Hampshire Gazette
By NICK GRABBE
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
AMHERST - The Regional School Committee and Alberto Rodriguez agreed Monday night that he will no longer be superintendent of schools.
The reason is staff evaluations that were provided to committee members last Wednesday.
The committee and Rodriguez signed an agreement at 8:35 p.m. Monday. It read:
"After the committee and Dr. Rodriguez's receipt of the survey results from employees, particularly the feedback from a majority of senior administrative personnel who report to Dr. Rodriguez, the committee and Dr. Rodriguez agreed that it was in the best interests of all parties for Dr. Rodriguez to leave his position as superintendent of the district."
For more details, see Tuesday's Gazette.
Monday, March 8, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
38 comments:
This is getting curioser and curioser.
Looking like one big tea party.
Off with their heads!
So can we all agree that Maria Geryk needs everyone's support and good energy? There are 2900 kids to educate, with out without a Superintendent.
that should have said
with or without
This is all such a shame. It feels like this district is wasting some serious years here trying to find stability, good leadership and consistency. Luckily most of the children are still spending their days with good, dedicated, seemingly tireless teachers, being held to high standards, and this brouhaha at the top (sp?) fairly well misses them.
I agree with the sentiment expressed earlier that the super should be thick skinned enough to be immune from what is written in the blogs, but I also ask why does so much of what is written on this blog have to be so nasty and so personal. It is really counter-productive and so negative! (also, good point about who might read this stuff Nina)
I guess I wish everyone who writes the crappy stuff that is too frequently posted here would stop and think what you are really hoping to accomplish, and whether writing what you do is truly the best way you can think of to reach those goals?
Choose kindness. It works wonders.
Sam I Am
Agreed. Can we try to model the quality of discussion we would like to see in our classrooms?
And remember, the teachers are still teaching and the kids are still learning. It is hardly a waste at the classroom level.
Things will improve! I think w/o the distraction of the Dr. R. issue it might actually be easier to talk about the next few years.
Perhaps we have learned a lesson that leadership has to come from within (the community itself). Hired guns come and go.
Instead of hiring some outside firm (to the tune of $40 K) to get another Napoleon, why not list it locally and see who we get (hint, hint Maria Geryk)
Did any of you read the statement???? "receipt of the survey results from employees, particularly the feedback from a majority of senior administrative personnel who report to Dr. Rodriguez", NOT the blog, not public comments about him, SENIOR ADMIN PERSONNEL. Get off your high horse about talking nice. And read for content.
Signed, disgusted.
to 5:43,
I'm not saying that comments on the blog led to Dr. R's dismissal. I'm saying that comments on the blog and elsewhere help to create a climate where some people may not want to work. Thus, we may be losing out on some great applicants for various positions, such as the curriculum director.
It's entirely possible that there is a person out there who is very thoughtful, maybe a little shy, with brilliant ideas about professional development and the ability to work effectively with teachers in developing buy-in. In fact, maybe it is the quality of empathy in this person that makes him or her so effective in moving people forward. But maybe that same quality also makes him or her averse to a climate where people are constantly saying mean things about other people. So, he or she chooses not to apply here because there are other job openings that appear more appealing. And we lose out. You might think, oh we will just find someone else, but we tried that last year and had no luck.
If this position puts me on a high horse, then so be it. What's wrong with being nice? Why is that disgusting?
This whole debacle is absurd. When you hire someone to clean house and get the school on track to what it could be. And when, as many have stated on this blog, the teachers are for the most part, really good, and the problems seem to stem from (hint hint)senior administration, you need to take what they say with more than a few truckloads of rock salt!
If the SC really wants him to get something done, they have to put on hold their reactions to these types of evaluations for at least 2 years, unless he is doing nothing or has committed some crime. Otherwise we have insured that we can never hire anything but a lame duck.
Good point. Is it a popularity contest or a job that needs to be done?
