How Much is a Good Principal Worth?
By: Mr. Wilson on
April 19, 2010
The situation with Elliott Elementary Principal De Ann Currin is frustrating. If you aren't aware, the basics are this: Elliott is classified as a "persistently low-achieving school" by the feds and Nebraska. In order to receive a big chunk of grant money -- the minimum amount is $1.5 million over three years -- LPS has to make one of three big changes. The least intrusive of those changes, and the one LPS will choose, is to get rid of the principal. So Ms. Currin will be reassigned.
The trouble is that nobody has a beef with Ms. Currin. She is being universally praised as a tremendous asset at Elliott. For example, despite a 40% mobility rate, Elliott's reading and math scores are in the 65th percentile. In other words, according to No Child Left Behind the 65th percentile is "low-achieving".
What a strange system we have where an excellent principal at a good -- but challenged -- school has to leave her post as a condition for receiving a grant. And consider that other schools around the country with far worse conditions and inferior leadership will not receive this grant money.
It's difficult to turn down $1.5 million. Plenty of folks around Lincoln are saying LPS should do just that. Ms. Currin isn't one of them; she is leaving "voluntarily" so the school can benefit from the new resources it will receive. Lots of people think a little cash isn't enough to replace great leadership.
What do you think about all of this? Does the system make sense to anybody? Should LPS take the cash?