May 16, 2011 10:38:00 AM
I had the opportunity and pleasure to attend the presentation of Dr. Martha Liddell mentioned in your article today. From my perspective she understands the problem we have with our youth here in Columbus, she has the qualifications for the job, and the will and motivation to improve our schools.
As interim superintendent, she anyway is setting the stage for the next school year. Why not save the taxpayer''s money required to hire a consultant to look for a replacement, and the other costs associated with interviews, etc. Give her the job for at least the next school year and see if she can live up to the teacher performance criteria that she herself described as needed in our school system.
My opinion, after looking at the results of the programs that she has implemented with the Middle School students here in Columbus, is that we will have excellent results from a person that knows the "village" and the nature of the students here in Columbus. We have taxpayer money to save and all to gain by giving her a shot at the job when she is so inclined to take over at least for the next school year. I am hoping that she would accept the challenge when it would be offered to her.
sheatherly commented at 5/27/2011 2:05:00 PM:
It does take a village to raise a child. Hillary Clinton used the term in her campaign also. But, what if some of the subleaders of the village are a deterrent to the child's growth? What if some of the council has exhibited gross ignorance in what was best for the children, or were really only concerned with their own portion of the day's harvest, or exhibited innappropriate behaviors/alliances with other council and village members until there became such a web of deceit, a political power struggle between good and evil? And what if these errant subleaders had become friends with the chief and helped him along his way to the top? What if it came down to the chief having to choose between taking drastic measures to keep the village healthy OR leave and go become head of another village OR do the hard work necessary to ensure that the children were raised in the best possible way? This describes the dilemma of EVERY governing system.
I believe Dr. Liddell could be a good leader, but her rise to the top is of concern to me when another very good, capable, problem-solving, dedicated, intelligent, long-term in the system, deserved leader...Rebecca Taylor, was not even given the same promotional consideration to put her talents to use. Why? Because she did not have the "Dr." label? Or was it for some other allied group's intentions that caused her to be passed by?
If Dr. Liddell does achieve the lofty goal as head chief, the proof of whether this was a good assignment, the best thing for the village children, will be whether or not she is strong enough to install the smartest, fairest, most capable, absolute BEST moral hut leaders that she can find, first and foremost before any "program implementation" is even considered. Is this not just common sense? If she is a great leader, she cannot do it all alone. She must have leaders below her who are also great. Oh, but the political strings that may have to be cut. If they exist, will she be able to do it? This is the test. And this will determine whether she was the right choice. But, the effect on the village children will not be known until several more years have gone by.
Good luck to Dr. Liddell. If her head and her heart are in the right place, if she is tough enough to finally shake this system loose from the problems that have smothered it's growth, then I do hope she will be the one appointed. In her bid to the deciding school board, I hope she will present her plan of how she will address the real issues rather than just a plan of installing more innovative programs...for Dr. Liddell will be the candidate, foremost in the running, who will have the best knowledge of what those real issues are. The Columbus school board members also know what those real issues are. So working together, look at what could be accomplished.