Ok what you need to get out of that is:
His schools were crap. Below the national average. So he was not effective. An executive is defined by the people he keeps under him, so don't pass the buck. He did not have the kind of policy to improve his schools. His demeanor and bonuses without independent confirmation of numbers encouraged falsification of data to a gross degree.
By all measures this man can't run schools better than my grocer.
What did he do to deserve to be in charge of the nations schools? His ideas didn't work
Bad Superintendent, BAD! No turkee 4 u.
|