There is a lack of accountability in the public school system which undermines the authority of the administration and creates a poor culture where under-performers are protected. The tribunal process is one example of a broken system that desperately needs reform to refocus the system toward children and parents instead of teachers and administrators.
Antoinette (Toni) Konz wrote a piece recently discussing the procedure in which teachers through principals can appeal termination decisions (http://www.wdrb.com/story/27490266/sunday-edition-fired-kentucky-educators-have-good-odds-in-getting-their-jobs-back). The procedure includes a ‘tribunal’ consisting of ‘an active or retired teacher, an administrator and a lay person - none of whom reside in the county involved in the dispute’. She also looked into the results of those tribunals. In the analysis ranging from 2005-2010, over 70% of cases that go to a tribunal end up partially or completely reversing the decision of the Administration.
Let us begin by asking what other industries in America has this kind of process when someone is terminated? The answer is very few and almost all of them are union dominated industries (such as the Education industry). This is a process advocated for by unions in order to protect even their least performing members. For any other worker in any other industry, if your boss fires you, other than an Equal Opportunity Employment claim, the issue is over. You are fired. This is commonly referred to as ‘at will employment’ where an employee can come and go as they please and a boss can generally terminate someone without significant cause or reason. The further you stray from this principle, the harder it is to hold leadership accountable for their subordinate’s performance.
The next question is what is the reasonable conclusion we can come to by looking at these results? There are really only two conclusions. The first is that the administrators are incompetent. If the administration’s decisions are overturned over 70% of the time, you have to immediately assume they are incompetent. I don’t believe that. This would indicate that multiple Superintendents hired by different boards are all incompetent. The likelihood of that is very low. This brings me to the logical other conclusion, this process is rigged to protect poor performers.
Finally, what is the financial impact of this process and how could that money better be allocated? This process includes the tribunal members, attorneys for both sides, and an appeal process beyond that if either side is dissatisfied with the outcome. Is this how we want to spend our money as a district? Can’t we better allocate those funds to, I don’t know, help students learn something?
There are a couple practical results of this tribunal process. First is the reluctance of Superintendents to take action because they are worried about a costly and difficult process that tends to side against them. The far more egregious outcome is the lack of accountability this entire process creates. Who is responsible for the performance of a teacher or principal? After the tribunal reverses a decision, are they accountable for the results? Answer: No. They go away and the Superintendent has to deal with the outcome. Further, the Superintendent’s job is on the line. If they don’t perform, which is highly dependent on their principals and teachers, they can be terminated by the Board.
The Board claims they want to increase accountability across the district. Then they should make the repeal of the law perpetuating this process part of their legislative priorities. We need to eliminate this process and limit teachers and principals to the same process all employees in other industries are subject to. They can appeal a termination decision to the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission and that is it. Otherwise, just like the rest of the United States, supervisors must have the ability to terminate people they feel are not performing and be held accountable for those decisions.
No comments:
Post a Comment