Hampshire Gazette
Editorial
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
At least it didn't drag on. If Alberto Rodriguez was the wrong person to lead Amherst's schools, as he and several school committees concede, it is good to know that now. We hope the agreement reached this week spares the town a divisive and distracting legal fight.
Still, the misfire over Rodriguez's selection will echo for some time. It could influence how voters view the tax override on the ballot March 23 and complicate the search for the next superintendent.
Even as they look ahead and begin a new search for a superintendent, education officials must come to terms with what didn't work out with Rodriguez, who arrived last summer promising to be an agent of change.
It appears that criticism of Rodriguez's leadership from senior school administrators - solicited in advance of a planned performance review this week - was instrumental in the superintendent's departure after just eight months. The substance of those evaluations has not been made public.
As a result, stakeholders in the school system are left to wonder. Did Rodriguez face institutional resistance to the change he promised to bring? Did he mismanage that change? Was he even a good fit for the Amherst schools, or did those responsible for recruiting, interviewing and hiring him misjudge his compatibility for the job?
While no leader can be expected to please everyone - and, in fact, he or she can be expected to face resistance - compatibility is an important concern. A superintendent who can successfully guide change in Amherst schools must be prepared to work in a community that cares a great deal about what happens in its classrooms. The superintendent must embrace all the voices committed to excellence in Amherst schools, even if they verge on shouting.
It is unlikely Rodriguez was ushered out to appease school staff resistant to change. It is possible that the superintendent, who faces health issues that kept him away from work many days, was not prepared to mount and manage the kind of persuasion needed to bring about change. A leader who has a terrific grasp on the long view -- a quality that search committees applaud - can be myopic in day-to-day management.
In the best school districts, success is measured many ways - and people do not always agree about priorities. That demands patience of a leader, along with a thick skin. When it comes time to scrutinize finalists again, those responsible must look closely at why Rodriguez apparently failed to build trust and support within the school system.
The next leader of Amherst schools must be someone able not just to envision change, but to bring it about in a way that respects differing views, as much as is possible.
Though he goes out with a whimper, Rodriguez began his work last summer with a bang by commissioning an outside review of the school system. At his first Amherst School Committee meeting last July, Rodriguez read a consultant's report aloud, and in its entirety.
His conduct that night can be seen as a bold debut - with specific criticism based on interviews and data - or as a bit tone deaf. Providing the panel with a summary and then engaging in conversation would have been more respectful. It even looked a little authoritarian.
Nonetheless, the outside appraisal of the town's schools, conducted by Tennessee educator Irving Hamer, got people thinking. Rodriguez flagged problems that deserve attention, including his belief that the system is not doing enough to help lower-performing students.
The insights Rodriguez provided shouldn't be lost amid disagreements over the tenor or effectiveness of his leadership. Though he is gone, the critical perspective he and Hamer brought last summer deserve attention. It will fall to a new leader to set priorities - and be up to faculty, staff, parents and students to help that person forge the right change.
Note from Catherine: I thought this was just an excellent summary of the situation, with good wisdom for the School Committee, the acting superintendent, and the community (parents, teachers, residents of Amherst). Thank you, Gazette editors.
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I concur. Thank you, Gazette editors.
When it comes time to scrutinize finalists again, those responsible must look closely at why Rodriguez apparently failed to build trust and support within the school system.
The next leader of Amherst schools must be someone able not just to envision change, but to bring it about in a way that respects [people] with differing views [even as s/he chooses a course that may not incorporate those views]...
The insights Rodriguez provided shouldn't be lost amid disagreements over the tenor or effectiveness of his leadership. Though he is gone, the critical perspective he and Hamer brought last summer deserve attention.
Larry Kelley observed that Principal Jackson had no authority to read the evaluations of Dr R written by other administrators and that Jackson showed a lack of respect for CS by not allowing her to respond to his impassioned speech about whether the evaluations were emblematic of the value that can be created by outsiders.
My insight is that Jackson took the observation as a criticism of him, an insider. If that's the case, he should explain himself. Clearly there is more than meets the eye.
I hope the SC plans to conduct an exit interview with Dr R and find out which senior administrators were willing to work to implement the change the SC and superintendent called for and which senior administrators chose to fight against the change and why. When you are hired to do a job that reports to the superintendent, you have the right to be heard and when the superintendent makes his/her decision you must give your full faith and effort to implement it. If you cannot, you must resign or expect to be fired.
I imagine we have some fine senior administrators but if you hired me to be your superintendent, the first thing I would do is fire the weakest contributor among them and send a message, get on board or go home.
Maria Geryk should fire Mark Jackson. That's what she should do. It's obvious. She has the authority to do so. And it's the right thing to do.
If she doesn't do it, parents should send evaluations with their no confidence votes about her to the School Committee. Evaluations that say that she is not qualified to lead the schools as Superintendent because she is the one who was whispering in Farshid's ear to let Mark Jackson speak during a session when comments were not appropriate from the public. Then, as interim Superintendent, she failed to put her subordinate, Mark Jackson in his place by reprimanding him publicly. She should have done so after Jackson attacked a School Committee member and bashed the former Superintendent publicly.
Come on people. Do we really have any confidence that Maria Geryk can supervise and manage Mark Jackson? That is one of her responsibilities as Interim Superintendent and she showed us plainly at that meeting and in the days since (since she has not fired him and has not put pressure on him to apologize to Catherine publicly) that she is simply not fit for duty.
I've heard she's nice and smart and personable too. I don't mean that she is not. I mean that she has shown us she can't do the job of superintendent in this town.
Post a Comment