My daughter teaches in an affluent, suburban high school. She called the other afternoon very
frustrated because some students in her math class were not putting forth the
effort to prepare for a test. When
confronted, the students responded that they would simply go see a certain
assistant principal and get a new modification on their 504 plan so they could
do better on the test. Rightfully
incensed, the issues at stake here were large.
By high school, the modifications for both 504 and special education
should be decreasing, not increasing.
These students had never needed such a modification at any time in their
educational experience and were clearly using this as a foil for study. An assistant principal that was known to be a
push over for the wishes of a kid versus supporting sound education practice
highlights the highly politicized school environment as well as a secret desire
by the AP to be loved rather than be professional. I shared in my daughter’s frustration and
lament, and we discussed professional strategies to help right the world.
My son teaches in a less than affluent, highly diverse mid-urban,
school system. He is one of 5 teachers
who teach a science elective, among other things. Three of the five teachers of this subject are
coaches. My son and another teacher are
full-time teachers. In a grade
distribution analysis of the 5 teachers it was revealed that in the coach’s
sections kids were almost all making A’s.
My son and the other teacher had few A’s and a few failures. The administration communicated to my son and
his fellow full-time teacher that their grades were not appropriate and
recommended that they more reflect the distribution found in the coach’s
sections. He was irate and I agree. High teacher expectations are a critical
component of student success and he was informed that his expectations were too
high. I shared in my son’s frustration
and anger, and we discussed professional strategies to help right the world.
My wife teaches in a very diverse low income elementary school in a
mid-sized quasi-urban school system. She
came home to relay the story of a 5th grade student who literally
punched a teacher in the chest. Her
frustration was that the police were not called and charges will not be
pressed. The student will end up in a
disciplinary alternative school but will not experience the full force of the
law for assault, much less assault against a public servant. Clearly, if the police had been called for an
assault at the campus the local media would have jumped all over the story, parents
would likely have been fearful regarding the safety of their kids, and the
school’s reputation could have been damaged.
Again, I shared in the frustration and anger. If students do not get the message that
discipline will be strictly enforced and teachers will be totally supported
then future disciplinary incidents will grow worse. A false public image is no image at all. Better to take a stand for the right reasons
and take the heat rather than experience a false sense of success. In this case, there was little my wife could
do as she was not a part of the dynamic, but her observation of the response
hurts the climate in her school. I
shared her frustration and anger and we discussed policies and procedures that
would help right the world.
On the surface these three events might appear to be fodder for a
discussion about the real temptation on the part of administration today to do
what makes kids and parents happy and decide to take steps that promotes a
false image of the school rather than support an educationally correct
solution. That topic merits serious
discussion. But that is not what prompts
me to post.
It occurred to me that my response to these three incidents would have
been very different were I either my daughter’s, my wife’s or my son’s superintendent. If any member of my family taught in a school
system where I was superintendent I would have heard their stories very
differently. I know me. I would have met with the building principal
and discussed the reputation and behavior of the assistant principal who was promoting
student low performance and her reputation as a wimp. I would have met with any principal who
argued that teacher expectations should be lowered to achieve more A’s for
students. I would have met with a
principal who was reluctant to enforce discipline and the law. I could not have simply sat on that
knowledge. I love my family. I respect them as professionals. When they share such stories I am angry and
amazed and dumbfounded. I am not
objective. I forget that there are always
at least two sides to every story.
So, it is a really good thing that I am not their superintendent. If I were, then others would quickly learn
that whatever my family members told me I would believe and act on. That would make each of my family members
perceived as either the campus snitch or would be used to convey information to
me outside the chain of command. I can
see no good outcomes if my family were employed in the same system where I
served as superintendent.
So my first proposed amendment to the nepotism law is to make it a
policy violation for an administrator to have a family member employed in the
administrator’s chain of command. No
principal may have a family member on his or campus and no superintendent may
have a family member employed in the district.
School Board members are subject to the same kind of input and
non-objective decision making if they have a family member employed in the
system, or if they have kids in the system.
I know board members who have formed strong opinions regarding teachers
based on what their sons or daughters tell them about the teacher, and have
formed strong opinions about administration or other teachers based on what an
adult employee family member tell them about those employees. Not only are board members not qualified to
evaluate professional staff, they are prohibited from doing so.
My second proposed amendment to the nepotism law is to make it a policy
violation for a board member to have any family member employed by the school
system regardless of when that employment began. It would be good if we could prohibit board
members from having their kids in the system, but I fear that would eliminate
almost all board members. I will say
that every teacher who has ever taught a board member’s son or daughter clearly
is aware of the additional pressure when doing so.
(As an aside and disconnected from nepotism, I also support policy that
would prohibit a person on a public school board from placing their children in
a private school. The message to the
system in such a case is disastrous.)
Teachers are much the same if their child is in their classroom, in
their school, or on an athletic team they coach, etc... The teacher and the child can do nothing
right. Any success the kid has will be
attributed to teacher or coach favoritism.
The response to any problem the kids has will be attributed to favoritism
as well.
My third proposed amendment to the nepotism law is to make it a policy
violation for a teacher to teach any family member and for a coach to coach any
family member. There would need to be
some exceptions to such a policy for smaller schools and schools where only one
teacher teaches a given grade level or subject.
I struggle with an additional proposal regarding superintendents’
children in a school system. As long as
superintendents are required to live in the system where they superintend their
children will attend school in the system.
Just like teaching or coaching a board member’s child, superintendents
are swayed by the stories their kids come home and tell, and professional staff
are influenced by the awareness that they are teaching or coaching the boss’s
kids. I see no good way around this as
long as it remains OK for superintendents to be married and have children and
that they are required to reside within the boundaries of the system. I would strongly recommend that any
superintendent with children in the system bend over backwards to ensure that
there is no favoritism reaping rewards or sanctions for their kids. Hard to do, but professional.
If we are to be a professional learning organization then we should
practice such professionalism. Our
decisions must be based on the law, on best professional practice and on
research. They should not be based on
who one knows or to whom one is related.
That sort of old time paternalistic approach to public education needs
to be eliminated. To do so will result
in weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth for those who are connected to
public education to provide additional perks and protection for family
members. If so, the amendments to
nepotism policies are even more needed.
Imagine a school system that is in fact a learning organization where
decisions are made based on best practice and research, not on whom you know or
who you are. Sounds good to me!
No comments:
Post a Comment