I should just get over it.
Ok so I haven’t made a Blog post in a while. Something called life seemed to get in the way here for a while. It seems that between High School State Championships, a new relationship, and friends dying I haven’t had time to sit and think.
Over the past three days I have not been able to get recent events with a bus incident out of my head. Not as much the fact the bus driver continued to fail to drive in a manner mandated by law, but the Anderson Community School Corporations method of dealing with the issue. Maybe I am focused on it so strongly because it allows me not to think of the recent tragic events. Or maybe it is the recent events that have me focused so much on this.
For those interested, our high school girls did great at state. Our club produced 6 of the top 8 divers including the state champion and my girl who finished 4th. We also had the majority of the top 32 divers and top 20 divers. All is good on that front. I will post more about that in another post at a later time.
Sunday afternoon the day after the girl’s state meet my friend Crysten Butler and her 2 year old son Jett were killed in a traffic accident on Interstate 70. Tragic losses of two young lives long before their time really makes one stop and think about things.
Then along comes Monday. I am minding my own business waiting on my son to get home from school and watch as the bus pulls up to his stop. You can read all about what happened next in the “Safety: Buses and our children” thread as I don’t want to recap the entire situation here again.
What I do want to talk about is the perception I have developed about the ACSC Administration because of the events regarding the bus driver, other situations, and all that surrounded the bus situation over the past 6 months. I wonder if my perception of the administration is grossly inaccurate or if instead it is in fact reality.
My perception is the ACSC administration believes they have every right to do things their way, without regard for the will of the people they serve. Yes, they do in fact serve the people in case anyone questioned that. We are not at their mercy; we do not have to cower to their will and desires.
It is rumored that we have at least one teacher in our midst from out of state that was hired without an Indiana teaching license ahead of licensed teachers locally. The condition was said to be that this teacher would have to fulfill the license requirements prior to the end of the school year. If we believe the reports, the teacher failed to do so, yet was retained for at least a second year. Yes, I have asked about this issue and was told it wasn’t my concern.
We have a bus driver who fails to follow basic safety laws. Reports, many, were filed and the driver continued to operate a bus. When it finally comes to a head, something is done but I am told it is not my business what action was taken. Oddly enough the Superintendent references FERPA regulations in her explanation as to why I am not being told what the action taken was. I was also told “Personnel have safeguards in place as well that ensure we don't break confidentiality with regard to their work records or discipline issues in most instances.”
Now a little background for those interested. Our bus drivers are not employees of the school corporation, they are instead contractors. FERPA regulations pertain to student confidentiality not employee or contractor confidentiality. I am also a business owner and have been in management most of my life. I am well aware of what information can and cannot be shared about employees. I am aware of the FERPA regulations as well.
Our administration seems to believe that we are not intelligent enough to understand complex issues such as confidentiality regulations. I have researched laws on the books that may forbid a company or school corporation from informing anyone that a contractor was no longer being retained. I haven’t found anything even remotely close to requiring such information to be withheld.
Because I am aware of confidentiality regulations, I didn’t ask questions an employer would not be allowed to share. I asked one simple question “Is this driver currently operating a bus for the school system.” This question is no different than if I had asked “Is John currently employed by your company.” This information is not protected by any regulations that I am aware of.
A simple yes or no answer was all that was required to answer the question. If after I received the answer and asked why, that is when the regulations would kick in for an employee. At that point, the school administration would be well within their legal rights to tell me the information I am requesting is protected by law.
Yes, I am probably over reacting and blowing off steam. But this is something that really gets my goat so to speak. We have a school administration tasked with dealing with some major problems right now and they can’t seem to get the simple things right. What are the simple things in the above you ask? Hire licensed teachers first unless you don’t have them available and get rid of drivers the first time they are not performing their duties within the law. That sure seems simple enough, yet not overly simple.There are a million reasons not to do something, you just need to find the one reason to do it.
- K-Rock's blog
- Login or register to post comments
- Printer-friendly version
- 591 reads
I think you are right to be unhappy with the stonewalling you got from the administration. It appears they have no legal ground to stand on. If challenged, they will have to consult their attorney and produce the proper legal rationale for continuing to withhold information. If they use FERPA to do it, it doesn't appear to cover the challenge. They are already using the excuse that this bus driver is not their employee per se, so FERPA doesn't fit for them in any event.
If the teacher in question isn't licensed I doubt s/he can be represented or protected by the AFT. Board members should be able to answer this question because copies of the teacher's licensure should have been presented in their packets when they were asked to approve the hire. If the hire is provisional, then you have a right to question it and the board members and/ or the administration should be able to respond.
I wouldn't make the judgment that this particular teacher-to-be was hired over other licensed teachers because you may not know whether this prospective teacher was hired for his/her ability to cover multiple areas of need, or for some particular subject matter. A competent board member should be able to explain that.
This is one of those areas where board members and/or administration feel they are justified in keeping the particulars of the situation to themselves. However, if it is already causing a stir amongst patrons of the district and is likely to spread far and wide through venues such as this forum, then it behooves ACSC leadership to get out in front of it and at least appear to be transparent and cooperative when dealing with their constituency. In other words, it is in their best interests to treat you respectfully and give you answers in both of these cases, imo.
