Regardless of her credentials from the Broad Institute (or maybe because of them), Superintendent Nancy McGinley of the Charleston County School District simply does not know what to do with Burke and North Charleston High Schools. If it weren't for NCLB, she wouldn't even care. As it is, that embarrassing time has rolled around once again: the threat of a state takeover.
Incompetence can be defined as tinkering with the edges of a poorly-understood problem and calling that success. Thus, in her latest statements McGinley points out how she has cut the number of failing schools in the district. True, by closing them. What does that prove?
Back in mid-June, McGinley gushed in an op-ed about how these two schools were really "dream-making 'opportunity centers."" She complains of the short-sightedness of those who think schools with unconscionably high dropout rates should be labeled as "at risk" or "failing." After all, she points out, some students do achieve and graduate!
Later in the month, NAACP vice-president Joe Darby echoed this drivel in a similar op-ed. He and the NAACP should be ashamed of themselves.
McGinley has had plenty of time to turn around these high schools; obviously she doesn't know how. If it weren't for CCSD Board members who follow her in lockstep, the Board would have voted her out of her position long ago.
The person most responsible for the poor performances of both schools is the Superintendent. Prior to reaching that position, she was chief academic officer. Once named superintendent, she has appointed the district supervisors and the principals. They are her responsibility and she has blown it.
Whether the state takes over the schools, a private organization such as KIPP is called in, or these schools go charter, McGinley has shown she should not be trusted with the education of the students in and headed for these schools.
But of course Wando, Buist, and the Academic Magnet continue to do well. Apparently that is all McGinley supporters care about.
Monday, July 09, 2012
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
5 comments:
As far as any improvement plan is concerned, the devil is in the details.
The district is too big and the administration is too distant.
Why would Grimm/Cannon agree to only a three-year plan when the cohort for the third year (of the contract) already likely has been compromised with early dropouts? Not very smart. I would have negotiated for a four-year deal so that I could closely monitor and case manage the incoming ninth graders and hopefully preserve their cohort and thus that cohort graduation rate. What was he thinking?
Any principal contracts are at the pleasure of the superintendent anyway. The board really has no influence on whether a principal stays or goes. It's all up to the superintendent. Just look at Burke's last principal. Mr. Benton has a nearly six figure desk job in the central office. He pulls down the same salary as the current Burke principal, only he's out of sight and therefore out of mind. Nothing changes. Not the way the district does business and not the results in the failing schools. It's bad leadership and failed management.
Why not just return these schools to local control. Burke and the schools that feed into it are being managed by bureaucrats that have no roots in the community. It seems each of these schools failed miserably only after the county school district took direct control of them leaving the local communities out of the process. When locals lost the option to have a say, all of these schools began a steady spiral downward. They haven't always been "at risk" as the superintendent attempts to imply. Excuses that depend on poverty, race and parent participation are just attempts to pass blame. Even when these schools weren't failing, issues involving poverty, race and parent participation were present. This is mainly about poor management, not poverty or race.
Post a Comment