Nina -
Some people get off by ridiculing other people. Some do it anonymously; some sign their names; some do their own blogs. Unfortunately we can't change their behavior. The nastiness by some people that come to this blog and the nastiness of another blogger in town didn't cause Rodriguez's departure, but you are completely right that it will make it difficult to hire people into leadership positions in Amherst. Leadership and really tough skin don't necessarily go hand in hand. You talk about people saying mean things about people. The good news is that it's just a few bullies; the bad news is that they are relentless. I have no idea what the solution is. Certainly it includes ignoring the bully blog (if a tree falls in the woods...), but it will still have its audience of like-minded people. And the bullies (who apparently think they become stronger by ridiculing others) just go to wherever the audience is.
(and now Nina, we wait a few minutes until we predictably are attacked by them).
I don't think folks on this blog, including Anon 6:07 AM, are getting their brains around just how unsuitable he was.
And, Nina, we were very nice when we hired him and when we negotiated his compensation.
And, Nina, you will undoubtedly discover that we were nice in sending him off with more compensation.
As much as you want to make this about big, bad mean us, it's not, except in the choice we made about
the right candidate for the job and what considerations guided that choice. THAT needs some self-reflection.
Disgusted, thank you for reminding us for the reason the Superintendent left. Clearly, the internal evaluations were so bad that the School Committee had no choice but to suggest a "mutually agreeable solution" for him to leave. I really doubt this, or any, blog would seriously inform the School Committee's decision. But if the STAFF cannot work with/for Dr. Rodriguez, the entire school system cannot function.
I am concerned, however, with what it will cost us. Dr. Rodriguez came aboard with a huge salary plus travel expenses. We know how much of the salary he already spent, but how much of the $15,000 travel has already been spent?! Not the whole $15,000, I hope! And what about his vacation time? He already used his entire year's worth although he did not work a year! As someone who is worried about the budget, this really concerns me, especially when I see that we pay some paras what he earns for TRAVEL!
There is still the outstanding question of how much MORE will we have to pay him? When the Spragues left, we had to continue paying their salary through the end of the year. I hope that will not be the case (or worse) with Dr. Rodriguez. Catherine, when will we find out these details?
I also want to make sure we do NOT pay $40,000 for a search consultant again. We just paid this less than a year ago; a lot of the information we learned then should still be current. We pay our HR Director and staff enough; they should be able (and willing) to conduct this search on their own. Perhaps starting with a call to Dr. Sklarz!
I agree with Anon 6:32 AM. Remember, not everyone on the SC voted for Dr. R. He didn't have much Superintendent experience. In fact, I think in some of his superintendent positions he lasted less than a year....hmmmm. Why then was he chosen??
Dr. Sklarz had many, many years of experience as a Superintendent and we passed him over. WHY?
Maybe in the future, we should hire the most EXPERIENCED candidate for the job.
Try to understand this:
If both blogs had folded up operations last March, and if all of the people who comment on there had been suddenly rendered deaf, dumb and blind, so that they had been completely removed from the public debate.......
This still would have happened.
Yes it still would have happened.
The point Nina and others are trying to make is that the blog atmosphere in Amherst will make it hard to attract some candidates to the positions we need to fill. It will narrow the pool of
candidates, I think, significantly.
not to mention the bad example the "bullies" set for the kids. It's difficult to try to teach the kids that bullying is not acceptable behavior with adults bullying/ridiculing with no consequences.
Agreed that this likely would have happened without nasty, mean spirited blog postings. The question Nina is asking, separate from that reality, is what service do these postings do to our kids, our schools or our community in the first place? Which is what this dialog should all be about, right? Improving education in Amherst. Is that best accomplished through insult and attack or thoughtful probing and respectful debate? And, what impressions DO outside visitors get from reading community forums such as this? Are we a bunch of hungry piranhas slashing about and salivating for our prey? Or are we more human and civilized than that?
Anon 7:13 AM
Nice set of loaded questions. Didn't I see you in "Inherit the Wind"?
Look: a guy who uses up all of his vacation time 8 months into his first year in a position is telling you a little something about his level of job satisfaction.
It just wasn't working out.
One thing that is pretty typical about this blog has happened again, and that is mis-interpreting and twisting what is said. I wrote earlier (11:41 PM)about the tone of nastiness on so many of these blog posts, and whether they are accomplishing any good, or are counter-productive.
