I am taking a position on the Plainfield High School principal, Dr. Brian Bilal. I don't care if it is not popular with the BOE or the administration. The community wants answers.
Today's Courier News ran a story on the fact that the Plainfield BOE is planning on not renewing Dr. Bilal's contract despite him having made progress over the past several years.
Read here: http://www.mycentraljersey.com/article/20110527/NJNEWS/305270033/Plainfield-principal-hanging-on?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|FRONTPAGE
This seems to be a pattern of this BOE. They seem to not want to retain young, competent administrators that have documented their progress and the fact they they are making a difference. I am a white male and have stated my support of the work that Dr. Gallon did in the district. Add Dr. Bilal to this list based on his improvement of Plainfield High School. I don't know neither but met Dr. Gallon once at a community event. My support is based on facts and data that no one seems to want to look at including this interim superintendent and BOE that have decided that he should not return next year. Why?
Dr. Bilal is up for tenure in the district. He did his time. It will be nearly 3 years and a day in which he would have served the district in which according to the article he hasn't missed a day of work. The Interim Superintendent who, according to some of the comments that I received on another post pointing me to this story, has never served as a school principal or vice principal, yet has decided to that Dr. Bilal should not return as principal next year. She naturally hid behind the "no comment" cover which is often used by officials when it comes to personnel issues. Seems though she has also mastered this two liner when it came to the Cook School plan according to Maria's Blog in which she simply didn't answer questions regarding plans for Cook.
This is yet another Grand Slam decision. They appointed her as interim superintendent after Gallon's ouster. If it is in fact true that she never served as a school principal or even vice principal, then one would question what criteria, if not data is being used to not bring Dr. Bilal back.
According to the article Dr. Bilal improved test scores, reduced suspensions and raised graduation rates. He also increased advanced placement studies and had the school removed from the state's list of dangerous schools. These achievements seem to be aligned with the goals that were laid out on the district's strategic plan developed by Gallon in which he also achieved in these areas. What is with this place coming to? What are they doing here?
These guys seemed to had been moving the school and district forward only to be thwarted by decisions that had no rhyme or reason. We know that Gallon's hiring of staff began a series of events that fueled public discontent and ended up with him being charged in the South Plainfield matter although the OFAC report shows that the hiring issue was mainly a function of an incompetent HR department and the South Plainfield matter was dismissed without ever going before a grand jury. But what is this with Dr. Bilal? He is a product from the community and graduate from Plainfield High school.
If after reading today's article the community does not have questions, well I do.
Interim Superintendent Belin Pyles and Board President Hernandez why are you two deciding to get rid of a man who has seemed to have done a good job at the school?
Why would you want to continue the instability of leadership of the high school?
What information or data are you using to decide not to bring Dr. Bilal back?
Are there other principals that are not being brought back next year?
Are you using the same criteria to determine who stays and who goes as a principal for next year?
Are there other principals that were hired after Dr. Bilal?
Has Dr. Bilal and other district administrators been evaluated according to the law?
What role if any does the HR department have in this decision?
These are questions that should be answered by this administration and BOE.
Should Dr. Bilal be allowed to stay as principal of Plainfield High School?
Why is Ms. Belin Pyles and the BOE taking this action against Dr. Bilal?
Can anyone shed some light?
Saturday, May 28, 2011
Thursday, May 19, 2011
SHOULD A CONVICTED FELON BE ALLOWED TO SERVE ON THE PLAINFIELD BOARD OF EDUCATION?
This isn't personal. It can't be as I have not met the person in question.
Although there are over 600 school districts throughout New Jersey, Plainfield will find itself again in the unique position of potentially having to remove a sitting school board member. Despite the unusual silence from a usual voiceful Board of Education and community, the legislation to bar those convicted of crimes from serving on school boards and requiring board members to undergo criminal checks was approved again and is moving through the process.
Frankly, at this point it really doesn't matter what many have spoken locally think or feel about this issue. There were some emotional remarks about second chances and turning one's life around of which I understand. Despite their being a splash of articles and commentary about whether the current school board member should be removed for his past criminal record and conviction, the elected officials in Trenton, including our very own Assemblyman, clearly and unanimously stated their position in their 76 to 0 approval of the Bill. The slightly revised version of one that passed the Legislature in February was conditionally vetoed by the governor.
