 |
| Johanna Wright |
Wright, who has made something of a name for herself since joining the board two years ago for voting against most items, ended up voting against the entire "action item" list of dozens of routine measures after opposing the health care and evaluation policies.
"As usual," she said after the action item vote.
Since she was elected in 2013, Wright has received some praise for being a contrarian view on the board, in several cases raising valid objections to spending plans and other proposals. But it did not seem to sit well with many on the board this week.
The first item Wright opposed and asked to be severed from the "action item" list was a change in evaluation policy via a request to the state to be exempt from the new requirement that teachers be evaluated three times rather than two as previously stipulated.
Prior to the meeting, we reached out to the district to ask about this policy change. District spokesperson Suzanne Turner emailed this response:
Tenured teachers used to receive only 1 observation per year. Under the new
teacher evaluation requirements in AchieveNJ, the number of mandatory observations
for tenured teachers was increased to 3 per year. We are asking for a waiver to
conduct only 2 per year, as have other districts.We can always do additional
observations where needed and appropriate.
Reducing the number of mandatory observations provides administrators with more
flexibility in how they use their time to best support and improve instruction in
our schools. For example, principals will have more time to spend with new teachers
who need mentoring and guidance, will have more time for informal walk-throughs and
classroom visits, and more time to work with individual teachers on specific
instructional or classroom management issues.
When the item was severed, Wright, a former teacher, attacked the move claiming it was wrong and stated, "great teachers need to be evaluated, too. Even teachers such as myself."
Assistant Superintendent James Memoli explained the reasoning behind the change, similar to Turner's explanation: "We feel if you have a cadre of very, very strong teachers and you are able to evaluate them twice, the time you are saving you can use now to help those teachers who are more in need."
Memoli also stressed that non-tenured teachers would still be evaluated three times, or more if needed.
But Wright did not accept his answer, even hinting at some unclear ulterior motive: "There has to be some other reason you don't want these people to be evaluated."
Board President Wayne Eastman then weighed in, taking strong exception to Wright's claims, stating, "It is a waste of the teacher's time and the administration's time," to conduct unnecessary evaluations. "Time is expensive, everybody's time."
The board ended up voting, 6-1, in favor of the evaluation change request, with Wright the lone opposing vote and Board Members Jeffrey Bennett and Maureen Jones absent.
The next issue that Wright opposed and sought to sever from action items was a change in health care plans for the district, from the state health care system to a new agreement with Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield. District officials said it would save more than $600,000 and not affect coverage for any workers.
"This needs to be tabled until all of the information is presented instead of just slipping it in this way," Wright complained, accusing the district of not providing the plan change information to the board's Finance, Facilities and Technology Committee, upon which Wright serves and under whose responsibility the health care plan falls.
But Board Member Beth Daugherty, who also serves on that committee, reminded Wright that the information was reviewed at the committee's April 6 meeting. "We are following the recommendations of the task force back in April," Daugherty said.
A review of the agenda for the April committee meeting indicates that the board's Health Care Task Force, which was tasked with reviewing other health care options, had made a presentation that day. But Wright claimed she had not received any such information until last week's committee meeting.
"This memo is incomplete," Wright said. "It does not include all of the (health care) models we requested."
But other board members disagreed and, as the hour passed midnight, revealed their objections to Wright's position.
"We have before us the opportunity to save us more than $600,000," said Board Member Elizabeth Baker. "$600,000 that we can invest in our classrooms. There will not be a single reduction in health care, it has been transparent."
Board Member Madhu Pai agreed: "I don't understand why we would wait a minute to vote on something that will save us money."
Paula Bethea, president of the South Orange Maplewood Education Association, questioned the health care change during public comment, stating, "I had no idea we were going to move this fast or this is the model we were going to move to," she said, but noted she would not oppose it, adding only that, "employees get nervous when they hear the change."
Wright, who has publicly stated she wants the district to self-insure, responded, "what's the rush?" District officials and some board members have opposed self-insurance citing the liability it opens the district up to.
In the end, the board voted again, 6-1, with Wright opposing, to approve the change, which will result in a 14-month health care agreement with Horizon beginning in November.
The board later voted, 6-1, on the rest of the action items, which included such routine matters as leasing photocopying equipment and accepting state textbook funds. Wright voted against all of them.
No comments:
Post a Comment