Next thing I know there are responses as if I had said that this blog is why the superintendent left. I never said that at all, nor did subsequent posters like Nina say such a thing, but suddenly
the conversation has gone that way, as if that was our basic premise.
It is so frustrating when people ignore what is being written in what appears to be pretty plain English, and instead make up some different "hidden" message to then respond to.
I guess I would put that practice under the counter-productive heading as well.
Lord knows we are all smart enough around here to read and understand plain English and to engage in a mature and reasonably sophisticated discussion of real issues without it turning into a streetyard brawl, or a he-said, she-said.
Sam I Am
Time for a low key healer from within. Not rocket science folks.
No, No, No:
This is a community in which educational issues get politicized. That's always been true: this is NOT a new phenomenon. Does anyone remember the "good riddance" letters to the Bulletin over a decade ago when the long-time Middle School principal left?
But that's also the excitement of the place. If you want to be a deeply private person, Amherst is probably not the place to be superintendent. If you want to be around people who view education with a passion, and not just as something to be delegated mindlessly to others, like the garbage on the curb, then this might be your cup of tea. All any superintendent candidate needs to do is walk inside of any of our schools, or go to any school event: it's exhilarating. But the debate itself is not always going to be pretty. So what?
Let's stop beating ourselves up. We made a "feel good" choice for superintendent and we got burned. That's it.
I don't agree that "that's it." We got really burned financially as well as educationally. My family was on the fence regarding the override but after this latest "crisis," we are voting NO. We cannot afford to pay ourselves or to ask our friends and neighbors money to fund a rudderless ship! We are missing a number of key positions in our schools. What if the middle school principal search fails? Is there a plan as to who is going to take over then? Mark Jackson has made it clear that he is not interested in doing this two years in a row. And how does Maria geryk's job get done when she is constantly being asked to step into the gap of Superintendent??
I need another year (at least) to see where our schools are headed before I vote to send more money their way. Unfortunately for the town budget because I do feel as if the town finances and leadership are much more stable.
Anon 6:07am resonated with me:
"...you need to take what they say with more than a few truckloads of rock salt!
If the SC really wants him to get something done, they have to put on hold their reactions to these types of evaluations for at least 2 years, unless he is doing nothing or has committed some crime. Otherwise we have insured that we can never hire anything but a lame duck."
I am wondering who on the SC has experience in personnel issues. It is obviously not the professors. I'd like to know what Irv Rhodes thought of all of this-- he seems to have real world experience outside of academics. Don't get me wrong, I support our SC professors. But their expertise is not hiring and firing or anything related to personnel issues in my view. Anyone who knows of tenure debacles knows this well of professors in general.
I agree that Dr. Rodriguez was here to make a lot of changes, to see some through that had already been decided and to keep making more changes in the interests of efficiency, fiscal austerity, and most important of all, improving the quality of the education in our schools. A lot of people were threatened and challenged by his mission. A lot of senior administrators like principals had to endure a very stressful year, especially because of all the changes for the teachers that were being made or forthcoming. Those administrators were asked for evaluations and most if not all of them gave bad feedback about Rodriguez.
His bad evaluations after only 8 months on the job should not merit this big move (unless as someone posted earlier there is criminal activity involved, and taking sick leave just doesn't amount to anything criminal in my book). There is nothing that he is or did that we didn't know about before he was hired.
There is so much talk about learning from other districts, getting data to see what might work here, and doing our research. Did anyone find out from other districts what it is like when a new superintendent starts who has no personal ties to anyone (a very good thing in my book) and starts asking a lot of questions and making a lot of changes? Why was it such a surprise that the evaluations were bad?
If the only thing he accomplished this year was disbanding the language clustering and changing the way we do ELL, that would be enough for me. If the only thing he accomplished this year was being the guy to blame for the big changes underway and thereby taking some heat off the principals and the SC, that is enough for me! But he did A LOT more than that. He worked on streamlining the budget in the face of a substantial shortfall, he requisitioned a study of SPED where a lot of money flows and a lot of people have a lot to lose, he had to deal with a principal leaving (I've heard from some that this was a good thing and from others that this was not a good thing), he had to push for redistricting, something that had not been done for more than 30 years. This was a big feat. He had to challenge ELL protocols that have been used here for years. He had to consolidate personnel and resources from 4 elementary schools to 3, a massive undertaking that was not accomplished by many before him and was long overdue (as we can see from the budget impact).