Apparently, the Governor's veto was not a sign of hope for convicted felons currently serving on school board. It was a notice that the Bill would be signed once the stronger language was included. The conditional veto added language barring people convicted of bias intimidation and any fourth degree crime involving a child. The bill also would require each member of a board of education to undergo a criminal history background check within 30 days of being elected or appointed.
Clearly, he wanted to make the Bill even tougher and place board members that are convicted felons on notice that their time is up.
Under the bill, any person elected or appointed to a board of education would be disqualified from serving if they have been convicted of any crime that, under existing law, would disqualify them from being employed in a public school. The cost of the criminal background check will be the responsibility of the school board member, but unexpended campaign funds may be used in the case of an elected member.
The Bill it would also amend the oath of office taken by new board members to include a specific declaration that the member is not disqualified from service due to conviction of one of those crimes and any member who falsely swears that he or she is not disqualified would face penalties of up to 18 months in prison and $10,000 in fines.
The revised Bill was sent back to the Senate.
The crimes included under the bill include any crime of the first or second degree; an offense involving the manufacture, transportation, sale, possession, distribution or habitual use of a controlled dangerous substance or "drug paraphernalia; a crime involving the use of force or the threat of force to or upon a person or property including, but not limited to, robbery, aggravated assault, stalking, kidnapping, arson, manslaughter and murder; a third degree crime, or any of the following crimes: recklessly endangering another person; terroristic threats; criminal restraint; luring, enticing child into motor vehicle structure or isolated area; causing or risking widespread injury or damage; criminal mischief; burglary; threats and other improper influence; perjury and false swearing; resisting arrest; any crime of the fourth degree involving a victim who is a minor; or conspiracy to commit or an attempt to commit any of the aforesaid crimes.
The Bill is for those that were convicted of the crimes listed above. It does not apply to instances in which a person may have been arrested or even charged with such crimes. Sadly, we just lost from the Board a law abiding citizen with a clean record and known service to the community in Lenny Cathcart. There were other candidates last year with impecable resumes, records of service, and yes, clean criminal backgrounds that were not elected to the Board.
This issue would again place the Plainfield Board of Education in the middle of this debate. A member of the Grand Slam Team has been identifed as a convicted felon that would be subject to removal. That would leave the Grand Slam Team slate that swept last year's board election down to two after one member who was an educator decided not to run after only one year in office. Was her decision not to run due to district's gloomy financial picture, signs of what would be a failed reform agenda, an inability to keep campaign promises, politics, knowledge of the limited powers that board members have to run the daily affairs, or all of the above? I guess we will never know.
What we do know is that the Grand Slam Team and the Plainfield Board of Education is going to have to show real leadership and practice what it preaches. Accountability. Transparency. Ethics. Honesty. Law.
These will be guiding words that will shape how they deal with one of their own who just last year served as Vice President and held major sway on the runnings in the district.
The Board and community have been extremely silent on this issue.
Should a convicted felon be allowed to serve in a position of leadership and authority over a school district when the people employed in the district under that authority could not be hired if they were convicted of similar crimes?
This is a question that will have to be answered soon. It is my hope that the Board of Education lead and the convicted board member bow out graciously and step down. Any other option would be politics as usual in the Queen City.
No more silence. Let's get it out in the open and talk about it.
What do you think?
Should a convicted felon be allowed to continue to serve on the Plainfield Board of Education when the law passes? Yes or No.
Remember, it is not personal.
Although there are over 600 school districts throughout New Jersey, Plainfield will find itself again in the unique position of potentially having to remove a sitting school board member. Despite the unusual silence from a usual voiceful Board of Education and community, the legislation to bar those convicted of crimes from serving on school boards and requiring board members to undergo criminal checks was approved again and is moving through the process.
Frankly, at this point it really doesn't matter what many have spoken locally think or feel about this issue. There were some emotional remarks about second chances and turning one's life around of which I understand. Despite their being a splash of articles and commentary about whether the current school board member should be removed for his past criminal record and conviction, the elected officials in Trenton, including our very own Assemblyman, clearly and unanimously stated their position in their 76 to 0 approval of the Bill. The slightly revised version of one that passed the Legislature in February was conditionally vetoed by the governor.
