Member of the reality-based community of progressive (not anonymous) Massachusetts blogs
The furor over School Committee members and access to staff in the schools has prompted SC member and blogger Jackie Doherty to write a response.
Whether I am “on a mission” as one colleague muses, I admit it freely: Yes! I am on a mission to improve our schools. I do that by getting information from all levels of the system, from pre-k to the high school, from administrators, parents, students, teachers, custodians, security officers, community partners—you name it; if they’re involved with our students, I want to learn their perspective and use it to improve our schools. I am always respectful, professional, and mindful of the boundaries.
No policy should preclude the elected body or members of it of asking questions of staff members, with or without permission of the school’s administrator. Of course, whenever possible, or desirable, the administrator should be notified, and certainly interference (a.k.a. micromanagement) in the business of running the school is not appropriate, but what is this hush policy on just talking to the damn teachers all about? Coddling administrators’ egos? Give me a break. We elected these people to be the final line of accountability, but we want to hobble their ability to get information to understand what’s needed or what’s happening in the schools?
Jackie explains:
It becomes even more serious when it is curtailed, as indicated by one administrator insisting all questions to his staff be made in his presence—regardless of chain-of-command approval in his absence or the nature of the questions. (In this case, the question was what the recycling club needed from the city, and the visit included, at the invitation of a teacher, watching a science experiment for five minutes.)
Keee-rist people! This is what were up in arms about? An SC member observing a science experiment and gathering information about a recycling club? Jackie sums it up even better than me: “Far more alarming, however, is the idea that staff may be discouraged, even forbidden, from sharing insights with us. That is not a model for good management, nor does it help move the schools forward. Fortunately, we’re not talking about a private business, we’re talking about our public schools, funded by taxpayers to educate our children under the leadership (and scrutiny) of an elected school committee.”
Just when I think that politics around here grows up ever so slightly, someone proves me wrong…
[powered by WordPress.]
42 queries. 0.379 seconds
March 10th, 2009 at 11:02 am
My guess is that this indeed has something to do with paranoid admins not wanting to be “outed” by their staff.
The sooner we can get past the egos, the better. The bottom line is that open lines of communication benefit everyone.
March 10th, 2009 at 1:03 pm
as a general rule, open lines of communication benefit everyone with the exception of those who feel they have something to hide. I saw some of this discussion on the cable rebroadcast was was struck by the mean-spirited nature of many of the remarks directed at Jackie and kept waiting forsomeone to inquire as to how this benefited from or detracted from what I believe the schools are supposed to do, educate Lowell’s children. When ever I watch these meetings I always feel that many on the committee have an agenda just below the sirface that colors what they say and do. There are no ‘innocent’ questions, few discussions that appear to be going anywhere helpful to the students and teachers, like the neverending ‘tripgate’ blah.blah. blah. If you don’t like all kids and you don’t like most teachers, and you are afraid of ideas and honest discussion, why be on the school committee?????
March 11th, 2009 at 1:15 pm
Makes me wonder what the headmaster and senior staff is hiding in those hallowed halls
March 12th, 2009 at 6:35 am
Always
“what the headmaster and senior staff is hiding” — maybe their own feifdom? How dare my bosses and those who pay my salary demand accountability!