It would seem that a school board hires a director to implement official school policy as legislated by the board. Policy decisions are made by a group, using their collective wisdom. This group is drawn from a variety of backgrounds, united by a dedication to the mission of the school.
But policies are easy; implementation is more difficult. A director must implement the policies within the confines of state and federal law. That will mean designating protocols and subsidiary policies. For instance, a board can proclaim a policy such as “maintain an environment conducive to learning.” It is up to the director to decide if allowing hair ribbons, or striped socks or IPods after school infringe upon that environment. It is also for the director to decide how many detention an offense will merit.
But a charter school director operates also under the shadow of various and sundry contractual arrangements. A school has vendors that supply everything from computers to toilet paper. There are also infrastructure considerations: Internet access, bus contracts, legal issues.
Furthermore, a board hires a director because they have experience on the ground dealing with these issues. Day to day experience with typical school issues and practical wisdom to apply to new issues that arise. After all, on a board of business people, teachers and parents, who has the skills needed to run a school? Administrators are well paid for a reason.
Which brings us to Eagle Ridge Academy and Ingison. The pathetic missive from the Board today was meant to smooth over the controversy by adding a veneer of respectability to the non-renewal of the Director. It has accomplished just the opposite. Their account of the “significant concerns” reveals the pettiness at work here. No reason is given. We are simply to believe that there were indeed “significant concerns.”
Recalling the discussion Tuesday night, however, it becomes clear that the actionable concerns amounted to Ingison being busy and not being willing to accept total blame for a subordinate’s serious error. Is that all? This is the stuff of performance evaluation, not grounds for non-renewal. What policy has Ingison violated? What part of the mission statement has not been upheld?
The proper response of a rational board to the allegations in Reid’s letter would have been to dismiss it as the character assassination it was and move on. A worthy employer would have supported its employee rather than undermining her. The appropriate response to the raving lunatics at these Board meetings demanding Ingison’s head would have been to show them the door. The proper response to an expiring contract for an employee who has presided over the rising of test scores, the growth of enrollment and the spread of the school’s reputation for excellence would have been to quickly resign her to a multi-year contract at a substantial raise.
Instead, the Board fell all over itself in its rush to force her out, and is now dissembling ineptly to get away with it. The only explanation is that some on the Board are in league with the screeching parents and disloyal teachers. Furthermore, there is evidence that this has been the case for some time. They collectively were willing to injure the school and defame Ingison to get their way.
And what is it that they want? Control. Have they achieved that? The May elections will be a referendum on the behavior of this Board. That will tell all.
But policies are easy; implementation is more difficult. A director must implement the policies within the confines of state and federal law. That will mean designating protocols and subsidiary policies. For instance, a board can proclaim a policy such as “maintain an environment conducive to learning.” It is up to the director to decide if allowing hair ribbons, or striped socks or IPods after school infringe upon that environment. It is also for the director to decide how many detention an offense will merit.
But a charter school director operates also under the shadow of various and sundry contractual arrangements. A school has vendors that supply everything from computers to toilet paper. There are also infrastructure considerations: Internet access, bus contracts, legal issues.
Furthermore, a board hires a director because they have experience on the ground dealing with these issues. Day to day experience with typical school issues and practical wisdom to apply to new issues that arise. After all, on a board of business people, teachers and parents, who has the skills needed to run a school? Administrators are well paid for a reason.
Which brings us to Eagle Ridge Academy and Ingison. The pathetic missive from the Board today was meant to smooth over the controversy by adding a veneer of respectability to the non-renewal of the Director. It has accomplished just the opposite. Their account of the “significant concerns” reveals the pettiness at work here. No reason is given. We are simply to believe that there were indeed “significant concerns.”
Recalling the discussion Tuesday night, however, it becomes clear that the actionable concerns amounted to Ingison being busy and not being willing to accept total blame for a subordinate’s serious error. Is that all? This is the stuff of performance evaluation, not grounds for non-renewal. What policy has Ingison violated? What part of the mission statement has not been upheld?
The proper response of a rational board to the allegations in Reid’s letter would have been to dismiss it as the character assassination it was and move on. A worthy employer would have supported its employee rather than undermining her. The appropriate response to the raving lunatics at these Board meetings demanding Ingison’s head would have been to show them the door. The proper response to an expiring contract for an employee who has presided over the rising of test scores, the growth of enrollment and the spread of the school’s reputation for excellence would have been to quickly resign her to a multi-year contract at a substantial raise.
Instead, the Board fell all over itself in its rush to force her out, and is now dissembling ineptly to get away with it. The only explanation is that some on the Board are in league with the screeching parents and disloyal teachers. Furthermore, there is evidence that this has been the case for some time. They collectively were willing to injure the school and defame Ingison to get their way.
And what is it that they want? Control. Have they achieved that? The May elections will be a referendum on the behavior of this Board. That will tell all.
2 comments:
I agree with you 100%. Watching that train wreck Tuesday night, I (as a business Manager) could not believe my eyes. There were moments I was laughing to myself thinking we were on candid camera or something. How they could push a vote, when clearly others were not ready to do so. How could they let her go when her review that is riding (since they refused to not write a review for her this year..didn't want to "hurt her feelings" - bunch of crap)was almost a flawless review. As a manager in the corporate world - I would have a lot of explaining to do if I fired a 5.0 outstanding employee. I will make sure that the Board is going to change. It is MY responsibility as a mother to make sure something is done. And we really need to make sure of who we are voting for. People that have been involved, IN ANY WAY, should be looked at closely. We can change things. I know we can!
It's too bad the ERA board as now constituted has it so backasswards and those most interested in wresting from the administration the day-to-day operational control of the school, Neve, Twetan, Jons and Romportl, are those who spend the least amount of time there and are the least knowledgeable of school management.
Post a Comment