superintendents

Leave a comment Posted on GUSD, schools, students, superintendents, teachers

GUSD Supers Not So Super

Ask any student to name the most influential person in their education experience and most likely the student would name a teacher.   Rarely a principal.  Never a superintendent.

Which is why when GUSD announced that Dr. Winfred B. Roberson, Jr. would no longer be in charge of the district, the news generated more of a ripple than a tsunami.

Roberson now joins the ranks of recent GUSD supers who seem intent on not staying very long.

Since I began my career in GUSD, there have been 9 superintendents including 4 interim appointees.  That averages out to a new one every 3 years.

Looking at the past three decades, each successive superintendent leaves Glendale earlier than his predecessor.

Robert A. Sanchis’s term ran 14 years, James R. Brown lasted 8, Michael F. Escalante 6, Richard M. Sheehan 5, and Roberson 3.  It is getting to the point where whoever becomes the next superintendent might as well hold the title of “interim.”

The Brown Center on Education Policy at the Brookings Institution found that the average tenure of a superintendent is between three and four years, concluding that “hiring a new superintendent is not associated with higher student achievement.”

With changes in superintendents comes shake-ups in other upper management positions.  The instability is alarming.  If a school had as many teachers coming and going, the education of children would be negatively impacted.

This begs the question:  how important is a superintendent, the highest paid employee in the district at a quarter of a million dollars?

New superintendents tend to establish their authority via some new cockamamie education program that is mandated for implementation in all classrooms without teacher input.  Veteran teachers know to ride such fads out and don’t get too riled up about it because it will last as long as the superintendent remains in office.

When Sheehan was here, he persuaded GUSD to sign a five-year contract worth $3.4 million with Massachusetts-based Curriculum Associates to use their i-Ready diagnostic testing program.  The edict:  evaluate each kindergartner through 12th grader three times a year. One year later, Sheehan left.  Not soon thereafter, the massive endeavor was quickly downsized.

In its hunt for the next super, GUSD has a list of seven employee search firms expected to submit proposals.  Often the cost is around $25,000.  One of those is McPherson & Jacobson, hired by GUSD in 2016 who found Roberson.  Since he did not work out, why is this firm even in the running?

And with the high turnover rate, one wonders if it might dissuade a quality candidate from coming here.

I understand the importance of hiring an experienced superintendent, but since the recent ones came outside of the district and didn’t have a prior stake in the community, the school board should consider hiring a fresh face from those who currently work at district headquarters, especially those who taught in Glendale schools.  They would be less likely to leave thus offering stability, something this district desperately needs.

Meanwhile, the portraits of GUSD’s superintendents keep decorating the wall in the Board Room.  Roberson, Sheehan, Escalante and company (including the 10-month legacy of 1937’s Norman B. Whytock) will forever remain memorialized, while the faces of teachers who have devoted 25, 35, 45 years of service are nowhere around.

But here’s the thing—despite the maneuvers of the school board and the high turnover rate of upper management, Glendale students still receive a quality free education.  Unfortunately, the people responsible for it remain invisible in the halls of district headquarters.

Leave a comment Posted on Glendale Unified School District, Hoover High School, schools, students, superintendents, teachers

Power of the Students

Through the Great Depression, World War Two, Korean and Vietnam wars, and 9/11, one thing was for certain:  that in the fall each year Glendale and Hoover High Schools would meet for the final football game of the season.

That tradition ended last week.

Hours before game time, “out of an abundance of caution” Glendale Unified School District cancelled it “due to increased rumors of possible disruptions . . . that put student, employee, and spectator safety at risk” as stated in a prepared statement.

Fallout from the Oct. 3 fight at Hoover ultimately led to GUSD’s decision.

The 88-straight game streak was broken as were the hearts of students and alumni and anyone else who has a link to the city’s storied history.  Even the homecoming dances were postponed.

It wasn’t just a football game that never happened.  For the Hoover senior football players, it meant a chance at history by beating Glendale all four years of their high school career, a feat never before accomplished.

Much preparation goes into this one event each year whose purpose is to instill school spirit, the major sporting event no matter the football team’s season record, with an early morning ceremonial poster drop from three floors up and a school-wide assembly of skits performed by each grade level.  All of this work done by a small group of dedicated students, all leading up to the game, the game that was not to be.

If there was a serious threat of violence, then cancelling the game was the right move.  However, if the cancellation was based on rumors, something the district admonished everyone after the fight at Hoover not to fall prey to, then questions should be asked.

After all, when a rumor on social media spread following the fight caused a huge amount of absences, school was not cancelled “out of an abundance of caution” so why would the game not happen?

If you are trying to make things go back to normal, the last thing you want to do is to end a positive, long-standing tradition between the two oldest high schools in the city.   Not having the football game is abnormal.

