The Kentucky Department of Education plans to seek several measures in the upcoming legislative session to boost low-achieving schools, including possibly removing superintendents or school board members in those school districts.
Kentucky law already allows the state education commissioner to seek the removal of local school officials for such things as misconduct, incompetency or wilful neglect of duty. Now, the education department proposes to add chronic low student academic performance to the list of causes for removal.
The idea was neither new nor unanimous. In fact, the same conversation took place last year, almost to the day.
At issue is whether the commissioner should be allowed to dismiss a school superintendent whose district test scores do not measure up.
Superintendents generally oppose the measure, arguing that it is unfair to hold superintendents responsible for student achievement in the schools because they do not directly control enough of the variables for that to be fair - specifically, even though they recommend a pool of candidates, they are not empowered under KERA to hire their principals.
At present, if a principal fails to perform (as measured by student achievement data or for any other reason) the superintendent has the authority to demote him or her immediately - without any guarantee that the principal would be given, say, three years to raise scores, which some consider typical. Principals have argued privately, to no avail, that it is unfair to demote them since they do not control enough of the variables.
Teachers lose their jobs with even greater frequency than principals or superintendents - while arguing that family background factors frequently trump their ability to get all of their students to perform at high levels.
It's not a fair system, but so far, only superintendents seem to be exempt from personal responsibility.
According to EPSB records, 288 disciplinary cases were initiated in calendar year 2008, and 257 character and fitness cases were opened for the EPSB’s review. As of June 30, 2009, 131 disciplinary cases, and 131 character and fitness cases have been opened for the current calendar year. When a case is initiated against an educator, the educator is given 30 days to submit a rebuttal, and then the case is prepared for review by the Board.
The EPSB reviewed 288 disciplinary cases during 2008. The EPSB dismissed 51 cases (18%), voted to hear 116 cases (40%), and deferred 44 cases (15%) for training or more information. The EPSB chose to admonish 77 educators (27%).
237 applications were presented to the EPSB in 2008 for character and fitness review. The EPSB approved 220 of those applications, denied 7 applications, and deferred 10.
In 2008, the EPSB revoked 16 certificates and suspended 30 certificates. 105 cases were resolved by agreed orders, and the EPSB issued 2 final orders: 1 order revoking a certificate for 5 years and 1 order admonishing an educator.
Individuals whose certificates are revoked or suspended continue to submit their certificates to the EPSB. Any certificate subsequently issued to anyone whose certificate was previously revoked or suspended now includes “Revoked” or “Suspended” and the relevant timeframe on the face of the certificate. This assists district authorities in making well-informed hiring decisions.
Dorie Combs, a state board member from Richmond, said she supported the idea of providing accountability, but argued that the removal proposal would not help to accomplish that. Combs then moved to have the removal language dropped from the board's legislative agenda.
Other board members objected, however, with board chairman Joe Brothers arguing that accountability is part of being a leader and that the future of Kentucky schools is the state board's responsibility.
Combs' motion died on a voice vote.
Since last year, the Obama Administration has ramped up pressure on states to turn around chronically low-performing schools and school districts. At the same time, it is pushing for a (still imperfect, but more fair) value-added longitudinal assessment system that would attempt to account for much of the student variability by establishing baseline data on every individual student, then, tracking that data throughout the student's career. The target date for such a system is 2011-2012, but the board's legislative proposal will go forward this spring, absent the new system.
The board's recommendation would change the language of KRS 156.132 to give the education commissioner authority to remove a school superintendent or school board member. Last year the language of the board's action called for removal after six years of repeated poor academic performance. This year's proposal does not state a time frame.
It's not really fair. But it is equally unfair.
3 comments:
I am disturbed that Frankfort would have, or could have, the authority to remove a superintendent or board member of a local school district for anything but financial mismanagement.
...already do have.
Then there is no such thing as local control of schools, is there?
Post a Comment