Apparently, the Governor's veto was not a sign of hope for convicted felons currently serving on school board. It was a notice that the Bill would be signed once the stronger language was included. The conditional veto added language barring people convicted of bias intimidation and any fourth degree crime involving a child. The bill also would require each member of a board of education to undergo a criminal history background check within 30 days of being elected or appointed.
Clearly, he wanted to make the Bill even tougher and place board members that are convicted felons on notice that their time is up.
Under the bill, any person elected or appointed to a board of education would be disqualified from serving if they have been convicted of any crime that, under existing law, would disqualify them from being employed in a public school. The cost of the criminal background check will be the responsibility of the school board member, but unexpended campaign funds may be used in the case of an elected member.
The Bill it would also amend the oath of office taken by new board members to include a specific declaration that the member is not disqualified from service due to conviction of one of those crimes and any member who falsely swears that he or she is not disqualified would face penalties of up to 18 months in prison and $10,000 in fines.
The revised Bill was sent back to the Senate.
The crimes included under the bill include any crime of the first or second degree; an offense involving the manufacture, transportation, sale, possession, distribution or habitual use of a controlled dangerous substance or "drug paraphernalia; a crime involving the use of force or the threat of force to or upon a person or property including, but not limited to, robbery, aggravated assault, stalking, kidnapping, arson, manslaughter and murder; a third degree crime, or any of the following crimes: recklessly endangering another person; terroristic threats; criminal restraint; luring, enticing child into motor vehicle structure or isolated area; causing or risking widespread injury or damage; criminal mischief; burglary; threats and other improper influence; perjury and false swearing; resisting arrest; any crime of the fourth degree involving a victim who is a minor; or conspiracy to commit or an attempt to commit any of the aforesaid crimes.
The Bill is for those that were convicted of the crimes listed above. It does not apply to instances in which a person may have been arrested or even charged with such crimes. Sadly, we just lost from the Board a law abiding citizen with a clean record and known service to the community in Lenny Cathcart. There were other candidates last year with impecable resumes, records of service, and yes, clean criminal backgrounds that were not elected to the Board.
This issue would again place the Plainfield Board of Education in the middle of this debate. A member of the Grand Slam Team has been identifed as a convicted felon that would be subject to removal. That would leave the Grand Slam Team slate that swept last year's board election down to two after one member who was an educator decided not to run after only one year in office. Was her decision not to run due to district's gloomy financial picture, signs of what would be a failed reform agenda, an inability to keep campaign promises, politics, knowledge of the limited powers that board members have to run the daily affairs, or all of the above? I guess we will never know.
What we do know is that the Grand Slam Team and the Plainfield Board of Education is going to have to show real leadership and practice what it preaches. Accountability. Transparency. Ethics. Honesty. Law.
These will be guiding words that will shape how they deal with one of their own who just last year served as Vice President and held major sway on the runnings in the district.
The Board and community have been extremely silent on this issue.
Should a convicted felon be allowed to serve in a position of leadership and authority over a school district when the people employed in the district under that authority could not be hired if they were convicted of similar crimes?
This is a question that will have to be answered soon. It is my hope that the Board of Education lead and the convicted board member bow out graciously and step down. Any other option would be politics as usual in the Queen City.
No more silence. Let's get it out in the open and talk about it.
What do you think?
Should a convicted felon be allowed to continue to serve on the Plainfield Board of Education when the law passes? Yes or No.
Remember, it is not personal.
Friday, May 13, 2011
Do We Need more Options in Plainfield for our Students?
There has been much discussion about how charter schools are "destroying" the Plainfield Public Schools. First, charter schools are public schools of choice that are state-funded but privately operated. There is no tuition for attending a charter school. The uninformed statements by educators and elected officials that charter schools are taking away from "public" schools is misleading and well, let me be blunt, incorrect. It is yet another way to distort truth and facts for a particular agenda.
