Making difficult
jobs doable
by Dr. Troyce Fisher, SAI Executive Director
During this past month, in my work with
and for members, I was reminded of another buffalo joke. This
one has a cowboy riding up on his horse to a herd of buffalo.
He walks up to one of them and just berates him. "You are
the most disgusting excuse for an animal I've ever seen. You're
mangy, fat, slothful, and your breath is awful." He continues
this diatribe for a couple more minutes, and then gets back on
his steed and rides off. The buffalo turns to his friend in the
herd, takes a deep breath, and says, "Whoa-I think we just
heard a discouraging word!"
There have been lots of discouraging words on the administrative
front lately. Clearly, the original teacher compensation bill
is a major disappointment for all of us. (Hopefully a bipartisan
effort for a more sensible approach can be crafted by the legislature.)
When I listened to the three hours of testimony at the public
hearing in the legislature on the evening of March 12, I was struck
not only by the frustration level of folks in the educational
community, but also by some of the generic criticisms of administrators
that were often included in the public testimony. We clearly have
a ways to go in seeing things from a systems perspective. (I'm
reminded of the comment a speaker made at a national convention
once about educational reform: "It's not surprising that
we educators shoot ourselves in the foot on occasion. What is
amazing, though, is how quickly we reload!"). I was proud
of the five SAI members and Marc who spoke eloquently on behalf
of increasing teacher pay and other issues. We must stick together
on this.
All of the data on anticipated administrator shortages has told
us for years now that the issue is not lack of certified administrators.
It's a lack of enthusiasm for entering a job that has high levels
of stress, unreasonable expectations around time commitments,
increasing complexity surrounding legal and regulatory issues,
fewer and fewer resources to do the job, and rising expectations
for instructional leadership that have accompanied calls for increased
accountability.
In my travels around the state this past month working with and
for our members, those themes have consistently emerged in all
of our conversations. They emerged at NASSP, too, where many of
the sessions addressed redefining the role of the principal. We
must work with our communities to change their expectations and
to increase their understanding of the complexity of our work.
We have to make these jobs doable again.
There's a lot of work to be done with our legislature to address
the systemic problems Iowa faces that have led to under-funding
of schools. Even if you haven't been active in contacting your
legislator up to this point, it is imperative that you do so now.
If you've read this far, you're probably thinking this column
is full of discouraging words. That's not the intent. The intent
is to convey that all of us at SAI will continue to be your voice
in every arena in which we are privileged to operate so that our
members' concerns are voiced, and so that your work to improve
the lives of kids-the reason we all got into this profession in
the first place-can continue to be paramount.
Keep the faith.
Top
Watch Your Mouth!
by Kathy Lee Collins, J.D., SAI Director of Legal Services
We have all known the "difficult" employee. The
one who carps about his duties, the school board, students, parents,
his supervisor. Often that individual is a less-than-stellar employee,
so it happens, from time to time, that adverse employment action
is taken against him. Perhaps he is "written up," or
maybe he's marked down on his evaluation. In some cases, he is
recommended for termination. If he has a decent attorney, you
are likely to hear that the adverse employment action was made
because he exercised his First Amendment right to freedom of speech.
In other words, he criticized you or some other superior, and
believes in his heart that your recommendation to suspend or terminate
is simply due to your irritation with his speaking out against
you.
While you shouldn't be overly intimidated by the "public
employees don't give up their right to free speech" argument,
you still have to be careful about how, when, and what you say
about an employee's negative comments about the workplace or employer.
The typical scenario will be something like this: a disgruntled
employee calls a talk show, speaks out at a board or staff meeting,
writes a letter to the editor or maybe even to the Department
of Ed. complaining about her boss or something she doesn't like
about what's going on in school. Maybe she even makes some negative
remarks about the district or your leadership to a news reporter.
You're incensed, irate. What she said is false! Nobody asked for
your side! You have thoughts of suing for slander or libel. You
are concerned about how her remarks will impact the bond issue
vote. She's harmed your reputation! She's upset the whole school!
