The principal at my sons' school left today, a full month before the end of the school year. The circumstances are cloudy and the parent corporation cites "confidentiality" through their tight lips. The principal isn't talking either, at least not to me.

She was NJ blue blood; I can see her mansion from the end of my street. Originally from Bergen County, servants in the house, etc., etc. I don't need a blue blood to run my kids' school but she was gracious and kind and you knew that with her privileged position, she could have done just about anything with her life and chose to dedicate herself to elementary school education. That tells you that it was from her heart. I also knew that she had been there for ten years so I expected that she would leave sooner or later.

---
I learned a long time ago that you can't settle on anything because of the people. People come and go. At my son's daycare four years ago, I really liked the director. Within three weeks of him starting there, she left for greater things and it took six months to fill her position. When they did, it was with a woman who was three months pregnant and would take a maternity leave in three months for nine months. That daycare eventually closed a year later. Mismanaged.
---

Two years ago, the assistant principal left when her son graduated eighth grade. That's a trend with the teachers at the school: they leave when their children complete the program. It's not a healthy trend, in my opinion. It's selfish ... or something worse. The assistant principal position wasn't backfilled and I thought it should have been. An "academic coordinator" was added before the assistant principal left but I still didn't feel that he filled her position. His focus seemed to be on something else. And he struck me as a "corporate man". For some reason, the principal worked with him and worked well with him. Maybe because he's a man in a school of mostly women, I just don't trust him. And his English is not good at all. But all of the other mothers adore him and trust him implicitly. I never have.

Tonight some big wigs from corporate held a discussion session. Parents focused on demanding to know why the principal left. No one from corporate wanted to discuss that. The threats came back, "If we are doing wrong by you parents, then put your children somewhere else!" knowing full well that it's too late even to get our kids into public school for the Fall! Most of us have already given them our nonrefundable deposits for the Fall.

Most of the parents are amazingly successful people professionally. But I couldn't believe the nastiness on both sides. I realize this is Jersey and most of these people are from Brooklyn and Queens and you don't f*** with them or their kids or their money. But I would also think that "time is money" to them and they would welcome a productive meeting. Their biggest gripe is that communication from corporate is poor. I agree with that. But here's an instance where corporate was trying to communicate something to us, albeit as if we were children ourselves ... that's probably an occupational hazard with teachers that they tend to talk down to just about everyone ... and no one wanted to listen. There was a patronizing attitude on the part of one of the speakers, for sure. I've never felt that I was getting my money's worth with this school, but do you ever get your money's worth with anything? Really, isn't everything at a premium?

I don't know anything about education, of course. I taught CCD for ten years. I noticed that the curriculum changed after the new catechism was published. I mean, we were forced by the publisher to purchase new textbooks because of the changes. Scripture was out and the Catechism was in. (I was furious.) We couldn't get the old editions of the textbooks anymore. And the strategy was to introduce the same doctrinal concepts year after year after year but just at greater depth each year. Instead of teachings particular topics in certain years and never teaching them again or merely building upon them. This seems to be the approach in academic teaching as well, a spiral instead of a vertical approach. Well, heck, it's just a theory, like a software development lifecycle. There are pros and cons. There's no one-size-fits-all.

And we came back to the call to offer algebra in the eighth grade. Now, my rural public school with a graduating class of about 90 students, offered select eighth graders algebra. I took it. For that reason, I don't understand base numbers because, skipping eighth grade math for ninth grade algebra, I wasn't taught base numbers. Kind of important when dealing with computers to understand base numbers. But anyway. And I ended up taking a year off math in high school anyway so I got caught up and didn't do any AP math. I just wanted to get more language, French and Spanish one year.

so, my point is that if my country bumpkin high school could offer algebra in the eighth grade ... but that's the rub ... our junior high school was on the same campus as the high school. So, the high school math teacher taught us junior high school students ninth grade math. We had access to a teacher who could teach algebra. These elementary schools don't want to staff a teacher who can teach algebra for the sake of two or three students.

Anyway, tonight, corporate said that they are committed to a middle school, to grades 4-8. It doesn't sound like it. The fifth graders haven't had textbooks all year long! There was no science program this year since the science teacher was out sick from September and then died at Christmas time. (Sad, but true!) There is no library in the school and no decent music program. No one complained about the Spanish program because everyone loves the Spanish teachers and many of the students speak Spanish at home, so there's really no challenge there for them. But, I wonder how good the Spanish program is. I never see any work coming home from it. Two years ago, my Kenny knew his numbers to 20 and a dozen colors. This year, my little Timmy knows 1-3 and a few colors. Not very impressive.

And, one of the speakers emphasized a 0-5 curriculum which concerned me. A couple of years ago, they tried to attract children as young as six weeks old into the school! They haven't the facilities for that, actually. Now, in many of their markets across the country, it may well be that both parents work. But here, most of the moms don't work. that may sound backwards to most people. You would expect urban/suburban mothers to work. Oh, and many do from their home, I suppose. But also, families tend to be smaller here (although that's not completely true either) so there isn't much call for early care. But it sounds as if they want to get out of the middle school business and get into the daycare business. I don't like the sound of that. I mean, I acknowledge that 0-5 are very crucial years and countries like France may be way ahead of us on this, but I don't want to institutionalize my children.

I am willing to give the school another year. I say that every year. I am told that the middle grades are very bad, academically. So, I need to be looking for my older boy either next year or the year after for another school. When he's older, I won't mind driving 30 minutes to get him to school, but it's hard to drive so far when he's so young. I don't want his memory of school to be driving in the car. Then again, this is NJ; we drive everywhere!