Then, guess what happened?   Just when the TV news minivans stopped parking in front of Hoover, they returned on Monday.

Students organized a walkout to protest the district’s cancellation.  Well over 100 students walked two miles to district headquarters wanting their voices to be heard.

“What really happened on Oct. 3?  Why was the game cancelled?” were questions never fully addressed.

Three days later, GUSD attempted to answer these questions in their first press conference on the matter four weeks after the initial incident.

The district is moving forward to facilitate communication with all members of the school community.  Let’s hope such efforts succeed.

Give credit to the district for doing this.  However, even more credit goes to the persistence of students who felt that questions remained unanswered and issues unresolved.

Would there have been a press conference if there was no walkout?

The motto at Hoover is “be responsible, respectful, and engaged.”  The students who organized the peaceful demonstration embodied that standard, and adults should embrace these young people for speaking their mind and reminding all that this is their school.

 

 

Leave a comment Posted on superintendents, teachers

Non-Educator Becomes New Superintendent of Burbank Schools

No experience required.

This phrase would attract a young person who has never held down a job.

It shouldn’t be the standard a school district considers when searching for a superintendent of schools.

Yet that is exactly what occurred in Burbank last week when the school board awarded a three-year contract to Matt Hill, currently the Chief Strategy Officer in LAUSD.

The Burbank Unified School District is hiring a person who has never been a classroom teacher or school administrator.

Would doctors respect a medical director who had no experience working with patients?

Would attorneys buy into a law firm whose senior partner never tried a case in front of a judge?

Yet in education, it is not that rare to have non-educators run school districts. This is just another example of how educators are not viewed as the experts in their own field.

In Los Angeles, former Colorado Governor Roy Romer did have a somewhat successful stretch of five years as LAUSD superintendent. But then his successor, retired U.S. Navy Vice Admiral David Brewer, barely lasted two years.

In addition to his lack of school experience, Hill’s tenure at LAUSD includes the infamous iPad and MiSiS debacles, the former a failed $1 billion effort to give each student an iPad, the latter a new computer system that never worked right whose costs are approaching $100 million.

So if it’s not job experience or accomplishments, what is it exactly about Hill that earned him a $241,000 salary, thousands more than current Supt. Jan Britz’s pay?

Interesting that when Britz took over in 2012, her initial salary was $185,000, $50,000 less than then outgoing superintendent Stan Carrizosa’s. At the time, the rationale from the Board was that she had never been a superintendent before while Carrizosa had. So, shouldn’t the same logic apply to Matt Hill? Or was it “okay” to pay her less money because she was a woman?

School board member Larry Applebaum acknowledges Hill’s “baggage,” but said that he is excited about how Hill has managed people since the district has a need in addressing “long-standing systemic problems.”

Applebaum was impressed with the knowledge Hill had of Burbank schools, calling him “an extraordinary man” who has been caught up in the “hysteria” of the Burbank Teachers Association’s criticisms.

He also spoke glowingly about Hill’s personal and communication skills, and after speaking with Hill, I can see why one would get that feeling. He comes across earnestly, saying all the right things.

Hill feels that the controversy over his hiring will “absolutely” subside once he takes over. He is aware of why some view his lack of credentials as a negative, but he knows well the quality of Burbank schools and is “optimistic” of the future. In fact, he is thinking of moving to the city and having his own children attend schools in the district.

More troublesome than Hill’s lack of credentials is the endemic turnover with Burbank’s superintendents.

During my 26 years in GUSD, I have known four superintendents. During that same time period, BUSD has had seven superintendents, five in the last six years.

One would think that with a smaller school district, 16,000 students in Burbank vs. 26,000 in Glendale, there would be more stability.

With such a checkered past of selecting superintendents, why was BUSD in such a rush to hire someone? One would think more time not less would be in order.

BTA President Lori Adams called the hiring of Hill as “a big surprise” and “scary” that they would hire a non-educator, adding that BTA was “not at all” involved in the hiring process. She wonders why the school board felt the need to rock the boat when recent meetings between the union and the district have been cordial.

Adams added that it would have been a “good idea to have the new board weigh in” on hiring the superintendent, referring to two newly elected members.

Applebaum said the reason why they did not wait until Steve Ferguson and Armond Aghakhanian were sworn in was because they lacked experience compared to that of outgoing members Ted Bunch and Dave Kemp. So, in this case experience mattered but in Hill’s it did not.

Now that the position has been filled, all stakeholders should allow Hill an opportunity to show what he can do. Time will tell whether he will be another Romer or another Brewer.

Applebaum said that “at the end of the day . . . we’ll turn out okay.” Let’s hope so for the kids’ sakes.