The idea that here in Plainfield the rise in the number of charter schools has led to downfall of the district's schools is also misleading. The district's schools have been in a downward spiral during the past decade. Both middle schools are up for restructuring because they have failed to make academic progress for many years. Basically the students are not learning or progressing as they should be. Based on Dan's post, the district administration does not seem to have a clear cut plan to deal with these schools or the tenured teachers that are ultimately responsible for the many years of failure. Shouldnt this be a priority of the Board?
That is why I believe that without local educational choices other than a failing school district our parents will be forced to keep their children in the district's schools and basically have them trapped in a system that has proven time and time again that is unable to properly educate their children. They has also been unable to do so despite having the largest budget in the City and having received millions of dollars during the same period either through Abbott or the recent Stimulus funding.
That is why I believe that without local educational choices other than a failing school district our parents will be forced to keep their children in the district's schools and basically have them trapped in a system that has proven time and time again that is unable to properly educate their children. They has also been unable to do so despite having the largest budget in the City and having received millions of dollars during the same period either through Abbott or the recent Stimulus funding.
Those that argue against charter schools and giving our students more educational choices are arguing FOR the status quo. From the local teacher's union that protects ineffective and incompetent teachers many of which have been in the failing schools year after year, to a seemingly innefective Board that is more concerned with who gets hired and gets what contract, our district schools under the current structure have shown that they are unable to educate our students. This is a priority that should be shared by teachers, administrators, and members of the Board. Obviously, it is not. Many of the comments that I have received reveal a system that is more concerned with power, control, and revenge than the education of students. It continues to not seem like a place for reform and innovation when it comes to education of students. Is this the case?
For example, Plainfield High School has long been considered an institution of failure when it comes to preparing students for college and employment. This is not my opinion as I have looked at the state data for Plainfield High School School. Based only on graduation rates alone, the school has failed for the past decade. This is a failure on the part of everyone, but mainly teachers that have been teaching at the school for years and in some cases decades, but have become comfortable with the school's failure. From everything that I have read teachers are mainly responsible for students learning.
I am glad that there is now a charter school serving high school students which will give more parents a choice when it comes to sending their children to a high school in the community. This will further push the high school to improve. On another note, the high school principal now seems to being pushed out despite having not been evaluated as required by law and despite making gains in the school, notably the graduation rate which should be a critical marker for high school success. I hope that this isn't the case.
The argument against charter schools in Plainfield is not an argument based on education. It is an argument that is steeped in squabbles over money. Those in the district would rather fight to keep more money for high paying administrators, contracts for friends and cronies, large lawsuit settlements, teacher and administrator raises in a down economy and decreasing revenue rather than use the threat of increased charter schools to improve their own system which will eventually improve education for all students in Plainfield.
When will the fight and argument be based on what is needed to provide a better education for our students?
When will the question also be asked about how charter schools do more with less and have teachers, principals, and boards that keep education as the number one priority?
Charter schools have the freedom to set their own rules with regard to curriculum, teaching styles, and flexibility with hiring, salary and benefits and are usually free of the politics of local school districts and boards such as what we have here in Plainfield
There are other advantages of charter schools which can be valuable in improving our school district and giving better options to our students that are currently trapped in the failing Plainfield Public Schools.
Should we fight to stop charter school in Plainfield? If so, why?
Do you think our district is properly using resources to educate our students for the 21 century?
Is the Plainfield school district focused on education as it should be?
Why have our students been failing over the past decade?
What role do teachers, principals, parents, administrators, and board members have in the documented failure of many of our schools?
When charter schools fail, they get shut down. What should we do with a failing district?
Send me your thoughts.
Wednesday, May 4, 2011
ON COMMENTS AND KEEPING QUIET
I was graciously welcomed to the new world of blogging in Plainfield by Dan Damon of Plainfield Today. I appreciate the "tips" he provided me and the few words of wisdom he gave me about this new undertaking. What Dan didn't prepare me for were the comments that bloggers receive from people speaking on various posts. I had opened up my blog by reflecting on the recent school board election and former superintendent Steve Gallon.
