Principal Appeals Process: "Arbitrary And Capricious"?

We're all learning a lot about the principal appeals/renewal process, or at least I am, and according to Eric Zorn's sensible-sounding column in today's paper (Decision to fire principal doesn't look good, so far) there have been 10 principals who appealed their nonrenewals by their LSC -- all of whom were not able to prove that the decision was "arbitrary and capricious."  Whether that standard is too high or not, I don't know.  For starters, does anyone know the list of schools and principals who tried?

Comments

[Kathy Broderick]

Mary Mitchell addresses the Curie LSC story in her column today, too. (http://www.suntimes.com/news/mitchell/294438,CST-NWS-mitch13.article)

When a clique temporarily took over the LSC at Telpochcalli, they tried to engineer the nonrenewal of Tamara Witzl's contract. There was so much community support for Witzl, the cliqe was voted out of office and the new LSC extended her contract. Witzl really is a "superstar" principal but received no support from the mayor nor from CPS administrators, even though they knew the clique was using unfair and illegal methods. Tha AIO stepped in on the side of the clique and even tampered with the election results by arbitrarly replacing the elected teacher rep. But in the end, democracy prevailed.

There doesn't seem to be much sympathy for Jones. The attitude is that since the Mayor is backing her she will be taken care of very well. That is probably true but think of the emotional and pshychological effects. This woman has dedicated her time to the educational cause with an amount of success and she was fired despite the time and success. Think about all the personal time she has sacrificed in order to bring about success. Teachers do it all the time and a good principal does it more. What's the sense. It's futile to put your energy into something if it isn't appreciated and has no bearing in your profession. What a message to give to the professionals in the teaching profession. You can be fired if you do a good job and fired if you do a bad job. For the black community it is even a worse message. Here is a black educated professional woman, a model of success, inspiration and hope for the black community and boom, she's out of a job. What's the point of working when there is no point. Might as well steal and sell drugs or do drugs, nothing is sacred. This has to be defeating for the black community and I hope she does something about it. How can you break the chain of hopelessness when something like this is shoved down your throat. Sure she has resources that can help her through this but what about people who have little resources to fight injustice. They lose everything and may not be able to start over. The message this controversy has created is BAD, not just for the black community but for all communities. Once again we have seen the uselessness of "Affirmative Action."

From Zorn:
"julie woestehoff offered a similar assurance. She's the executive director of parents united for responsible education, a reform-minded advocacy group. And she said her observations and private conversations with LSC members at Curie tell her that there'sa "legitimate" case for showing Jones the door."

And who shows julie and pure the door? Where is the oversite for her biased power-playing, irresponsible little group? It is odd that the Curie LSC can tell pure/julie why they are not keeping Jones, but do not have to tell their own constituates. pure is excellent at helping LSCs manipulate the law to get their way vs. the best way for students.

From Zorn:
"To an outsider, these rules sound like a recipe for whimsy--a road map for the pursuit of personal vendettas and aninvitation for petty tyrants to flex their muscles in personality disputes."
Right on Eric!

The only place Zorn was incorrect is in calling the LSCs:"--a citizen governing board..."
Parent LSC members do not have to be US citizens.

[Rodney Roland]

An almost countless number of qualified principals have been run out of schools under the guise of school reform over the years.

Remember when the rallying cry to vote in LSC elections was your chance "remove the principals."

Minority African American communitiess used this opportunity to almost clense their community schools of white principals.

So who feels sorry for the outcries now. A majority population Hispanic school would feel better with a school leader from their community. So be it.

[Alexander]

i'm still working on getting the list of 10 that have appealed since 1999.

no estimate so far on how many were nonrenewed, or what the percentage is.

the appeals process only came into effect in 1999, i'm told, so i'm not sure what a P would have done for the first 10 years.

and again, i'm not saying all LSCs that nonrenew are wrong, or that all principals are stars.

why do you think daley got ramos to move to reconsider, but then couldn't or didn't bother to get the LSC to roll? what's the point of that, other than making yourself look somewhat ineffective (and maybe letting the curie LSC continue making itself look bad)?

Isn't it troubling to anyone else that Julie W. claims that the Curie LSC members told her something about the cause for firing the principal? By Julie's own argument the members who confided in her have apparently broken the law or at least compromised their legal position--which is really the school's legal position.

I quote from her earlier post on another thread in this blog:
<>

Where is Patrick Fitzgerald when you really need him?

Quote from Woesthoff:

Alexander's complaint that "we have to take or leave the LSC's decision without knowing how it made its determination" is just one more example of the media refusing to acknowledge or report on the legal position of the LSC members who voted not to renew and the confidentiality requirements they must follow.