The up-front, straight-shooter administrator may do the wrong
thing by calling the employee in and reading her the riot act.
From that moment on, in fighting or grieving any adverse employment
action taken against her, she'll say you retaliated against her
because you're mad about what she said or wrote.
The slightly "stealthier" administrator will hold the
anger and wait until evaluation time ("I don't get mad
I get even!"), marking the employee down in a number of categories.
Also not a wise move, unless the employee honestly deserves the
lower marks.
Although I haven't been supervisor to many "difficult employees,"
I do know that if you call attention to their troublesome speech
(be it the letter to the editor or the remarks at the board meeting),
you are asking for trouble. I also know that holding one's tongue
under those circumstances is extremely difficult for most people,
myself included. We're only human. "Why didn't s/he come
to me first before shooting his/her mouth off?"
On the other end of the system is the employee who (as I am wont
to say) hears the train a'comin, feels the rumble on the tracks.
This employee knows she has fallen from grace and is in trouble
with the boss. So what's the best way to save her job? Run out
and criticize her boss for her lack of support for special education
students, or attack the school board budget as being too favorable
to athletics over academics. Home free, right? Not necessarily.
Read on!
Here is my understanding of the law in this area:
#1: Public employees do not shed their constitutional rights (including freedom of speech) "at the schoolhouse gate." However, fact #2 is that the constitutional right to freedom of expression is not absolute. One cannot say whatever one wishes and hide behind the First Amendment when consequences occur.
Fact #3: Not all speech is protected by the Constitution. Libel and slander (written or oral defamation), obscenity, "fighting words," and "shouting 'Fire!' in a crowded theatre" are just some of the categories of unprotected speech.
Fact #4: If an employee wants to claim First Amendment protection s/he had better be speaking as a citizen and not as an employee. (For example, a social studies teacher cannot hide behind the First Amendment when criticizing or ridiculing elected officials in class. When teachers are teaching, they are employees and their supervisor has a right to expect them to follow the curriculum and remain politically neutral. "Academic freedom" is minimal in the k-12 world. For another example, a public school employee who comes to a board meeting and complains about his or her evaluation to the board is most likely speaking as an employee, not as a citizen. See Fact #5.)
Fact #5: In order to be protected by the Constitution, an employee's speech must be about "matters of public concern [as opposed to matters of purely private or personal concern.] Personal grievances, complaints about conditions of employment, or expressions about other matters of personal interest are generally not protected. In reading the cases, the district's "capital B" budget is often considered a "matter of public concern," but not always. If the teacher is complaining that her Weekly Reader requisition wasn't honored, it's probably not a matter of public concern. Individual budget items and complaints about allocation of funds within a department generally fall on the "private interest" side of the equation. Safety issues almost always fall on the "public concern" side.
Fact #6: There is a legal analysis that is applied whenever
an employee suffers some negative job consequence and alleges
that it was due to the employee's speech.
- Step one in the analysis is to see if the speech is protected
speech. Is the employee speaking as a citizen on a matter of public
concern? If not, the case is over; the employer "wins."
If the speech is about a matter of public concern, we move to
the next step.
- When the speech or expression addresses a matter of public concern,
the court (or jury) is to engage in a balancing test. The interest
of the public employee as a citizen in commenting on matters of
public concern must be weighed against the interests of the employer
in promoting and maintaining an effective and efficient public
service. If you think this sounds a lot like the Tinker test,
you're right. In effect, we're looking for a "material and
substantial disruption to the orderly [school] environment."
Only instead of talking about student disruption, we're talking
about the disruption in the workplace caused by an employee.
An example here might be helpful; these are the facts of a U.S.