“If you treat an individual as he is, he will stay as he is; but if you treat him as if he were what he ought to be and could be, he will become what he ought to be and could be.” ~ Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
Bard...the teacher issue is old news, just points to trends. I know more factual information about that situation then I care to discuss but not because anyone at the admin office was interested in providing it.
Transparency is the real issue in both cases. The why behind the hiring is far more important then the actual hiring. There are obviously times when what is done is done for the right reasons, but then the situation gets out of control because the information is not shared with the public.
Sadly, Ms Lowe seems to understand this problem. She stated as much in her reply to me this morning. Knowing you have a problem with transparency and faulty assumptions being made for lack of information and choosing to do nothing about it is a problem in itself.
There are a million reasons not to do something, you just need to find the one reason to do it.
OK, I *think* I am a competent board member....
When we are given the personnel recommendations, the only thing included is the name and the position (if known) the teacher will be assigned to. No information about their license is included. Our personnel director is paid well to check all that out and to be sure that all the candidates that he recommends for hire are legally elgible. If it becomes necessary for the board to go back and double check what he should have already done than he isn't earning his very good salary.
Teacher license information is available online at the DOE website. If you know the teacher's name it is very easy to check their status.
A teacher is interviewed by the Personnel director and the perspective principal, they then make their recommendation to the board. Typically, we follow their recommendation. We usually don't know who the other applicants were or why one was chosen over another. Once again, this falls under the responsibility of the Personnel director, and when we have to start going over his job and doing it again, we have to question why we are paying him.
There are many people who are not licensed teachers who are represented by the AFT. I cannot speak for this particular case because I am not aware of any details beyond what has been presented here.
PresidentJust a parent who happens to be a member of ACSC Board of Trustees. At all times I speak only for myself as an individual. I cannot, nor will I attempt to, speak for any other member of the board or administration. No member of the ACSC Board of Trustees has any authority as an individual, the authority rests in the Board as a whole only. Sometimes I forget myself and speak as a parent only, a parent who loves and protects and is very bias toward my children.Tobi....I wish I could give you the name to look into, don't have it handy anymore. In this case, there were very qualified licensed applicants looking for positions in the elementary grade level this person was hired for. May have been an affirmative action hiring as well. Those type of answers I do not know.
But again, the issue is not who was hired, but why the secrecy behind it? It seems to me at least the board should be made aware of any proposed hiring that involves a teacher without a current state license. While it may be warranted, it should be justified and that justification made available to the public.
There are a million reasons not to do something, you just need to find the one reason to do it.
Thanks for addressing the issue as you know it, Tobi.
Here's to part of the point I think K-rock wanted to make: perception of the public is extremely important to the success of a school system. PR shouldn't be accidental, it should be cultivated and managed in this day and age.
When there are public forums such as this one, and there is the ability to inform hundreds if not thousands of people with a Twitter, it is vitally important that issues like these be addressed promptly and as respectfully and transparently as possible for the good of the students, the patrons, and everyone working for ACSC.
If CC is watching this thread, she might want to work with the parent's advisory group to develop a Twitter network. Wouldn't it be great to be able to notify parents immediately in case of a snow emergency or school closing? If she doesn't do it, it might be a good idea for ACSC IT admin to develop one of their own for similar purposes.
“If you treat an individual as he is, he will stay as he is; but if you treat him as if he were what he ought to be and could be, he will become what he ought to be and could be.” ~ Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
Once again, I agree with both of you.
PR is most definately a weak point in our current administration.
I (and at least one other board member, perhaps more) have told the Personnel Department on more than one occaision that we support the hiring of local applicants, epsecally former students who want to come back, provided that they are qualified of course.
PresidentJust a parent who happens to be a member of ACSC Board of Trustees. At all times I speak only for myself as an individual. I cannot, nor will I attempt to, speak for any other member of the board or administration. No member of the ACSC Board of Trustees has any authority as an individual, the authority rests in the Board as a whole only. Sometimes I forget myself and speak as a parent only, a parent who loves and protects and is very bias toward my children.Or maybe AFP could step into the role of notifying via Twitter. I wonder how many people use it, though. Plus getting the information, making sure it's accurate, etc.
Also, thanks for sharing K-Rock. I'm glad I can provide you a place and an audience to bring your concerns to...
Why ask parents to look at one MORE place to get information? They should be able to get that information through the ACSC website.
The superintendent of the school does NOT want ACSC involved in any project online that allows the general public to be able to quickly post something for others to see. She feels that there might be disgruntled people making threats and claims that would cause harm in some way. Trust me, I went through this trying to create a discussion group for PAC.
I've offered free help to ACSC with their website in the past. I don't have a lot of time, but the offer is open. Would be great to see an open/transparent two-way communication system set-up between ACSC and the public...
CC it is painfully obvious that what she wants and what needs to happen are in complete opposition of each other. More information is warranted, not less. I have half a mind to create the website specific to ACSC discussions and let people get involved in on going discussions. Would be great if it could happen here, but I fear there needs to be a stand alone site for that.
There are a million reasons not to do something, you just need to find the one reason to do it.