It would be helpful to compare evaluations between now and a year from now. I've had bosses who came in and made a lot of changes or were involved in seeing through big changes, and I didn't like these bosses at all in the first year. They seemed authoritative to me, they seemed like they knew it all, they seemed to act too quickly, they didn't seem that smart to me. It takes time to build trust and to really get to know someone. Especially, when a district is in crisis as we have been this year with all the issues, it just seems hasty and unfair to us in the community that we have to endure yet another upheaval.
How are we hiring a middle school principal without anyone in charge of the hiring process? Who will choose the candidates? Who will make the final decision? This search needs to be postponed until we hire a new superintendent. The middle school principal is principal of the second largest school in the district. The public has had no input into hiring Maria Geryk. Is she going to be the one making this critical hiring choice?
I'm with 6:23a.m., was it a popularity contest or a job?
Anon 6:30a.m. please help us get our heads around this. Because I am not sure what you are referring to when you write how unsuitable he was. Your post makes it seem like we knew he was unsuitable and hired him anyway. So then is it his fault or ours? Thanks.
This whole situation goes from bad to worse the more I read. I would argue anyone against the over ride that a situation like this should not hastily be given the political nature of checking NO for the over ride which would systematically take away vital education, services for the schools and community. It sounds quite childish and political- and would not fair our community well. It concerns me that with the redistricting we are now pretty much left leaderless. It concerns me that important life skill classes and services are being cut that all kids vitally need.
I am saddened that AR has left. I like him personally as a parent and felt he was changing things for the better, at the same time he was quite transparent with our need for an over ride and what changes possibly could be looked into but I don't think he was overly authoritative. I think he has a tough job. We OVER politicize it seems everything in Amherst and beyond in the valley.
However, after visiting another country for a month and seeing how my relatives are schooled, I also realize you guys don't know how good we have it. That you even HAVE a voice and a choice even in the political nature to decide how our kids are educated. Be grateful for goodness sake that special education children have the legal right to access, and that schools don't have a right to deny their right to mainstream education. Be grateful that we have nurses in each school that are qualified to manage the varied health and medical issues. Be grateful that our anti bulling programs are followed through as thoroughly as they are. Be grateful that we have a variety of flexible, talented dedicated teachers that can teach with different styles. Be grateful that we don't have to pay for public school. Be grateful that kids that need free lunch have a free lunch program and equal access to education.
It is a bruhaha and yet I am grateful my kids have the opportunities that they do. I do think that if we are to have more and more federal and state cuts, each year that we need to stop political nonsense and find the balances of efficient fat cuts, and maintaining what is important. If and over ride is necessary (and if ever NOW would be the time) and you don't think you should pay anymore for education and community services, you end up paying down the line in the form of other problems.
I know the SC is doing their best, and I am sure AR was doing the same. We need an over ride in place for whoever is Super and we need to understand that bringing people from outside our insular political enclave to make changes and lead are not devils from the outside. Progressive change moves forward, and is centered in reform. In the 5 years I've lived here, Amherst hasn't really lived up to it's progressive nature to which it claims, especially if we don't realize leadership is not just sitting at the wheel in auto pilot. The override is centered in our current economical crisis as well as a long time avoidance to cuts over the years. How can we only be in the middle of the school year and be doing surveys enough to "mutually" ask the Super to depart? Do the administrators of the school really have that much power? Haven't we had a turn over in administrators as well?
As a parent, I am outraged that the SC would allow for such political nonsense to continue. Let's not back peddle and say, well he wasn't qualified (you guys narrowed the canidates down based on qualifications), he was from somewhere else so very different (for those of us who have moved here from somewhere else so different...) or unsuitable. Are we to say that only candidates locally, from the same bizarro demographics and attitudes are qualified. I think you can't get a worst case senerio than this.