Supreme Court decision (Connick v. Myers). An Assistant District
Attorney (Myers) was told she would be transferred. She objected
and expressed her objections to several of her supervisors. She
then developed a questionnaire soliciting the views of her fellow
staff members concerning office transfer policy, office morale,
the need for a grievance committee, the level of confidence in
her supervisors, and whether employees felt pressured to work
in political campaigns. She distributed the survey to 15 of her
colleagues. A supervisor informed the District Attorney that Myers
was creating "a mini-insurrection" and she was fired
shortly thereafter for refusal to accept the transfer and for
insubordination. Ultimately, the Supremes held in favor of her
employer. "Myers' questionnaire touched upon matters of public
concern in only a limited sense; her survey, in our view, is most
accurately characterized as an employee grievance concerning internal
office policy. The First Amendment interest here does not require
that [the employer] tolerate action which he reasonably believed
would disrupt the office, undermine his authority, and destroy
close working relationships." The short version is that some
of the things she was complaining about (indirectly, through the
survey) might have been valid concerns had they been raised outside
the context of her transfer. But the timing was critical, and
hers was bad.
- If the employee's speech falls into the "public concern"
realm, that still isn't the end of the inquiry. The next step
is to ask, "Was the [speech] a substantial motivating factor
in the negative employment action?" In other words, was his
or her criticism the main reason s/he got into trouble? If the
answer is no, the employer is home free. If the answer is yes,
it's still not over. There's one final inquiry.
- If the employer can show that it would have done the same thing
or reached the same decision (e.g., to fire the employee) even
if the protected conduct [the speech] would not have occurred,
then the employer "wins." Another Supreme Court case
might illustrate this point best.
A non-tenured Ohio teacher ("Doyle") was elected president
of the local EA, and during his term of office tensions ran high.
A couple of years later, the principal sent out a (teachers')
dress code memo that negatively affected Doyle, who then called
a radio station and shared the memo with them. Soon thereafter
he was recommended for termination. In his file there were reports
of the following incidents: Doyle had engaged in an argument with
another teacher which culminated in her slapping him. He refused
to apologize and insisted upon punishment for her. Both teachers
were suspended for a day, which led to a walkout by other teachers,
and the suspensions were then lifted. Doyle got into an argument
with the cafeteria ladies over the amount of spaghetti served
to him. Doyle made an obscene gesture to two girls in connection
with their failure to obey commands made when he was supervising
the lunchroom. He referred to students as "sons of bitches"
in connection with a disciplinary complaint he wrote up. The legal
question boiled down to whether he would have been fired even
if he hadn't called the radio station. The Court was persuaded
that he would have been.
Here are some other case synopses that may help to illustrate
the point.
- Teacher's letter of complaint to the state department concerning
the district's delay in implementing IDEA provisions "constituted
a matter of public concern."
- Teacher's complaint about high school's use of collegiate registration
(students permitted to choose their subjects and teachers) was
not matter of public concern."
- Free speech protection does not entitle a teacher to be excessively
critical and derisive of school authority and to personally denounce
and verbally abuse other teachers.
- A ninth-grade government class is not a public forum, and a
teacher could be disciplined for comments made during class regarding
the lack of discipline at school.
- Memos circulated by a teacher critical of grading policies were
"personal in scope and sarcastic in tone" leading the
relationship between the teacher and school to deteriorate to
the point of animosity. Although one of the memos might be considered
a matter of public concern, the balancing test led to the conclusion
that the employee's exercise of first amendment rights was not
the substantial motivating factor in his transfer to "traveling
teacher" status.
- A teacher's memo to the faculty calling for a "sick out"
during exam week was not protected, and his discharge was upheld
even considering some of his criticisms in the memo related to
matters of public concern (such as publicly-funded out of town
trips for administrators, the inability to balance a budget "downtown").
- (Male) P.E. teacher accused of discriminating against female
students wrote a sarcastic reply which was published in the school
newspaper. He was marked down on his evaluation and didn't receive
a pay increase the following year. His letter to the editor, even
in a sarcastic tone, was touching on a matter of public concern,
and there was insufficient evidence of any additional reasons
for lowering his evaluation.
