Post by Chris_Wendt on Mar 26, 2014 12:54:20 GMT -5
In another thread I previously posited:
My postulation elicited the following two responses:
To rr's request for examples of my recommendation to revamp Education Law §3020-a, I submit that what I am proposing is precisely what private industry has been doing for centuries, here in America. And by precisely, I refer to the more fully-evolved field of labor relations and specifically to the concept of "progressive discipline" practiced today by most corporations who operate and work in our very litigious business climate. Progressive discipline works like this: behavioral and performance issues are dealt with in a progression, starting with verbal counseling, verbal warning, written warning, suspension without pay commensurate with the behavior or performance that requires correction, and ultimately may end with termination of employment if the behavior or performance issues are not corrected by the application of the aforementioned early steps in the disciplinary progression. At every step along the progression written documentation or physical evidence is required, presented, and made part of the record of employment. In almost all cases in my experience, one-up review is also required before any step of the progression is invoked, and timely follow-up is required where incremental job performance improvements are required to be demonstrated by the employee.
Behavioral issues are required to be assessed as being either ability-based, or, attitude-based. Does the employee have the ability (physical, mental, intellectual, instructional, training, coaching, etc.) necessary to correct the behavior at issue? Or is the underlying issue the product of an employee's attitude that is not compatible with the harmonious conduct of the employer's business? Certain behaviors are deemed to be grounds from immediate termination, such as dishonesty, physical abuse (fighting) or sexual misconduct.
Private sector employers are not required to suspend errant employees "with pay" and generally always suspend people without pay in the course of administering more serious progressive disciplinary measures. In my experience, it is always the employer, and never an outside agency, which determines the initial penalty for serious infractions, although in many unionized private sector companies, the renowned AAA grievance arbitration service can result in a suspended or terminated employee having his sentenced reduced to a lesser penalty, or even reversed in the face of a preponderance of evidence mitigating the prior action taken by the employer.
In assessing what I have written here, please consider that I served for seven years as the employer's management designee on a nationwide final grievance arbitration panel with a major international union, and have been a management negotiator for labor contracts with three large unions.
To Lilly's keen observations, yes, this is not a perfect world, and Wantagh (and many school district boardrooms) are not perfect places. But we should strive for better than we have. Certainly, no Wantagh Principal has ever suspended or fired a teacher either for performance or behavior. So a lot of training would be required before giving them such onerous authority. Definitely in Wantagh, even under the long-standing §3020-a practices and our own contracts, mandatory grievance procedures have been more "observed in-the-breach" than in practice, and almost always as the result of interference by the Board (meaning myself and those members who served with me) in the disciplinary process at inappropriate stages of the process, and almost always at the willing invitation of an eager superintendent who lacked the requisite self confidence to act, out of fear of possible reaction, displeasure, or recrimination by the Board who would almost certainly be ready, willing, and able to second-guess any decision made upon the Superintendent's own (legitimate) authority. We had created and perpetuated a pretty crummy and dysfunctional culture in that regard, although this is perhaps changing for the better as this is being written.
In a more perfect world, principals and administrators and board members would receive commensurate training for administering progressive discipline, and begin to manage and take charge of their own employees' behaviors and performance, without this silly APPR process which is likely to bring down the Common Core, here in NY. I think APPR is more likely to kill the Common Core than is it likely to result in even one teacher leaving the Wantagh School District for legitimate issues with either their performance or their behavior..
Did I mention that I thought this has been a stimulating and thought-provoking discussion?
I hope you do, too.
Chris Wendt
"The big agenda-making item with the Common Core was tying assessment scores to APPR. Right, wrong, no matter, tying APPR evaluations to Common Core Assessment Scores as a matter of federal and states laws was a bone-headed move, one likely to kill the Common Core if nothing else does. Now this is an issue you cannot have both ways. If you support the Common Core AND you are adamant that assessment scores should be tied to teacher evaluations, then you are probably holding a losing hand.
While what I just said may appear to please the teachers unions, my follow-up comment will undo that. In NY, we should drop APPR, and amend Education Law §3020-a to simplify the disciplinary action process for tenured teachers. Tenured professional principals and superintendents should be able to aptly and fairly adjudicate behavioral and performance issues with teachers, subject to the oversight of the elected boards of education. The need for state and third-party involvement in individual employment matters is outdated, unwarranted, and does not work for the good of public education. "
My postulation elicited the following two responses:
- From contributor 'rr':
"I think your solution around disciplinary actions against tenured teachers is far too subjective and open for manipulation, from parents, from those in positions of power and from the teachers themselves. I just don't see how this could or would work, do you have any test cases or scenarios you could elaborate on to help me understand how this process would work?"
