I wrote this on the other thread, but is it just me or is it also unusual for someone to spend more than a decade in district administration and then move to be a principal of a school?
It seems like a demotion to me, but I am thinking of corporate analogues where it looks like a move from being a VP to a Division manager or something.
I wrote this on the other thread, but is it just me or is it also unusual for someone to spend more than a decade in district administration and then move to be a principal of a school?
It seems like a demotion to me, but I am thinking of corporate analogues where it looks like a move from being a VP to a Division manager or something.
I would think you would need different skill sets as a principal, but maybe not.
Is this a typical career trajectory? The new Nichols principal is also coming from an admin job (although I think she had principal experience a while ago).
So, yeah, how about they wanted to be closer to where they live, or want to add their efforts to the Evanston school system? Maybe they saw a role that needed filling from a more experienced perspective and have the skills to do it well? I get that when someone has dedicated their life to public service people assume they have the right to question everything. Not inclined to believe that this always has merit.
Her 'experience' is questionable. She never has been a principal before. Maybe some of the skills she cultivated in administration for a decade will transfer, but maybe they won't.
Was she the most experienced candidate in the pool? We will never know.
But we have seen a lot of experienced principals leave the district in recent years and the current and previous superintendents were rookies.
I think it's a fair question to ask at what level should the public be involved in staff hiring decisions. At the superintendent level, absolutely yes the public should be involved and I think it's an absolute farce that we have no been included in either of the last two searches.
At the principal level? I don't know if there's a really compelling argument that anyone should be involved except maybe some parents and staff in the local school. It's really the Board's job to provide that level of oversight and if they're not doing it, then they need to be voted out.
I would say the same for the City of Evanston - a lot of people have problems with various staffers in the City. It's ultimately up to the people we elect (and the media to some extent) to provide that oversight .
I agree with you on this. I was not implying that the public should be involved in staffing outside the Superintendent--and actually the Board shouldn't be involved either (didn't we have some issue with Joey getting involved in a principal who had a dispute with Horton or Turner?).
The Board hires the Superintendent and that person runs the day-to-day ops.
But of course it is totally legit to question Board/Superintendent decisions--whether they relate to hiring, capital improvements, curriculum, etc...
One byproduct of the opaque and non-transparent Chief Executive hiring process is that you are not going to necessarily have the trust of the public when you make decisions.
The first thing I did when Horton was announced as superintendent was to google his name. The first hit that came up was the NBC report saying he owed tens of thousands of dollars to the City of Chicago. I was like, "why the hell would they hire this guy?" Then you look at his resume: never been a superintendent, never worked in a community like Evanston, etc. I think many people in town were mystified.
So, yes, this guy is going to get a bunch of scrutiny. And I think those of us who had concerns about his experience and ethics were vindicated by his poor leadership, financial mismanagement, and incompetence. Then when you have identity politics grifters like Biz chalking up all parent/taxpayer concerns to "structural racism", you've pretty much shown you're a bad actor without concern for the actual education of the kids.
Fast forward to the Turner search: the Board followed the exact same closed process! The Board squandered an opportunity to build trust and--maybe--even have a better search outcome that could be informed by public input. Nope. Instead they hired one of Horton's deputies who similarly had no experience as a superintendent, was on the "do-not-hire" list at CPS for hiding her income in order to get her kid free lunch and had the OIG chiding her for a failure to catch the falsification of attendance records.
Again, the normal response should be, 'why the hell would they hire her? Was she really the best candidate"? Of course we don't know if she is the best candidate because of the secretive nature of the search.
I have nothing against the new Orrington principal. But any major decision coming from District leadership has to be scrutinized given the background and track record of the Board & Admin.
I wrote this on the other thread, but is it just me or is it also unusual for someone to spend more than a decade in district administration and then move to be a principal of a school?
It seems like a demotion to me, but I am thinking of corporate analogues where it looks like a move from being a VP to a Division manager or something.
I would think you would need different skill sets as a principal, but maybe not.
Is this a typical career trajectory? The new Nichols principal is also coming from an admin job (although I think she had principal experience a while ago).
So, yeah, how about they wanted to be closer to where they live, or want to add their efforts to the Evanston school system? Maybe they saw a role that needed filling from a more experienced perspective and have the skills to do it well? I get that when someone has dedicated their life to public service people assume they have the right to question everything. Not inclined to believe that this always has merit.
Yea in this case shes from Evanston! Everyone is very paranoid these days
Her 'experience' is questionable. She never has been a principal before. Maybe some of the skills she cultivated in administration for a decade will transfer, but maybe they won't.
Was she the most experienced candidate in the pool? We will never know.
But we have seen a lot of experienced principals leave the district in recent years and the current and previous superintendents were rookies.
Turner has done nothing to assuage concerns that she was the best superintendent that we could recruit. (Take a look at Larry Gavin's latest piece on District staffing: https://evanstonroundtable.com/2024/07/14/an-analysis-why-the-increase-of-140-district-65-employees-in-fy24/ )
After the Horton debacle and the Board's insistence on doing hiring in the dark without public input, the natural position is to question everything.
At this point Turner and the Board absolutely don't deserve the benefit of the doubt on any of their decisions.
I think it's a fair question to ask at what level should the public be involved in staff hiring decisions. At the superintendent level, absolutely yes the public should be involved and I think it's an absolute farce that we have no been included in either of the last two searches.
At the principal level? I don't know if there's a really compelling argument that anyone should be involved except maybe some parents and staff in the local school. It's really the Board's job to provide that level of oversight and if they're not doing it, then they need to be voted out.
I would say the same for the City of Evanston - a lot of people have problems with various staffers in the City. It's ultimately up to the people we elect (and the media to some extent) to provide that oversight .
I agree with you on this. I was not implying that the public should be involved in staffing outside the Superintendent--and actually the Board shouldn't be involved either (didn't we have some issue with Joey getting involved in a principal who had a dispute with Horton or Turner?).
The Board hires the Superintendent and that person runs the day-to-day ops.
But of course it is totally legit to question Board/Superintendent decisions--whether they relate to hiring, capital improvements, curriculum, etc...
One byproduct of the opaque and non-transparent Chief Executive hiring process is that you are not going to necessarily have the trust of the public when you make decisions.
The first thing I did when Horton was announced as superintendent was to google his name. The first hit that came up was the NBC report saying he owed tens of thousands of dollars to the City of Chicago. I was like, "why the hell would they hire this guy?" Then you look at his resume: never been a superintendent, never worked in a community like Evanston, etc. I think many people in town were mystified.
So, yes, this guy is going to get a bunch of scrutiny. And I think those of us who had concerns about his experience and ethics were vindicated by his poor leadership, financial mismanagement, and incompetence. Then when you have identity politics grifters like Biz chalking up all parent/taxpayer concerns to "structural racism", you've pretty much shown you're a bad actor without concern for the actual education of the kids.
Fast forward to the Turner search: the Board followed the exact same closed process! The Board squandered an opportunity to build trust and--maybe--even have a better search outcome that could be informed by public input. Nope. Instead they hired one of Horton's deputies who similarly had no experience as a superintendent, was on the "do-not-hire" list at CPS for hiding her income in order to get her kid free lunch and had the OIG chiding her for a failure to catch the falsification of attendance records.
Again, the normal response should be, 'why the hell would they hire her? Was she really the best candidate"? Of course we don't know if she is the best candidate because of the secretive nature of the search.
I have nothing against the new Orrington principal. But any major decision coming from District leadership has to be scrutinized given the background and track record of the Board & Admin.