- Teachers who complained to school board members privately and
then were told by administration to "go through channels"
(meaning "Don't talk to board members unless and until you've
told your principal and superintendent what the problem is")
successfully sued their Iowa district and supt. for a violation
of their free speech rights. In one instance a teacher spoke to
a board member about the school's NCA evaluation; in another,
a different teacher complained to a board member about his evaluation
and later spoke against reorganization of the elementary schools
at a board meeting. Both teachers' evaluations were lowered as
a result of these activities. The "go-through-channels"
requirement was, in essence, a "gag rule." That's a
Constitutional no-no.
There's a lot of 'gray area' here, but my point is this: We need
to tolerate a certain level of disagreement by our employees.
At the same time, freedom of speech is not absolute, and employees
can be disciplined if their remarks cause a disruption in the
workplace. But remember, "disruption" is a lot more
than just "displeasing" you.
Now go back to work and be nice.
Money (Still) Talks
So Just How Much Money DID They Raise?
by Dr. Marcus Haack, SAI Associate Executive Director
I just received
the latest issue of a publication from Money & Politics Iowa
(Volume 4, Issue 2), a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization which
keeps tabs on campaign spending, political action committees,
lobbying and campaign contributions. This month's issue has a
complete compilation of the amount of money individual candidate's
election committees started with in 2000, how much each candidate
spent, and how much money each had left over after the November
2000 election. The data includes both hard money (given directly
to a candidate's campaign) and soft money (special contributions
to a party committee in support of issues).
Here are some of the most interesting statistics from the 2000
election:
- The most money raised in a House District where there was a
challenger to an incumbent: District 90 - $244,018; Dave Schrader
(D) $181,908 and Tamara Scott (R)$62,109. The most money raised
in a Senate District where there was a challenger to an incumbent:
District 42 - $568,648; Mike Gronstal (D) $487,024 and Linda Primmer
(R) $81,623.
- The least money raised in a House District where there was a
challenger to an incumbent: District 9 - $10,218; Robert Byers
(D) $0 and Dan Huseman (R) $10,218. The least money raised in
a Senate District where there was a challenger to an incumbent:
District 18 - $17, 262; Mike Connolly (D) $17, 262 and Stephen
Potts (R) $0.
- The most money raised in a House District with an open seat:
District 77 - $239,337; Kathryn Powell (D) $129,951 and Jodi Tymeson
(R) $109,386. The most money raised in a Senate District with
an open seat: District 36 - $413,422; Jack Holveck (D) $253,486
and Ron Langston (R) $159,936.
- The least money raised in a House District with an open seat:
District 68 - $10,030; Paul Lay (D) $0, Michael Cataldo (D) $6,375
and Jack Hatch (D) $3,655. The least money raised in a Senate
District with an open seat: District 48 - $40,245; Sally Hart
(D) $3,000, William Kuntz (D) $4,286 and Sandy Greiner (R) $32,959.
- The most money raised in a House District where there was no
contest: District 97 Dave Heaton (R) $26,261. The most money
raised in a Senate District where there was no contest: District
2 - John Redwine (R) $33,254.
- The least money raised in a House District where there was no
contest: District 11 Steve Kettering (R) $3,825. The least
money raised in a Senate District where there was no contest:
District 50 Gene Fraise (D) $13,437.
- The most money raised by a single candidate in the House: Brent
Seigrist (R) $191,528. The most money raised by a single candidate
in the Senate: Mike Gronstal (D) $487,024.
- The least money raised by a single candidate in the House: Gary
Meier (F) and Brett Nelson (R) $200 each. NOTE: Excludes 11 candidates
who raised no money. The least money raised by a single candidate
in the Senate: Donald Mason (D) $985. NOTE: Excludes two candidates
who raised no money.
- The most money raised by a holdover Senator: Stewart Iverson
(R) $262,537.