Can we at least all agree that the SC is privy to information about Dr. R. that we are not privy to? I cannot believe that the SC is so naive that they would not see through politically motivated evaluations by the senior administrators in our schools. There must have been some real meat, if you will, in the evals to cause the immediate emergency meeting of the SC last Friday. There had to have been more than disguntled (if they were disgruntled) administrators complaining about their boss.
I really do think many posters on this blog have it wrong. There must have been a pretty serious reason for the SC to so quickly come to the conclusion that the schools would be better off with Dr. R. Without direct knowledge of what was in the evals I do not feel that I can second guess the SC and I don't know how the rest of you think you can second guess them either.
Anon 10:27 AM:
It was our fault.
But there was no way for anyone to know how much of a boor he was.
I'm sorry if people reading this don't like the sound of this, but we put the wrong man in the wrong spot, and then he made it worse.
They are telling us they hired him for the wrong reasons, but they are letting him go for the right reasons. It's a lot to ask of us.
11:56am, I agree with you. But the reason a lot of us parents supported Dr. R is because we trusted the SC would bring in the right choice. We liked him because the SC wanted us to like him. And we had some nice interactions with him. As parents, we obviously didn't work for him or have the kind of interactions on a consistent basis that would allow us to evaluate him the way a district employee could.
Now we have to trust the SC again that they are letting him go for the right reasons.
Even though it's a lot to ask, I do trust them because this SC for this past academic year has really done so much good for our district in my view. And this is not the same SC that hired the Superintendent (there are 2 new people on the committee: Irv Rhodes and Steve Rivkin).
11:56 a.m., I don't think everyone who is baffled about what has happened is second-guessing the School Committee. Some people are, but basically we don't have enough information so that is why we are curious. What did Irv Rhodes think, someone asked. Maybe we'll find out tonight. I did see language from Catherine that the School Committee unanimously agreed this was the thing to do. That answers the question about Irv. Was this a consensus-building unanimous or a real unanimous? Just wondering.
I need to say that I am very impressed with the quality of the postings on this particular thread.
Passionate AND thoughtful...isn't that what we'd like our children to learn in school?
In the old days people used to have "coffees" at their homes and invite folks over to share concerns with a candidate or public representative.
I think Amherst could use some "coffees" right now. I think you are all closer together than you think.
And as for the nasties, I have a novelty key glued to my keyboard: it says "IGNORE."
If you read my post directing you to the obit of Joseph Killory, the valiant Super who handled METCO and school integration in NJ many years ago, you can see that Supers do have to be somewhat "fireproof."
I do not think any competent administrator would swoon over the posts here. Sheesh.
Part One:
This is my first year as a parent in the Amherst District and it is turning out to be a very disheartening one. For the School Committee to make this decision at this specific juncture reveals such a lack of leadership that I am moved to write for the first time on a blog with a troubling history. I can only hope that regardless of our disappointment in the timing of this decision and our continuing questions about several issues, those of us who strongly support the over-ride as in the best interests of all of the children in the Amherst Schools continue to make a strong case for it.
As others have stated, Dr. Rodriguez was in charge of making deep changes that angered people wedded to the status quo. Most parents I have spoken with are not active in the name-calling that passes for civil discourse in Amherst School politics. Many of these parents found the change agenda compelling, the specific proposals sound, and Dr. Rodriguez himself personable and reasonable, regardless of whether or not one agreed with him or shared his personal political views.
Did the SC take on the hard job of meeting with Dr. Rodriguez to discuss an improvement of his management style--if one were needed--or of providing a private forum for administrators to express their issues in focused ways that could then be concretely addressed? To let him go after such a short time rather than working through the issues gives the impression that the SC is following disgruntled administrators rather than leading in the best interests of all the children. If the situation were truly beyond repair, which is certainly not at all clear, the SC could have chosen a less disruptive time to make such a drastic change to the system.
The enthusiasm and energy of many parents has been greatly diminished by the personal nature of disagreements over policy changes and by the inertia and indifference of certain administrators to concrete offers of help and to specific responses to their invitations for suggestions. At this point, what little time we have outside of work and family time seems best spent bringing extra activities and support to our child's classroom and teachers in our school.
