Analysis of Seattle Schools and Its Issues with Principals, Part 1

Part One deals with the principals' contract itself. From my reading of it, I have to wonder what the Executive Director of that region was doing with complaint after complaint from teachers, staff and parents at Rainier View ES. 

Here's a link to the contract and below are the basics between the district and the principals that I pulled out.

This Agreement shall be effective, when signed by both parties and shall continue in full force and effect until June 30, 2027. 

The parties are committed to creating a culture of support and performance and accountability to be characterized by:

• Effective and fair supervisors

• A rigorous performance evaluation system that uses multiple measures

• Fair and competitive compensation amongst state-wide peers

• A system of checks and balances to ensure fairness

• Appropriate training for supervisors and employees

• Recognition that all PASS leaders are valued members of the SPS leadership team.

That word "fair" appears quite a lot and I think its definition for these purposes might vary. 

We hereby commit to work together to establish a vibrant and successful learning community that actively involves students, staff, and community. We will enjoy a relationship which promotes success for our students, our schools, and our community by:

• Nurturing a culture of collaboration, professionalism and communication;

• Creating an atmosphere of mutual trust, practicing shared accountability, respect, and support;

• Providing a caring, safe learning and work environment that is clean, healthy, professional, and free of discrimination, intimidation, and harassment.

Now this is where Anitra Jones' tenure at Rainier View Elementary School comes in because she was accused of violating many of these tenets. What I would like to know is if at her other schools, there were similar complaints? 

An individual PASS member who feels that a provision of this Agreement has been misinterpreted and/or misapplied to them may use the Individual Contract Conflict Resolution Process outlined in Article IV of this agreement to seek resolution of this matter. Concerns about an individual’s performance evaluation are not subject to this process but are subject to the appeal process contained in the evaluation process document(s).

ARTICLE III: EVALUATIONS

SECTION A: Evaluation Guidelines

Goal

a. The goal of the Principal Performance Evaluation process is to improve teaching and learning by focusingPrincipal, Assistant Principal, and Regional Executive Director of Schools, conversations on:

i. Creating a culture

ii. Ensuring School Safety

iii. Planning with Data

iv. Aligning Curriculum

v. Improving Instruction

vi. Managing Resources

vii. Engaging Communities

viii. Closing the gap

b. These goals will be accomplished by:

i. Generating regular reliable evidence of each PASS leader’s instructional leadership; the extent to which actions are being taken that help strengthen the quality of teaching in all classrooms, and

ii. Providing consistent opportunities for PASS leaders to understand the evidence of their progress and work with Regional Executive Director of Schools and others, and develop, execute, and continuously revisit and improve plans for supporting their development as instructional leaders.

3. Guiding Principles:

a. In that school leader performance is central to raising student achievement outcomes and improving teacher effectiveness, we believe the evaluation process must be led by the following principles and ideals: 

i. Based upon clear standards for school leader practice that reinforces the central role of school leaders as instructional leaders within their school and SPS.

ii. Uses multiple measures of performance including student achievement scores, culture, and climate of the building, but also measures of school leaders’ practice noting all factors that performance.

iii. Values mutual respect, shared accountability, and continuous improvement.

iv. Fosters open and candid communication; built on the premise that the evaluation process is aimed at elevating the growth and development of school leaders.

v. Establishes performance expectations consistent with the individual school’s Continuous School Improvement Plan.

vi. Provides differentiated support for school leaders.

vii. Contains clear, consistent process and timelines.

viii. Meets legal requirements and ensures due process.

ix. Based on the State criteria for evaluating principals as stated in RCW 28A.405.100.

x. Considers the support and authority school leaders need to be effective.

Continuing under Article III:

Maintain clear, concise documentation of all significant concerns about staff performance including action taken by the evaluator to apprise the staff member of the concerns and the suggestions for addressing the concerns. All concerns regarding a school leader’s performance should be put in writing and shared with the leader in a timely manner.

i. If concerns about an employee’s performance surface during a school/site visit or observation, the evaluator must provide this feedback to the employee.

ii. Written feedback can be documented in hardcopy, via email, or in another mutually agreed upon format.

iii. Oral feedback regarding a concern must be documented in hardcopy or electronically.

All school leaders, regardless of performance, must be evaluated on a Comprehensive Evaluation cycle once every six (6) years.

Placing an experienced school leader on the Comprehensive Evaluation cycle may be done only if the action is preceded by a formal observation.

School leaders do not have the right to appeal an evaluator’s decision to place them on the Comprehensive Evaluation cycle.

At the end of Article III:

Nothing in this evaluation process is meant to limit the Superintendent’s authority to remove school leaders for cause unrelated to performance deficiencies, or to limit the Superintendent’s authority to transfer school leaders to subordinate certificated positions as allowed under state law.

So the Superintendent can demote a principal down to a teacher? Interesting. 

This below is deeply troubling. 

Anonymity of Complaints and Keeping Principals in the Loop

It is very important for the principal to be well-informed in order to be able to address the complaint in its entirety.

Therefore, as a general rule, the identity of the complainant shall be disclosed unless there are compelling reasons not to disclose his or her identity and the complaint can be substantiated in part. 

If the identity of the complainant is not disclosed for compelling reasons, the nature of the complaint shall be disclosed to the person(s) being complained about. In any case, no adverse action will be taken against the administrator based solely on an anonymous complaint.

Finally, if a matter has been referred to Human Resources or Central Administration for handling, the principal should be kept in the loop about the progress and resolution of the matter.

My question would be - if you are filing a complaint and ask to remain anonymous - are you told that under the principals' contract, your identity be disclosed to the person who you are filing the complaint against? It's unclear in this wording.