- The least money raised by a holdover Senator: Ken Veenstra (R)
$600.
It's interesting to note that SAI received and contributed approximately
$2000 to individual candidate campaign committees during the last
election cycle. If you want to find additional information regarding
any of the candidates on last November's ballot, you can go to
the Money and Politics Iowa web page at: www.mapiowa.org.
Thirteen Pages
of E-Mail Addresses?
Just when we thought we'd figured out a way to send legislative
updates to each and every SAI member by creating an e-mail listserve
using our membership database, we found out we still have some
bugs in the system. Those "bugs" resulted in many of
you receiving an update that was prefaced by some 13 pages of
member e-mail addresses! Sorry about that!
We have since utilized other software that should eliminate your
receiving e-mail addresses. And, if you have yet to receive a
legislative e-mail from the SAI office, please contact us with
your address.
Superintendent Accountability
by Dr. Elaine Smith-Bright, SAI Director of Professional Development
You can't have been in Iowa in the last few months without
hearing the term "pay for performance," and it certainly
isn't just a debate about teacher pay. Many districts are talking
about principals' evaluations and bonuses being dependent on student
scores. Will superintendents be rated the same way? "Some
state legislatures already have decreed that school boards cannot
sign multi-year contracts with superintendents unless they tie
compensation and contract renewal to gains in student achievement.
" (Mathews, 2001, AASA).
With the tenuous nature of superintendent evaluation in mind,
the SAI Superintendents Workshop Planning Committee decided to
depart from the usual multi-topic workshop format and devote focused
time on this important topic. On Fri., May 11 (Take note of this
date change!) at the Scheman Building on the ISU campus in Ames
you will be an active participant in all phases of the program.
You will engage in an in-depth conversation about superintendent
evaluation, tackle a review of the current literature, learn from
experts in the field, and share your own views. The objective
will be to establish guiding principles for development of a new
way of evaluating superintendents. It is further hoped that this
day can serve as a catalyst to build a foundation for continued
learning and development of evaluation, with an eye to sharing
the on-going results with school boards. Wayne Lueders from IASB
will be present to expand on possible ways to involve boards and
next steps.
To pique your interest, here are a few thought provoking quotes
from current research: "School district superintendents are
and must be accountable to their school boards, communities, faculties,
and students for delivering effective educational leadership.
To assure that they are evaluated fairly, competently, and functionally,
superintendents need to help their school boards plan and implement
evaluation systems that adhere to evaluation standards."
Candoli, Cullen, & Stufflebeam, Superintendent Performance
Evaluation: Current Practice and Directions for Improvement.
"Superintendents are the only school district employees not
supervised or evaluated by another licensed professional. Yet
it is imperative that superintendents be evaluated in a manner
that meets all the criteria of good personnel evaluation. This
will only happen for superintendents when credible evaluation
models are adopted and evaluators receive better training."
Hewitt, Why the Evaluation Instrument May Not Matter.
"As superintendents, we've been conditioned to focus on clearly
defined goals, on change that will make our school districts exemplary
and truly benefit children. Unfortunately, I can name dozens of
my peers who did great jobs focusing on kids and improving their
districts, but who were released from their contracts (a euphemism
for being fired). I am not trying to minimize the importance of
the evaluation process and the value it has in focusing the superintendent
on the needs of the school system. However, whether we like it
or not, our security on the job often depends more on whether
'they like us' than on how well we can document our accomplishments
on an objective evaluation instrument." DiPoaloa & Stronge,
Credible Evaluation: Not Yet State-of-the-Art.
Many feel it is time for a modern way of thinking about superintendent
evaluation. The checklist approach or rating scale delivered by
most boards is antiquated and inadequate-especially in this age
of accountability. It seems only sensible that evaluations of
superintendents be grounded in a systems approach that has hard
data, less subjective opinions, and many indices of measures that
are clearly designed to do more for children.