I was going to periodically revisit this case and share some of the documents that I had in my possession but had moved on to my recent posts on the district reduction plan. I thought that as people lose their jobs the BOE would be reminded not to take away from students and teachers. I read that the BOE challenged the teacher' union to work with the administration to save jobs. That is a great idea and a sign of leadership by the BOE. Let's see if there is similar leadership at the helm of the teacher's union. I even offered a few suggestions myself. But some of the comments I received both in support and against Dr. Gallon made me wonder. Why would some people want me to leave it alone, be quiet, let sleeping dogs lay, or the let the "deceased die" which included other statements that I dare not repeat? Why was there such deep seeeded hatred by some?
Everything I have learned about this case I read in about 10 public documents that are either online or available through OPRA at the district or State. I knew that there was a period of turmoil under former Superintendent Steve Gallon that involved the certification of his two of his people that joined him for Florida that eventually ended in him being charged with allowing two children to attend school under his address in the neighboring South Plainfield School district.
I also knew that a new Board majority made a move to oust him within two weeks after being sworn in to office. Before I get a comment on this look at the timeline. Based on official records the new BOE began this action on a matter that previous BOE had already dealt with. Was it double jeopardy? This same new Board majority eventually settled with Gallon, paid him over $100k of our taxpayer's dollars and who knows what to their lawyers. Their settlement indicated that he violated no policy, law or procedures as superintendent although they had made not one, but two accusations through tenure charges that he had before dismissing both sets of tenure charges altogether. Why make the accusation, then settle stating that he did nothing wrong? Although promised there was never an explanation given on this to the public.
The Middlesex prosector's office took a similar path when they essentially dismissed the case by never formally filing charges against Gallon and the pair about the South Plainfield enrollment issue.
What I did not know was that there are many who would rather forget the past and risk repeating it than know more about this saga and learn from it. Some of the hateful comments that were made about Dr. Gallon and even me for having a different point of view shocked me. Dr. Gallon aside, I was basically attacked personally for expressing my views and writing about factual events, facts that are available to the public and media but that went largely ignored in the effort to rid Plainfield of what one person commented the "wicked, corrupt" Dr. Gallon. Even though I don't know him personally, I have not seen proof of his wickedness or that he is corrupt. Any proof is welcomed.
The comments made were mostly personal and not based on his qualifications and record of accomplishments in Plainfield. There were also comments that looked like tips on things I should look into and blog about. Anon 7:38 p.m., I will be forwarding your comment to the Union County Prosecutor's Office.
I have combed through many documents involving Gallon's case. I started out by simply reading the OFAC report done independently by the State in which I could not for the life of me find a reference to Dr. Gallon doing anything illegal. Read for yourself here http://www.scribd.com/doc/29461318/Ofac-Report.
What I did read was an HR department under former Assistant Superintendent Dr. Garnell Bailey that was in disarray. The OFAC investigators mentioned several times that interview records that were requested from HR staff were often not presented or available. Based on an a document submitted to the State, Dr. Bailey resigned from the district before the investigation of her department was concluded.
There are other documents that include names of over 20 employees that were either not certified or were in positions that were not approved by the Board. The documents state that none arrived from Florida with Gallon but were here in the district for years. There is a reference to an employee by name that was hired and employed in Plainfield without completing a background check or being fingerprinted by HR. According to the document, the employee resigned after being directed to have fingerprints taken by Dr. Gallon, not HR.
I revisited some of the above facts to share why I have taken a differring view about this case and that it shows the worse case of how politics can take over in a school district or city. I need only mention former City Administrator Bibi Taylor. She is not serving Plainfield because of politics. What about the hate filled ant-gay flier that was cowardly distributed at City Hall? Some politics want people to scream loud about issues they want at the forefront while some politics would prefer we be quiet.
While watching a movie last night the main character commented to his friend "we must be right". His friend asked him why. He answered "because there are too many people that want me to be quiet".
I was going to periodically revisit this case and share some of the documents that I had in my possession but had moved on to my recent posts on the district reduction plan. I thought that as people lose their jobs the BOE would be reminded not to take away from students and teachers. I read that the BOE challenged the teacher' union to work with the administration to save jobs. That is a great idea and a sign of leadership by the BOE. Let's see if there is similar leadership at the helm of the teacher's union. I even offered a few suggestions myself. But some of the comments I received both in support and against Dr. Gallon made me wonder. Why would some people want me to leave it alone, be quiet, let sleeping dogs lay, or the let the "deceased die" which included other statements that I dare not repeat? Why was there such deep seeeded hatred by some?
