Quote:
Originally posted by Superbelt
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.
|
I got what the article offered. You seem to be making broad assumptions about his actions and demeanor based on a single article and one comment, especially in light of the fact that principals were being held accountable in ways like never before. You immediately assume that he was the cause of the fraud that took place when it's equally (or possibly more) likely that the principals committed this fraud on their own because they didn't have the ability to meet goals. Perhaps he set goals too high. Certainly he has some level of responsibility as the leader. But there is also a lot of responsibility to pass around to the principals and the system which allowed this fraud to take place.
__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.
Last edited by onetime2; 02-24-2004 at 12:05 PM..
|