"It's not uncommon for a group with influence in decision making to conspire against a person or small group of people. Your process could potentially put too much power in the hands of a few community members and could take some objectivity out of the process. This could lead to long lasting, expensive legal issues. I've not lived in Wantagh all my life but I have lived here long enough to see several superintendents come and go, some athletic coaching issues, a part time janitor get fired / re-hired under some suspicious moves making the news and been to enough BOE meetings to understand that there are popular cliques of people that hold more power in the community than others - all of these things lead me to the thought that your solution is simply not sustainable." - And from contributor 'Lilly':
"In an ideal world, I agree with Chris's suggestion in theory, not practice. Recent history in Wantagh could make everyone, including the good ones, targets...."
"In watching the Wantagh BOE over time, the more and more I think the whole premise of a BOE can be somewhat ridiculous in its execution. BOE's are for local control, policy setting and to ensure compliance with NYS regs. Well, BOE trustees all over LI have many different levels of intelligence, applicable work experience, perhaps personal agendas and can be unclear on the fact that their responsibilities are policy, not day to day interference."
To rr's request for examples of my recommendation to revamp Education Law §3020-a, I submit that what I am proposing is precisely what private industry has been doing for centuries, here in America. And by precisely, I refer to the more fully-evolved field of labor relations and specifically to the concept of "progressive discipline" practiced today by most corporations who operate and work in our very litigious business climate. Progressive discipline works like this: behavioral and performance issues are dealt with in a progression, starting with verbal counseling, verbal warning, written warning, suspension without pay commensurate with the behavior or performance that requires correction, and ultimately may end with termination of employment if the behavior or performance issues are not corrected by the application of the aforementioned early steps in the disciplinary progression. At every step along the progression written documentation or physical evidence is required, presented, and made part of the record of employment. In almost all cases in my experience, one-up review is also required before any step of the progression is invoked, and timely follow-up is required where incremental job performance improvements are required to be demonstrated by the employee.
Behavioral issues are required to be assessed as being either ability-based, or, attitude-based. Does the employee have the ability (physical, mental, intellectual, instructional, training, coaching, etc.) necessary to correct the behavior at issue? Or is the underlying issue the product of an employee's attitude that is not compatible with the harmonious conduct of the employer's business? Certain behaviors are deemed to be grounds from immediate termination, such as dishonesty, physical abuse (fighting) or sexual misconduct.
Private sector employers are not required to suspend errant employees "with pay" and generally always suspend people without pay in the course of administering more serious progressive disciplinary measures. In my experience, it is always the employer, and never an outside agency, which determines the initial penalty for serious infractions, although in many unionized private sector companies, the renowned AAA grievance arbitration service can result in a suspended or terminated employee having his sentenced reduced to a lesser penalty, or even reversed in the face of a preponderance of evidence mitigating the prior action taken by the employer.
In assessing what I have written here, please consider that I served for seven years as the employer's management designee on a nationwide final grievance arbitration panel with a major international union, and have been a management negotiator for labor contracts with three large unions.
To Lilly's keen observations, yes, this is not a perfect world, and Wantagh (and many school district boardrooms) are not perfect places. But we should strive for better than we have. Certainly, no Wantagh Principal has ever suspended or fired a teacher either for performance or behavior. So a lot of training would be required before giving them such onerous authority. Definitely in Wantagh, even under the long-standing §3020-a practices and our own contracts, mandatory grievance procedures have been more "observed in-the-breach" than in practice, and almost always as the result of interference by the Board (meaning myself and those members who served with me) in the disciplinary process at inappropriate stages of the process, and almost always at the willing invitation of an eager superintendent who lacked the requisite self confidence to act, out of fear of possible reaction, displeasure, or recrimination by the Board who would almost certainly be ready, willing, and able to second-guess any decision made upon the Superintendent's own (legitimate) authority. We had created and perpetuated a pretty crummy and dysfunctional culture in that regard, although this is perhaps changing for the better as this is being written.
In a more perfect world, principals and administrators and board members would receive commensurate training for administering progressive discipline, and begin to manage and take charge of their own employees' behaviors and performance, without this silly APPR process which is likely to bring down the Common Core, here in NY. I think APPR is more likely to kill the Common Core than is it likely to result in even one teacher leaving the Wantagh School District for legitimate issues with either their performance or their behavior..
Did I mention that I thought this has been a stimulating and thought-provoking discussion?
I hope you do, too.
Chris Wendt