Everything I have learned about this case I read in about 10 public documents that are either online or available through OPRA at the district or State. I knew that there was a period of turmoil under former Superintendent Steve Gallon that involved the certification of his two of his people that joined him for Florida that eventually ended in him being charged with allowing two children to attend school under his address in the neighboring South Plainfield School district.
I also knew that a new Board majority made a move to oust him within two weeks after being sworn in to office. Before I get a comment on this look at the timeline. Based on official records the new BOE began this action on a matter that previous BOE had already dealt with. Was it double jeopardy? This same new Board majority eventually settled with Gallon, paid him over $100k of our taxpayer's dollars and who knows what to their lawyers. Their settlement indicated that he violated no policy, law or procedures as superintendent although they had made not one, but two accusations through tenure charges that he had before dismissing both sets of tenure charges altogether. Why make the accusation, then settle stating that he did nothing wrong? Although promised there was never an explanation given on this to the public.
The Middlesex prosector's office took a similar path when they essentially dismissed the case by never formally filing charges against Gallon and the pair about the South Plainfield enrollment issue.
What I did not know was that there are many who would rather forget the past and risk repeating it than know more about this saga and learn from it. Some of the hateful comments that were made about Dr. Gallon and even me for having a different point of view shocked me. Dr. Gallon aside, I was basically attacked personally for expressing my views and writing about factual events, facts that are available to the public and media but that went largely ignored in the effort to rid Plainfield of what one person commented the "wicked, corrupt" Dr. Gallon. Even though I don't know him personally, I have not seen proof of his wickedness or that he is corrupt. Any proof is welcomed.
The comments made were mostly personal and not based on his qualifications and record of accomplishments in Plainfield. There were also comments that looked like tips on things I should look into and blog about. Anon 7:38 p.m., I will be forwarding your comment to the Union County Prosecutor's Office.
I have combed through many documents involving Gallon's case. I started out by simply reading the OFAC report done independently by the State in which I could not for the life of me find a reference to Dr. Gallon doing anything illegal. Read for yourself here http://www.scribd.com/doc/29461318/Ofac-Report.
What I did read was an HR department under former Assistant Superintendent Dr. Garnell Bailey that was in disarray. The OFAC investigators mentioned several times that interview records that were requested from HR staff were often not presented or available. Based on an a document submitted to the State, Dr. Bailey resigned from the district before the investigation of her department was concluded.
There are other documents that include names of over 20 employees that were either not certified or were in positions that were not approved by the Board. The documents state that none arrived from Florida with Gallon but were here in the district for years. There is a reference to an employee by name that was hired and employed in Plainfield without completing a background check or being fingerprinted by HR. According to the document, the employee resigned after being directed to have fingerprints taken by Dr. Gallon, not HR.
I revisited some of the above facts to share why I have taken a differring view about this case and that it shows the worse case of how politics can take over in a school district or city. I need only mention former City Administrator Bibi Taylor. She is not serving Plainfield because of politics. What about the hate filled ant-gay flier that was cowardly distributed at City Hall? Some politics want people to scream loud about issues they want at the forefront while some politics would prefer we be quiet.
While watching a movie last night the main character commented to his friend "we must be right". His friend asked him why. He answered "because there are too many people that want me to be quiet".
Monday, May 2, 2011
Reduction in Force at BOE: Will Students and Teachers be First?
The Plainfield BOE Agenda shows that the district will be considering a Reduction in Force to balance the budget. In this economy I have no problem with the need to cut staff and make sure that the budget is balanced. I have received a few comments that people are already being laid off. Does this have to go the BOE first?
Since the BOE is known for giving away the store in legal fees I hope that proper procedures are being done when it comes to laying people off and is doing so in a professional way. With the new BOE majority in place for over a year now I am sure that all procedures are being followed and this week they wont be approving a plan that already started with people being let go. Or will they?
