Dunwoody High School Principal To Lead Decatur High

CSD posted this note to their website

At the March Board of Education meeting, Dr. Phyllis Edwards announced that Noel Maloof will be the principal of Decatur High School starting in the 2014-2015 school year.  Mr. Maloof is currently the principal of Dunwoody High School where he has been since 2012.  Prior to Dunwoody High School, Mr. Maloof was principal at Vanderlyn Elementary School, Assistant Principal at Dunwoody High School, Assistant Principal at DeKalb Alternative School and an English teacher at DeKalb Alternative School.  Mr. Maloof will be replacing Ms. McKain as she moves into her new role of Director of Secondary Education.  Please join us in welcoming Mr. Maloof to City Schools of Decatur!

Decaturish’s report this morning includes reaction from Dunwoody and a more detailed biography of Mr. Maloof.

18 thoughts on “Dunwoody High School Principal To Lead Decatur High”

  1. Actually I’m thrilled we’re getting someone from outside our system to come in and lead the high school. It will be nice to have fresh new perspective and leadership. Not that Ms. McKain wasn’t awesome!

  2. Have a relative that taught at Vanderlyn while he was there. Heard nothing but great things about Mr. Maloof.

  3. And he’s a City of Decatur resident! A former Westchester parent, I believe! Everything I know about him is good! I’m thrilled too!

    1. Dunwoody High looks pretty much like Decatur High demographically. Actually, I think it has a higher percentage of kids eligible for free lunch. The rich white folks have been sending their kids to private schools for years.

  4. Good to hear that he’s well respected. However, I was thinking that Arlethea Williams (current VP of DHS) might step up as Rochelle Lofstrand is leaving for Westchester. It will be nice to have someone fresh in the leading position!

    1. Don’t we need a high school principal? Even in the days of the giants when we all walked to school uphill both ways in the snow, we had principals. Or are you saying that someone should have been moved into that position to reduce admin heaviness elsewhere?

    2. Perhaps I was not clear. Why are we creating two new curriculum planning positions when we cannot seem to figure out where to house students? This seems to be a habit of the superintendent – creating positions to promote staff while neglecting basics like, oh, figuring out what to do to prevent yet another redistricting or addition to the 4-5. Remember Bruce R. and that “communications” position that evaporated as soon as the 4-5 needed a principal? Edwards’ excuse then was that he wanted to leave the district and she wanted to keep him, thus the created “promotion” . Check old DM threads on that one. Mary Mack indicated to me her new position came about after she started planning retirement. I have yet to get a firm answer on the rationale in the creation of these new positions.

      1. So you are fine with filling the high school principal position with a good candidate, but wondering why we need two new Central Office positions, right? (But maybe it’s really a net gain of one new position given that Dr. Van Soelen’s position was never filled.) That’s a fair question. I would prioritize differently if I had some extra CSD FTEs to fill–I’d hire several elementary school paraprofessionals or two great high school math teachers who weren’t going to leave in a year or two. But at least I have respect for the two people moving into those Central Office positions. And at least they’ll bring recent experience from down in the trenches, which is always important in central offices where folks can forget what real life is like on the frontline.

        In every organization I’ve ever worked or participated in, I’ve seen central offices aka offices of the director aka corporate offices grow and compete with the frontline for FTEs and resources. It seems to be a natural phenomenon–busy people need more busy people to help them who need more busy people to help them who need….etc.

        If I had my way, whenever we had a good principal doing a good job, we would keep them there forever. Kind of like the pope (until recently) or Queen Elizabeth. Thank you to Ms. Mack for being willing to do that job for almost forever. I’m still mad at Ms. Kuebler for leaving Westchester. I begrudgingly let Dr. Lee go although I really thought she owed me another 5 years. I glowered at Mr. Roaden when he said he was going to Central Office. I guess I better read Mr. Thomas at RMS and Mr. Maloof at DHS the riot act about staying for the duration.

        1. Exactly. I do not know why we need these positions. I can say my son’s teacher is flailing without a para this year (her first year without a full-timer) with a supersized class, and my son is suffering. She has actually not sent him to the right dismissal spot FIVE times this year because she is so flustered. And the new Oakhurst principal seems to be ignoring my message on the matter.

          I know why you and Tom Stubbs have for years complained about cutting paras now. Classes are larger than ever and staffing is at the lowest point since the reconfig.

          If these positions are taking money out of the field but not providing outcomes, then priorities are in the wrong place. Anything that takes dollars that could be spent in the classroom out off the front lines really needs a justification (not saying that this money would have been on the front lines, but we cannot say it would not have been, either).

      2. “creating positions to promote staff while neglecting basics like, oh, figuring out what to do to prevent yet another redistricting or addition to the 4-5”.

        As I said it another post, it is dangerously naive to think that it is possible to “set it and forget it” when it comes to facilities. Enrollment is dynamic and unpredictable. Once people grasp this they will stop criticizing CSD based on unrealistic expectations. They have done a pretty good job on this in my opinion.

        I’m with you on the idea that we should question how much of the budget is going to central office personnel vs. instructional resources “in the field”. I would rather have more parapros than highly-paid admin positions. Playing devil’s advocate, though, the school system has doubled in enrollment in the past 4-5 years, and is projected to do so again over the next 4-5, so shouldn’t there be additional burdens on central admin that need to be addressed due to this growth?

        1. I get what you mean, TR. I am having a particularly snarky week re: CSD considering my six year old’s teacher has now not noticed he is not in the right dismissal place for the FIFTH time and the principal never called me back.

          1. Just like patients have to advocate for themselves in the medical system, parents have to advocate for their children in the educational system (any system, public or private). In an ideal world, helping professionals would always give the best possible service. But they are just human and work in settings that are bureaucratic as well as service-oriented. So you have to advocate. Sometimes, you can do it quietly and in a politic manner, sometimes you have to be more assertive, and sometimes you have to get legal help.

            Re paraprofessionals–we probably can’t get them much better pay, but maybe we parents/PTAs/SLTs could get them more recognition. We need a Paraprofessional Appreciation Day. They tend to get lumped in with Teacher Appreciation Day and I’m not sure they always get their due, especially since they are now often divided up among several classrooms and activities.

Comments are closed.