Posted by John the Man, a resident of the Old Mountain View neighborhood, on May 19, 2010 at 1:04 pm
Craig is a good, good man. He is as competent as they come.
But he is doomed to fail if he keeps the same assistant/associate superintendents and district office administrators. They are STILL peeved over Whisman going away and do everything they can to undermine the superintendent.
Posted by Past parent, a resident of the Old Mountain View neighborhood, on May 19, 2010 at 3:47 pm
When my child started elementary school, Mr. Goldman was a good man, but his decisions over the years became less about the students and more about the rules and bureaucracy. This unfortunately came at the expense of our children, their well being and their education.
I hope that Craig Goldman remembers that this job is ultimately about the students. If he puts the children first then their parents will be happy. Parents that have the ultimate responsibility for these children.
If this job is not going to be primarily about the children, may I suggest that Craig Goldman change his area of profession to one where the position is NOT about the children....
This is Silicon Valley and there are plenty of other companies that could use a cfo. A job that will not require any decision making skills regarding children and their parents. We don't need a Mini-Maurice and we don't need to go through another superintendent search. We need a dedicated person that will stand up for our children and their education. Mr. Goldman will this be you?
If this not the case, then I suggest that we do an expanded search for someone that has a proven record for making decisions that benefit our children. All of our children.
Posted by parent, a resident of the Waverly Park neighborhood, on May 19, 2010 at 5:37 pm
Because of the good work done by Craig as CFO, Mountain View has had to increase the students per class a much smaller amount than some of our neighboring cities. We still have all of our libraries and intervention.
I think so far he has proved himself well. But, I whole-heartedly agree that the STUDENTS should be first. You may call us a Corporation, but that does not make it so. You need to think of the students first, and corporate speak last.
Posted by USA, a resident of the Old Mountain View neighborhood, on May 19, 2010 at 7:39 pm USA is a member (registered user) of Mountain View Online
When Craig was principal at Huff, he had to deal with 400 parents who had strong opinions on what should be done. As superintendent, he will have thousands. It is just a matter of time before there will be pages and pages of angry rants in the MV Voice about what Craig has done, should do, or should not have done.
Posted by eric, a resident of another community, on May 19, 2010 at 11:46 pm
Congratulations, Craig! Your fiscal discipline has kept our distict from the sort of draconian cuts seen in most of the state (at least from the worst of them). I dont know how preserving programs and maintaining the long term financial health of our district isnt about "putting our children first". You've earned this job through good work and a demonstrated commitment to our district and our kids.
Posted by Observer, a resident of the Old Mountain View neighborhood, on May 20, 2010 at 7:19 am
I agree he's more than qualified, but let's not forget that Goldman was appointed successor to King Ghysels during a period of crisis for this school district. It was all then spun as part of a master plan apparently in the making for several years if you believe the garbage that the school board is on the record as claiming. So now, to put some higher logic on the selection process, again contrary to the record as reported in the Voice, remains merely an attempt to salvage the poor way in which this whole Ghysels thing was handled. If you don't believe it, just refer to past articles. The whole process was really warped.
Posted by Parent, a resident of the Waverly Park neighborhood, on May 20, 2010 at 3:03 pm
When the board hired Jim Negri as superintendent, a school board member told me that one of the reasons they chose him was something like, "they thought he and Craig would get along" or "he reminded them of Craig" or some such-- sorry, it was a long time ago and the exact memory has faded, but the gist was that they thought so highly of Craig's capability and opinion that that was an influence on their decision-making. Then when Eleanor Yick was super, and they did not fill her old assistant-super position, they pulled Craig in part time to the district office to take on some of the assistant super responsibilities. When I complained to a board member that this took him away from Huff a lot, the reply was that they were afraid the district would lose him if they didn't give him more challenge; they wanted to make sure they could keep him around.
The distinct impression, from two different board members at different times, was that they all felt that Craig was someone they wanted to see move up into the district administration some day. So it was not a "cooked-up story" that Craig was always on the list to succeed Maurice Ghysels. I know dozens of the old-time Huff parents who have always said that they figured Craig would be superintendent some day. Maurice did not hand-pick him; Craig's talents and abilities were recognized long before Maurice ever showed up.
As for putting students first -- I agree this was much easier when Craig first started at Huff. Small school, pre-NCLB, the test score pressure and threat of the state or fed's big stick for underperforming schools was not so severe as now. Any superintendent the board hires will have to make hard decisions that will be unpopular. This is the nature of the fiasco that public education has become. No money, high demands from the government, pressure from parents & teachers. It's an unenviable job, but I think that Craig is eminently qualified for it.
Posted by Elaine, a resident of the Willowgate neighborhood, on May 20, 2010 at 5:25 pm
That may very well be what you recall, but it is certainly not how the school board has been spinning it or how The Voice has been reporting it. But if Huff parents have had it in their plans all along, then we all know that they are the ones that carry the most political weight with the board (it certainly wasn't Slater parents). It still does not explain why the board hired Ghysels to begin with either.
Posted by Parent, a resident of the Waverly Park neighborhood, on May 20, 2010 at 6:32 pm
@Elaine -- The Huff parents have not been "planning" anything. Honestly, while we have our good and bad points (like Slater, or Bubb, or Landels, or any other school's parents) we (current or former Huff parents) are actually not plotting the overthrow of the world.
My point, as I'm sure anyone except the folks on these forums would get, is that we thought all along that Craig was an exceptional administrator and that he was obviously going to become a superintendent somewhere, some day, even if not at MVWSD. Which I'm sure you knew perfectly well from reading my post, but never miss an opportunity to bash another school community. Well done, Elaine!
And I think what I recall is pretty much how the school board has been spinning it -- that the plan to promote Craig has been in the works for a long time and that it was not Maurice's doing.
Posted by Robin, a resident of the Martens-Carmelita neighborhood, on May 21, 2010 at 2:42 pm
Instead of criticizing Craig, or the trustees, or the whole parent or student population from any one school, how about just going to a board meeting to see firsthand what is going on in the district and how decisions are made?
Please go to board meetings!
The Board of Trustees generally meets the first and third Thursday of each month, except the month of July. Meetings are held at the District Office, 750-A San Pierre Way, beginning at 7:00 p.m. Members of the public are encouraged to attend these meetings.