Are Our Schools In Crisis?: Do we have a Chief School Administrator or not?

...And what did we have to give up in order to hire him? Does our Board of Education understand what the process is when hiring persons with a Certificate of Eligibility? (Carlisle has a CE) Rumors are that the state has told our board that if we want to pay him more than CAP that we must give up some State Aid that generally goes for pupil services. In this town, that is not so unthinkable. We are a failing district that accepts Title I funds, but we do  not provide much needed title I Reading and Math classes to students that obviously need them. That is the main reason we are a failing district. So what else is new?

Our almost Chief School
Administrator called me an
Arm Chair Quarterback,
because I maintain
this blog and I speak up for all
of the children.  If exposing
corruption and indifference in
a sick, and festering educational
system makes me that,
then so be it. And my chair
is also pink.

Pardon me, but I agree with our Governor on the point that Superintendents make far too much money. They are grossly overrated and overpaid. Unless they are terrible micromanagers they have a workforce of some pretty powerful and well educated people who really keep the ship afloat. They take 10 minutes to access who will not oppose anything they have in mind. Those folks who do a lot of kissing up for whatever reason have job security. Those who dare to have an opposing opinion or an original thought that was NOT given to them by the person in power suffers. An insecure Superintendent quickly emasculates anyone who has the credentials to do the job that he has landed. It has just happened in this town. Decisons were made that had absolutely nothing to do with children or education.

I noticed on the last Board Agenda that only 1 person was listed as highly qualified. I am hoping against hope that this was a joke of some sort. This one person was nearly fired outright. Teachers and students showed up at board meetings to support him, but he was still moved out of a building that desperately needs not only him, but more men like him. In my old district, I was one of the people assigned to make sure the people in my department were highly qualified. It was not a hard job. Those who were not were quickly moved to jobs they were qualified to do and others went back to school to earn the needed credits. The District complied. What is Englewood doing? Do we have the largest number of unqualified teachers on the planet or is someone blowing smoke in our eyes?

Don't be confused by the term higly qualified. All it means is that the teacher is certified to teach in the area in which they are employed. Points are given to those who have worked successfully in an area for so many years, points are given for workshops, classes etc. People, that is not a difficult concept. No Child Left Behind was created to HELP parents. Don't get it twisted. EVERY teacher should be HIGHLY QUALIFIED. If they are not NCLB gives you the right as parents to protest that person teaching your children. That is as it should be. So how many teachers in Englewood are NOT highly qualified? I want an answer to that question.

Lately, I am getting the impression that there is a movement to dumb down NCLB. Dumb down to what? Districts like Englewood have ignored the tenets of NCLB anyway. They give lip service to it. They lead parents to think it is a bad thing only because they don't want them to examine what it really is. Take care Arne Duncan and others who are looking to make things more comfortable for school districts who complain about NCLB. They were probably NOT going to abide by its tenets anyway.

Sometimes Superintendents arrive in town with an entirely different workforce than the one already in place. What do you do with the people who are already working hard to keep the schools afloat? Some people are so full of themselves that they make unrealistic demands on Boards of Education having to do with deals under the table. They bargain for complete control of hiring and decision making. They take the Board on Retreats with the express objective of training them to be a more amicable body of policy makers. "Just let  me do what I want." They make announcements in public that suggest that the public should stay out of the business of the school board. They suggest that the New Jersey School Board Association training is not needed. Rest assured, it is needed. If for no other reason than to let Board Members know for sure when they are breaking the rules and deceiving the public whom they have sworn to serve.

Since I have become more involved, I have read a lot about the relationship of Boards of Education and Superintendents. It is very interesting that the board is expected to give the Superintendent objectives that he/she is expected to accomplish. Okay, so who gives the objectives to the Board? What if the Board is so involved in it's own agenda that they have no idea what an objective is? What if the Board of Education as a whole has no clue as to what makes a good school system? What if they have no idea and do not even look for examples of best practices in the surrounding towns that have been more successful in producing high achieving students? What if the Board has demonstrated that they only care about a small percentage of students (their children and the children of their friends and neighbors) that have been separated out from the herd? Are we really proposing to lift the rules that make these people pretend to care?

Business is booming, Grants are rolling in, Facilities are rented on Sundays, Folks are smiling, shuffling and keeping time, but how are the children?