Monday, July 20, 2009
Week 2 reading
I'm heading off to church camp with twenty teenage girls (wish me luck). I didn't see questions yet for this section so I will answer when I return on Friday. One thing I found interesting to look at in this section was the table on page 88 regarding turnover of principals. If you compare this chart to table 1.1 on page 18, it seems the four schools at the bottom of table 1.1 had more turnover than the others. I am sure there are other factors contributing to these elementaries failing to reach the Kennewick goal, but you have to wonder how change in leadership affected staff and students. Did these administrators just not buy into it as much or never get the chance to get things going? There is a statement by Dave (Washington) right at the beginning of chapter eight which says, "I don't know how you can be a principal today without knowing what it takes for kids to read..." I was just looking at these three items and found it interesting to think about. By no means though am I suggesting our leadership is not prepared to support and lead us in this direction if this is where we are heading. Perhaps more answers will come later in the book explaining what other factors contributed to the failure of these four buildings to reach goal. Can't wait for the questions and to read on.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Melanie,
ReplyDeleteWOW! Good luck with all of those girls. The comment "I don't know how you can be a principal today without knowing what it takes for kids to read" also caught my interest. I think that in the past a principal was seen as the schedue maker, organizer, behavior manager, etc. Education has now made a huge transition to a principal being a part of curriculum and instruciton. This quote also went well with one in Chapter 5 "Each adminisrator is expected to spend two hours a day or ten hours a week on instructionally focused activities, 60% of which are to be direct classroom observations". I really like the idea of spending a few hours a day on curriculum and instruction. At this point I feel it is a good way to have a positive impact in my job.
I find myself wanting to read on and find out more information about this process too, Melanie...we have a lot to think about and big decisions to make or at least attempt to make things even better at the Kindergarten level. I know the first grade team gave us great feedback over the years to "keep doing what we are doing" to get the kids ready for first grade. I think if we hone in on the most important and effective changes, we would have a solid foundation for the first year of education for our NU students.
ReplyDeleteGood luck Melanie I would take 20 teenage boys any day. Vickie is right about the perception of administrators in the past they were facilitators of order not curriculum. In order for us to move forward administrators have to get in the trenches with us and be "partners" for good change, not just change.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteMelanie mentioned the table on page 88 that showed a turn over of principals for the 4 bottom schools. I wonder how much teacher turn over was at those schools. That would have to be a major contributing factor also. I don't remember them mentioning teacher turnover but I do remember one principal stating something about having several excellent teachers but when they were changing curriculum feelings were hurt and conflict among the staff developed and these teachers moved on to new schools. (Pg. 96) It doesn't state whether they stayed in the school district or what.
ReplyDeleteGood point, Connie. If you look at the chart on pg. 88 and compare it to the one on pg. 18, Washington School was consistently on track and one of the first ones to make the 90% goal. Consistent placement of teachers and administrators does make a different in just knowing the strategies or KNOWING the strategies for success.
ReplyDelete