Terry Cowgill

LJ 01.17.08

January 17, 2008 on 6:42 pm | In Education, Local, Main, Media |

The paper is chock-full of news this week. I won’t give a lengthy synopsis of the stories because I want to discuss one of them in a little detail. But click here to see the stories section-by-section and here to listen to the podcast of my appearance this morning on Marshall & Mike.

One of the stories I wrote this week concerned the reaction of a group of teachers at Housatonic Valley Regional High School to some comments made by Region One Board of Education Chairman Judge Manning, who said at a board meeting last year that it might be a conflict of interest for academic department heads to evaluate teachers since both are members of the same labor union.

I was frankly stunned by the words of the seven department chairs who wrote the letter. They did make some very good points, such as the fact that the evaluation process was approved by the board “at the urging of the previous principal” and “that the sitting department chairs at that time did not support the change.” I’m glad they made that clear.

They also said they know of no problems with the current system and that the only feedback they have received on it has been positive. Then they launched into a firm defense of how they take the responsibility of evaluation seriously and how none of them has ever let the fact that they “belong to the same bargaining unit” get in the way of doing a professional job.

“To suggest otherwise is to unfairly impugn our integrity,” they concluded.

Say what?

Manning never suggested any such thing. He simply offered the opinion that it could pose a conflict to have one union member evaluating another. He never called into question whether the Housy department heads were doing a good job. Not even close.

Frankly, I think it is a conflict of interest. When I was an English department head at a private school, I did observe and evaluate my teachers. But there was no union labor union and therefore no accompanying solidarity to potentially taint the process. It was clear I was an administrator who reported directly to the academic dean. That’s as it should be.

Back to Housy: Even the visiting NEASC committee cited complaints by some Housy department chairs that “the process for determining evaluators is counterproductive” and mostly “inconsistent.” The report further stated that “there is much evidence to suggest that there is an inherent conflict of interest between the improvement of instructional practices and the perception that serving as an evaluator is a perk.”

The department heads are correct to assert that the labor union membership conflict was not explicitly cited by NEASC, but does that mean members of the Board of Education shouldn’t take a look at the practice? Or that department heads should feel offended if they do?

As much as I admire and respect public school teachers (I am married to one , after all), I’m often reminded that they live in a bubble. Imagine for a moment that the chairman of the board of directors of the Lakeville Journal Company made a public statement concerning the editorial structure of the company, say, to the effect that it needed improvement. Then imagine that I wrote a letter or posted a blog stating he had “impugned my integrity.”

I have a hunch there would be some serious consequences. But when you have job protections most people only dream of, you can feel free to publicly rebuke a superior, secure in the knowledge that you’ll be shielded from substantial recriminations.

Plus you get paid about what mid-level managers make in business, and you get guaranteed raises and health care benefits that are the envy of working stiffs everywhere. That’s a pretty good job. Come to think of it, I’d better start working again on my certification …