The main question that the BOE and district should answer in the next few weeks is will teachers and students be first? There has been a lot of talk about bloated administrations and the Governor himself has come down pretty hard on administrator pay. As a failing district that lags behind even other failing districts and a community that continues to see too many of our youth waste away and die in the street, our schools are even more important. I believe that too often we complain and don't offer solutions to our community's problems. I will offer a few suggestions to the BOE. First put teachers and students first.
In the Reduction Plan I hope the BOE considers teachers and students first. Here are a few suggestions:
1. There should be no teachers laid off to save administrators that do not work at schools with students.
2. There should be a total review of certifications and qualifications for all administrators and staff.
3. In light of the controversy last year, any administrator that does not hold the proper certificate should be either laid off or made to teach students if they are qualified to do so.
4. A review of each department should be reviewed for the number of administrators and secretaries.
5. The BOE should know the impact of laying teachers off on the number of students in classes for next year.
6. There should be openness and transparency about how people are selected for layoffs. Asks questions.
7. The BOE and taxpayer's cannot afford to keep people who are in luxury positions. If you really have to ask what the person does, then they are in a luxury position and should not be kept. No politics or favoritism.
8. To save money the BOE should contract out certain duties that don't require a full time person. This has been popular in the private sector and is being used by many in public sectors these days. My former employer did it to save on overtime and employee benefit costs.
9. If a person's has a job that is tied mainly to projects or seasonal activities, then hire someone just to do the project when they are needed.
10. Look at Human Resources and positions that work with staff in the district. If you are laying off then you are not hiring. If you are not hiring then you don't need as many staff in your HR department.
11. There should be not cuts to programs for students at school and there should be money for all of the things students need such as materials, computers, textbooks, and supplies.
The students of Plainfield should be our priority in any reduction plan. If they are the priority then we will value our teachers. We need to make sure that the resources we have go to support students and teachers in the classrooms.
Let's see if the BOE will really put students and teachers first.
Since the BOE is known for giving away the store in legal fees I hope that proper procedures are being done when it comes to laying people off and is doing so in a professional way. With the new BOE majority in place for over a year now I am sure that all procedures are being followed and this week they wont be approving a plan that already started with people being let go. Or will they?
The main question that the BOE and district should answer in the next few weeks is will teachers and students be first? There has been a lot of talk about bloated administrations and the Governor himself has come down pretty hard on administrator pay. As a failing district that lags behind even other failing districts and a community that continues to see too many of our youth waste away and die in the street, our schools are even more important. I believe that too often we complain and don't offer solutions to our community's problems. I will offer a few suggestions to the BOE. First put teachers and students first.
In the Reduction Plan I hope the BOE considers teachers and students first. Here are a few suggestions:
1. There should be no teachers laid off to save administrators that do not work at schools with students.
2. There should be a total review of certifications and qualifications for all administrators and staff.
3. In light of the controversy last year, any administrator that does not hold the proper certificate should be either laid off or made to teach students if they are qualified to do so.
4. A review of each department should be reviewed for the number of administrators and secretaries.
5. The BOE should know the impact of laying teachers off on the number of students in classes for next year.
6. There should be openness and transparency about how people are selected for layoffs. Asks questions.
7. The BOE and taxpayer's cannot afford to keep people who are in luxury positions. If you really have to ask what the person does, then they are in a luxury position and should not be kept. No politics or favoritism.
8. To save money the BOE should contract out certain duties that don't require a full time person. This has been popular in the private sector and is being used by many in public sectors these days. My former employer did it to save on overtime and employee benefit costs.
9. If a person's has a job that is tied mainly to projects or seasonal activities, then hire someone just to do the project when they are needed.
10. Look at Human Resources and positions that work with staff in the district. If you are laying off then you are not hiring. If you are not hiring then you don't need as many staff in your HR department.
11. There should be not cuts to programs for students at school and there should be money for all of the things students need such as materials, computers, textbooks, and supplies.
The students of Plainfield should be our priority in any reduction plan. If they are the priority then we will value our teachers. We need to make sure that the resources we have go to support students and teachers in the classrooms.
Let's see if the BOE will really put students and teachers first.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)