Besides the interactive sessions and literature review, Dr. Gary
Wegenke, former superintendent of the Des Moines Community Schools
will share his involvement in and views from serving as an advisor
on the book listed above by Candoli, Cullen, & Stufflebeam.
Superintendent Performance Evaluation: Current Practice and Directions
for Improvement is the product of one of several extensive research
projects at CREATE which is the Center for Research on Educational
Accountability and Teacher Education at Western Michigan University.
The center was established in 1990 with funding from the U.S.
Department of Education's Office of Educational Research and Improvement
and serves as a focal point for efforts to improve the evaluation
of educational personnel in America's school systems. Dr. Wegenke
currently serves as a faculty member at Western Michigan University
in the Department of Education.
Please plan to join us in May. We look forward to working with
you and beginning the journey to explore and hopefully affect
the course of superintendent evaluation in Iowa.
Threatening notes are being found at the high school, an elementary
student brings a weapon to school or any other potentially harmful
scenario happens in your district. The word is out in the community,
or will be soon, and the local media is right on it, too.
So what do you do? Your relationships with the local media should
already be established and you should have a crisis communications
plan in place.
Every district has its own considerations, but here are some things
to think about.
The first step in handling these issues is to be ready.
Be clear what a crisis is. A crisis in one community may not be
perceived as such in another. This is where your relationships
in the community will help you put this incident in perspective.
"You must weigh all the factors. If you decide not to release
information about a situation, be certain you have facts gathered
in the event you are contacted by the media," says Steve
Jones, director of communications and marketing with Heartland
AEA.
Communicating with the
community
If you decide to write a letter explaining what happened to be
sent home with students, be sure to inform parents what has happened,
what action is being taken and how they can help. You may, in
some cases, want to include information from local law enforcement
detailing what action may be taken from a legal standpoint.
In all communications make sure to reinforce how safe our schools
really are. Discuss what policies and procedures are in place
to deal with these occurrences.
Be certain to share this information with all faculty, staff and
school board members. You don't want them to be approached by
community members and not be aware of what is happening.
Jones also provided this reminder that the local media can become
aware of an incident in many ways. "Any time you send a letter
home, this serves as an announcement. Also, let the media know
so that the correct information is broadcast or printed,"
Jones added.
A reporter's on the phone
and it's for you
It's in your best interest to give reporters the full and straightforward
truth to help assure the public you have the situation in hand.
If you don't tell the truth, reporters will find information one
way or another.
When you're communicating about an incident, make sure to not
only tell what has happened, but what is being done-safety precautions
that are being taken, for example. And team with local law enforcement
to say that incidents, even pranks, may be prosecuted to the fullest
extent of the law.
The reporter is asking questions; what information can you release?
SAI's Director of Legal Services, Kathy Lee Collins, provided
this helpful list of things we can't or shouldn't divulge without
consent:
- A student's name connected to a specific action. (e.g., "Jarod
Adams was suspended for his threats against another student.")
If the student's identity is not known, then it's OK to say "We
investigated and suspended
the student we believe was responsible."
- A student's status as special ed., 504, or disabled in any way.
This is true regardless of whether the student is a "victim"
or "perpetrator" of an act in which the school was involved.
On the other hand, we can respond that we have "determined
the student(s) responsible" and have
(a) turned the matter over to law enforce-
ment;
(b) handled the situation internally;
(c) followed discipline policies;
(d) tried to provide help for the student(s)
and/or family(ies) involved;
If you don't use names, you can provide the details such as "A
student did make a threat directed to (an employee)(another student)."
Or "There was an incident at school involving possession
of a weapon [or you can say 'knife,' 'gun,' etc.] and we have
(a), (b), (c), (d) from above or "taken appropriate action."
With heightened public awareness of violence in school, it's vital
to communicate with your community in an immediate and forthright
manner.
Additional information may be found at nspra.org, nssc1.org, naesp.org,
nassp.org, or aasa.org