Should ISR Delete Old Reviews
\nWhen\u00a0a New Director Steps In?<\/p><\/h1><\/div>
delete school history: no<\/p>\n
text area: Past policies and organizational culture will carry over into subsequent administrations. Incoming heads of school will have to deal with pre-existing conditions, and any attempt to “cleanse” the record is not conducive to direct and open communication. Plus, any new comments entered during the new school head’s tenure will reflect the change in leadership and probably reflect the new administration’s good-faith attempts to continue prior successes and repair prior missteps. Besides, when a director takes over a school with a long-standing reputation for excellence and happy staff, then wouldn’t they want to keep the resulting positive teacher reviews?<\/p>\n
delete school history: no<\/p>\n
text area: I can see points on either side; however, I believe it takes a couple of years to begin to make an impact. It depends a lot on the previous director:some “hung the moon” and others were the worst. Change takes time and trust has to be earned. Leave the reviews for 2 years so a comparison can be made.<\/p>\n
delete school history: no<\/p>\n
text area: In my experience new directors step in but do not always bring the best with them.
\nI’d leave it a few weeks and get an update before removing anything.<\/p>\n
delete school history: no<\/p>\n
text area: Please do not erase old comments. \u00a0The comments still help us make wise choices when the director moves to a new school. It is still the same director, only at a new school. Also many times the same problems are there under a new director and it helps to see if progress is made.<\/p>\n
delete school history: no<\/p>\n
text area: It is very important to understand the process of change and progress a school may be going through<\/p>\n
delete school history: no<\/p>\n
text area: A definite NO. A new director does not necessarily wipe the slate clean. \u00a0If the new director does have a positive influence, this site is a venue to express that. Prospective teachers should be aware of the complete history of the organization in order to make an informed decision. Unfortunately, for every reputable and professional school out there, there are two others that aren’t. \u00a0Teachers need protection, especially the newer teachers who can sometimes be taken advantage of.<\/p>\n
delete school history: no<\/p>\n
delete school history: no<\/p>\n
text area: The director is not always the reason for the school’s reputation. Sometimes the board, individual school principals or other influences make the school what it is. Changing a director doesn’t necessarily mean the school working conditions will be better or worse.<\/p>\n
jcbart in Caracas<\/p>\n
delete school history: no<\/p>\n
text area: While I said No, I think it should always somehow be noted that there has been changes, especially when it was in the negative.<\/p>\n
delete school history: no<\/p>\n
delete school history: no<\/p>\n
delete school history: yes<\/p>\n
delete school history: no<\/p>\n
delete school history: no<\/p>\n
text area: I think much of the information found in the comments to ISR may still be valid. \u00a0It helps to paint a picture of the school and some of the issues therein.<\/p>\n
delete school history: no<\/p>\n
text area: I suggest “no” because that director may leave to go on to cause mayhem or political ructions in another school. It is very beneficial for teachers to know if a director has “form”.<\/p>\n
delete school history: no<\/p>\n
text area: I find it interesting to see how schools can change for better and for worse. \u00a0I also think that sometimes the speed of change can reflect how willing governors and governing bodies are to listen to, to co-operate with, to adapt and to improve their school. \u00a0In my experience there have been times when some well experienced, good and very respected directors\/headmasters etc have been prevented from making the changes they would like by a conservative, uninformed governing body. \u00a0I think that past reviews are a good way of gagging the overall management of a school.<\/p>\n
delete school history: no<\/p>\n
delete school history: yes<\/p>\n
text area: Fresh blood should equal a fresh start.<\/p>\n
delete school history: no<\/p>\n
text area: It would be better to keep the school’s ‘history’ on record. The fact that there’s been a change in director is merely part of that history. Readers can weigh up all the available information before making an informed decision about a particular school. By comparison, when a teacher begins a new job, should their own past ‘history’ be removed? No such thing as a bad reference? Hmmmmm!<\/p>\n
delete school history: no<\/p>\n
text area: NO NO NO<\/p>\n
We need to see what problems existed in the past and how those problems were resolved\/addressed<\/p>\n
delete school history: yes<\/p>\n
text area: Some schools are haunted by the ghosts of previous directors and remain permanently tainted – even when the school has undergone a transformation.<\/p>\n
Archive the old reviews – indicating that the director is no longer in post.<\/p>\n
delete school history: no<\/p>\n
text area: Although new school directors’ “personalities” and ethos will eventually be reflected in the schools, there is some good information about other factors that affect the school from the past. \u00a0Let’s say the information can be archived; at least the dates are posted. \u00a0Some history is preserved. \u00a0My concern is that fresher updates are not always contributed.<\/p>\n
delete school history: no<\/p>\n
delete school history: no<\/p>\n
delete school history: no<\/p>\n
text area: We should the history of the problems may be plaguing the school and how they are being seen to by the new director. \u00a0This reveals if they are going to deal with the problem\/s or are a ‘carry on as she goes’ type of person.<\/p>\n
delete school history: no<\/p>\n<\/div>