I'm so confused here I can't make heads or tails, and I'm hoping you can help. Did Proctor and Huckaby walk out because it was inappropriate to take a vote on that issue (offering administrators the 2-year contracts) at THAT TIME, and would it have been possible for them to publicly protest the vote at the time of the meeting? Could they have had the board delay that vote and then stay to take part in OTHER matters? Do you think it's appropriate to ask to grant 2-year contracts to administrators --with cuts coming down the pike (it sounds like Frailey wants to protect his "cronies"-- is THAT the case?)? It's obvious that games are being played, but I'm not familiar enough with how this is supposed to work to make a clear judgment on who is doing what and whether or not it's "o.k."!
These are great questions!
Let's take the last question first and talk about the games being played: P&H absolutely could have stayed and protested the vote at the time of the meeting. In fact, that is their duty as Trustees. A lot of other business needed to be handled besides the 2-year contracts. From the agenda and my experience, I would guess there were a lot of specific terminations and "RILT" (Resign in lieu of termination) for teachers who are not doing a good job. Those have to happen at the end of the contract cycle, and by a certain date under Texas law. You are absolutely right: games are being played here... and when P&H play those games, it derails the business of running the district.
So, why did they do it that way (walk out rather than vote "no" or abstain)? This is my opinion: I don't think it would have changed the outcome of the vote even if all 7 Trustees were present. So what was their point? It was for the Theatrics. We have an election coming up, and they wanted everyone to remember how angry everyone was last year about teacher layoffs, because that is what got them elected, and they are desperate to have two more buds on the board. Walking out and stealing the quorum wouldn't have changed the outcome, but it gave them an opportunity to get the attention of the press. On Tuesday, Mrs. Majors sent an inflammatory e-mail to teachers that indicated she and Mrs. Blackman are the only ones running who care about teachers. Coincidence? I doubt it... To consider this further: who REALLY has the best interests of the teachers at heart? Not P&H: they chose to hold up the contracts of over 4000 teachers with a stunt.
About voting that night versus later: It was completely appropriate to vote on contracts at that meeting, and if we put it in context of the school year, it makes better sense. This is the time of year that teachers and administrators start looking for new positions, because they are all on contracts that keep them from doing it in the middle of the year. If teachers and administrators are not getting a contract this time of year, it makes jobs in other districts look that much more appealing. It is the piece of paper they have to have to buy a home as it shows they have employment. Holding up those contracts does them a great disservice.
Educator Contracts 101: All professional staff work under contract. There are two kinds; "term" and "probationary". Probationary contracts are usually given to people in the first year or two of a new assignment. Once they have a "term" contract, they basically have a never-ending job, because in order to fire them, the district has to have documented cause. In addition, it is very expensive to let a term-contract teacher go because they have the right to a number of hearings, which are very expensive for the district. That was why the teachers who were given pink slips last year were probationary-contract teachers, because if the district had let go term teachers and they all pursued hearings, it could have cost the district millions.
P&H would have you believe everyone working in the admin building get the 2 year contracts, while those on campuses only get one-year. NOT TRUE. Of all the "administrator" contracts, only 80-ish are 2-year contracts. With 50+ campuses, the vast majority went to principals, and the remainder went to heads of departments, like the chief of police or head of operations or accountability/assessment, etc. Here's why 2-year contracts are offered to some administrators: Who gets one is driven by supply and demand. There are few people who can do the job of a campus principal or head a department, and they are in greater demand. By giving those folks 2-year contracts, it locks them in and protects the district from loosing an asset that the district developed and invested in! How many administrators do you know who left us to find a bigger job at another district because KISD trained them so well! Tying them to a two-year contract helps to keep them at work here. It's not about protecting cronies; it's protecting an asset of the district.
Tragedy is, reviewing the POLICY of giving 2 year contracts now, while the State funding is so uncertain, is a good idea; however I've been told that there was no attempt by P&H to put that question on the agenda One other Trustee has told me privately he would have supported putting that question on the agenda, but not to hold up the awarding of all the teacher contracts. But P&H didn't do that. But it doesn't matter if Bill Proctor has a good ideas or not, if he presents them to the press rather than the board. His value as a board member is diminished because everyone with any sense is reluctant to deal with him when he chooses to do the business of the district in INK.
Thank you so much for your response! I am still learning, and am inspired to keep paying attention to the happenings in our district. I refuse to be manipulated by theatrics and misinformation or "conclusions" based on incomplete reporting (high emotion sure sells, doesn't it?!). I will be paying close attention (thank your for your role in that! Your blog is certainly a valuable resource.), and hope to meet you at a future school board meeting. Again, THANK YOU.
ReplyDelete