Nevertheless, I am open to hearing what the SC and the District will be doing, with diminished resources, and now with the sudden departure of the Superintendent, around the following issues:
Part Two:
1. Is the curriculum at every grade level in the district truly aligned to state standards? This was a concern for Dr. Rodriguez last fall and shocking to hear about.
2. Is the curriculum at every school truly aligned to every other school in the district? Teachers can obviously decide how to teach, but a child should be able to leave one school and smoothly transition to another school in town.
3. Does the SC or the District have a Strategic Development Plan designed to raise funds from public and private sources in an integrated fashion to meet agreed upon goals in a time of fiscal crisis? How does this plan connect with the worthy efforts of the AEF and of the PGOs?
4. What is the specific plan for raising the educational outcomes of low-income children, immigrant children, ELL students, and children of color who are not making adequate academic progress?
5. What is the specific plan for providing differentiated curriculum and instruction that engages and excites all learners, including one that challenges students who are above grade level?
6. What is the specific plan for engaging, integrating, and involving all parents that does not rely solely on parent volunteers? How does this plan address the specific needs of low-income parents, immigrant parents, parents of color, and LGBTQ parents?
In a time of fiscal crisis it may seem prudent to postpone change, circle the wagons, and cling to the past. However, at times like these the school system needs the energy, enthusiasm, and resources of parents and non-parents alike more than ever. Gain back the trust and excitement of most Amherst residents and I would wager that most of us would gladly give more time and resources than we ever thought possible.
In terms of this blog itself, in my opinion, opening up a public space for anonymous commentary carries a responsibility to monitor and exclude personal attacks and racist comments from such space. (Most newspapers follow such a policy). Dr. Rodriguez had barely set foot in town before anonymous and general comments were made about his supposed "machismo."
A much more direct example appeared on this blog recently, posted by a parent complaining about Crocker Farm being "a Spanish immersion school" because of the signs posted naming objects in the school in Spanish. It made me wonder whether our reading bilingual stories in the classroom could be resented by some families and it set this blog apart as a space where racist comments are permitted. Another way to raise the level of the discussion and to involve more parents might be to discourage anonymous postings and perhaps even to lessen the role of a private blog that seems to heavily influence media coverage of the schools.
Finally, expressing concerns and disagreement with the timing of this latest decision by the SC does not in any way argue against passing the over-ride nor dismiss the hard work that teachers are doing every day. Resources are desperately needed to continue to educate and support all the children in our schools. The scaled-down version of current programming in music, art, and physical education could not possibly bear any more cuts. Any further disinvestment would deteriorate the core educational programs in the schools.
Sincerely,
Isolda Ortega-Bustamante
Crocker Farm parent
P.S. Lest anyone think otherwise, I wrote this at home and posted it during my lunch time.
2:48 Isolda Ortega-Bustamante asked: "Did the SC take on the hard job of meeting with Dr. Rodriguez to discuss an improvement of his management style--if one were needed--or of providing a private forum for administrators to express their issues in focused ways that could then be concretely addressed?"
I agree with these questions. If it was an administrative or management style - or even evaluations from subordinates - shouldn't the SC give the Supt the support he needs to address and improve? It feels strange to hope that there is another reason for his dismissal, because this one does not feel right.
The high school principal comes across as an oaf. I don't like the way he tried to say at tonight's meeting that Dr. Rodriguez did not offer a valuable perspective as an outsider.
By that same token, if Dr. Rodriguez was terminated or "mutually terminated" on the high school principal's say so, then that is just not good enough for me. That hs principal is disrespectful. I don't like the way he called out Catherine for a positive comment she made about Dr. Rodriguez.
10:11pm why are you posting this twice on this blog? is there a posting strategy a novice like me should know about?
I wonder why you have had five superintendents in such a short time! There was probably nothing bad with any of them to begin with, and knowing Dr. Rodriguez myself, there is absolutely nothing wrong with him; but the trend here indicates that you are the ones that continue to change opinions about what’s right or wrong.
Until you all learn how to perceive change as a constructive method and look toward the future open minded, you will NEVER find the right fit. Student, parent and teachers at Westland Hialeah SH had the opportunity to really know Dr. Rodriguez, because he was always here for us. If anything I’m truly happy to see him coming back where he is truly loved!!
Post a Comment