[Alexander]

here's the list of 10 principals who challenged -- and lost or gave up -- when they were not renewed by their LSC:

> Elizabeth Elizondo and Finkl Academy LSC, 2000, decision for LSC
>
> Lester Gaines and Curtis Elementary School, 2000, arbitration demand
> withdrawn
>
> Mamie Harris and Ronald H. Brown Community Academy LSC, 2001,
> arbitration demand withdrawn
>
> Alice Collins and Spalding School LSC, 2002, arbitration demand withdrawn
>
> Erasmo Rodriguez and Gallistel Language Academy, 2003, arbitration
> demand withdrawn
>
> John H. Bradley and Songhai Learning Institute LSC, 2003, default
> entered against principal
>
> Ronald A. James and Avondale Elementary School LSC, 2003, arbitration
> demand withdrawn
>
> Lonnie Ball and Paul Cuffe Math, Science and Technology Academy LSC,
> 2003, decision for LSC
>
> Ana Garcia Berlanga and Sandoval LSC, 2005, decision for LSC
>
> Christine Arroyo and Sabin Magnet School LSC, 2006, arbitration demand
> withdrawn

thanks to a kind reader for sending me this.

Alexander:
It is not just the 10. There are many other principals who have been capriciously put out or not renewed by their LSC.
Many--who were excellent principals.
(I remember one where the teacher rep on the LSC maneuvered the LSC to get rid of the principal, so that she could be the principal--and it worked.)
No principal will win at arbitration, none--the laws for LSC are that lax that no hearing officer can find for the principal, no matter what hard evidence the principal has.
It is senseless to fight the LSC--a waste of time, money and only more heartache and loss.

if pure is now standing behind a corrupt lsc it should be shut off from the philanthropic spigot. enough is enough.

I'm curious about all of the "arbitration demand withdrawn" statements above. I'd be interested to know what made each principal decide to withrdraw their arbitration request.

It does seem rather obvious that there needs to be a much more stringent set of requirements in place for the removal of a principal. I'm all for empowering parents and community members to take an active role in their schools, but the majority of these people have no experience working in education. It just makes sense that they should have some narrower guidelines in place when it comes to making a decision as serious as removing the principal.

I hope Daley does not use this as an excuse to strip LSCs of their power or even to dismantle more LSCs, but it would be a positive step to re-examine the way LSCs operate and put in place a series of checks and balances to ensure that the best interests of the schools and the students are always first and foremost.

ditto - plus guideline for other LSC decisions.

Where's the moral outrage about the Mayors hiring decisions and policies? Appointment of vacant aldermanic seats with no oversight what so ever. It was the Mayor who appointed Arenda Troutman. Hiring of drug dealers, bribers, mafioso, gangbangers etcetera to fill out the ranks of city departments. That's where Patrick Fitzgerald is, snowed under by the massive corruption by the Mayor and his pals (and let's not forget his allies at the county and state)

In point of fact the LSC chair, who was previously described by the media as the main source of tension, is one of the Mayors foot soldiers.

So where does the responsibility for the situation really lie? And what does the future hold if the Mayor is able to wrest control of the schools completely away from the community? i'm sure we can trust someone who waited til the last minute to admit that Chicagoans would have to mortgage their childrens future to the tune of half a billion dollars (as it stands now!) so that the Mayors financial backers can make out like bandits with very little oversight (who will govern the disposition of contracts for construction of Olympic venues?). It is to the Mayors advantage to distract people with this story by placing himself at the center of it but not truly resolving it so that it festers. As Mary Mitchell has pointed out if Ms. Jones is truly a superstar she should have no problem finding another school ( since she was not fired, she was hired for a four year contract - be prepared!)

Over a decade ago there was great controversy when the contract for Walter Pilditch (spelling?) was not renewed and yet Curie HS survived and even thrived.

And before anyone starts pontificating about how principal selection should not be political they need to remember how principal selection was done before LSC's and then ask themselves "If the Mayor has complete control of the schools will he make political decisions about the schools?"

[George N Schmidt]

The Principals' Association probably has a list of more than 100 principals whose contracts have not been renewed since 1989. Each one is a story onto itself. That's the side of this where the local school councils have removed principals.

But let's look at the cost of what the "CEO" has done since we first began the "CEO" thing after Mayor Daley was given dictatorial control 12 years ago. As important as the list of principals who weren't renewed by the LSC would be the list of principals who were removed by Paul Vallas and Arne Duncan since mayoral control began in 1995-1996.

That list would include at least a half dozen principals I could name, most of whom won serious money after they sued the Board of Education. The largest I saw in federal court when researching the federal lawsuits challenging the "CEO"s right to remove principals was over $400,000, to Phillip O'Bannon, whom the "CEO" removed, amid nasty fanfare, from the principalship of CVS several years ago.

