academic support, mentoring, program coordination, communications and management of growth issues with commensurate clearly defined responsibilities and authority. Obviously that was not to be. They were to provide only academic support and coaching and now even that will be done solely by the superintendent.
How can one person, the superintendent, with everything on her plate provide any of the necessary leadership for these 28 principals? Each has different needs,are at different places in their positional maturity, and require the support of a leader who is readily available and has intimate knowledge of their schools. Does she really think that a principal is going to call her for assistance with any issue knowing full-well that he or she is risking being judged as weak or incompetent? My friends tell me the district grapevine is already full of these stories of judgement and criticism based on simple questions being asked. Alas,according to a recent blog by KingofPain14, "the principals are not allowed to meet without someone from the senior administration present." If this is true it is a sorry situation! Thank God for phones and e-mail.
Does this kind of leadership structure represent "what's best for kids" or is it all about Power and Paranoia?