A suggestion to develop this thread: balance the list you're using, Alexander. It isn't only local school councils who've been removing principals in unusual manners.

The most recent case of Arne Duncan removing a principal against the wishes of the LSC came last August, when Marty McGreal was "fired" at Gage Park because he wouldn't go along with Duncan's plan to sabotage the school through overcrowding.

Or doesn't that example count when these things are discussed?

As the warm weather approaches, let's hope there are some cameras near Gage Park and Carson when the various explosions occur. And the reason for the escalating violence will be partly because Duncan insisted on overcrowding -- sabotaging -- Gage Park while leaving nearby Lindblom three-quarters empty for that college prep math-science thingy and that Boys Town charter school (er., "Urban Prep").

Context helps, both historically and for the next few months.

News to come: Watch what will be happening at the elementary schools (where there is even less security) that received the children from the last group of schools Duncan closed a year ago. Things in some places might make Hyde Park, Wells and Clemente look tame, because at least at the high schools there is security and a couple of police officers.

When schools are being wrecked or principals lives ruined, the wrecking crew is usually headed by Daley, Inc.

[Marty McGreal]

Alexander,

You wrote, “Why do you think daley got ramos to move to reconsider, but then couldn't or didn't bother to get the LSC to roll? what's the point of that, other than making yourself look somewhat ineffective (and maybe letting the curie LSC continue making itself look bad)?”

I interpreted the recent decision as a kind of “screw you” to the pressure he (Ramos) was getting. I am pretty sure the mayor assumed the other votes would follow.

I don’t agree with the decision to let Jones go by any means. However, I must give Ramos credit for not backing down. I say not backing down, because I am confident he could have controlled the other votes. I think it was more, “I’ll abide by the letter of the law (demand to reconsider) but not the spirit.” I’ll give anyone their proper due for not caving into that big time pressure. I’m sure he knows there may be ramifications.

As for the actual decision, putting aside LSC rights and letting go of someone who has done a good job, I don’t see how the students and staff will not suffer. While Ms. Jones was at Curie, I have seen great growth in the structures put in place during her tenure. Roles are defined, leaders are aware and held accountable for their performance. A true professional learning community exists as well as an effective student development program. Even though there has been growth over the past few years, I anticipated the best gains were yet to come. Ms. Jones understood the process. There were no band-aides at Curie.

People are always comparing schools. Whether successful schools are magnets, selective, or neighborhood, they all have one thing in common: leadership stability. This decision is going to change that.

One more thing that has been overlooked and will definitely change: school culture. Curie is an anomaly. I have observed at dozens of schools in Chicago, the surrounding suburbs, and around the country, I have never been to a place with a more positive attitude than Curie. Last year, I took several people from another school to Curie and just asked them to observe students, teachers, security, and others during passing periods. Something special goes on there. People want to be there. They like to come to school and they like to work there. Quite a bit of that positive culture came from the leadership. In the last few weeks I see that spirit being drained.

That’s all; I apologize for the rambling.

This whole affair reminds me of two quotes from an excellent new book I'm reading, Sacred Games by Vikram Chandra:

"If you want to live in this city you have to think ahead three turns and look behind a lie to see the truth and then behind that truth to see the lie."

"There is a certain pleasure we take in thinking about how bad it gets, he thought, and then in imagining how it will inevitably get worse. And still we survive, the city stumbles on. Maybe one day it'll all just fall apart, and there was a certain gratification in that thought too."

We've had the Marty McGreal thread. This one is about LSCs.
Or don't we care that we've had that thread?

[Professional]

Dear 5:19 -

You made some good points, but I think you miss the main one: both LSCs and downtown are outgrowths of the samefatally flawed idea, that non-professional management of schools is a good thing. So whether it's the political animals in CPS or the amateur nutcases on the LSCs--and really both of these nasty powers are always crushing the schools at the same time--either way, the decisions about education are being made by people who who don't know anything about either the local situation or the profession of teaching.

I personally believe Daley has the best itnerests of the schools at heart, but he has been betrayed by his own lack of knowledge and especially bhy awful, often corrupt advice. At least it doesn't seem to me productive to think of it any other way.

9:47
I agree that Daley has good interests for schools and especially for students' growth in learning. What a legacy that would be and Daley is about legacy. But he has surrounded himself with morons with bad ideas. He needs to get a committee of educational professionals, perhaps tapping the professionals from the high performing schools and work with them for solutions to the problems in education. Get rid of Arne and his buddies.

Guys, wake up. Go check this school's history on the Accountability website. This school improved when Ortiz took it over, was there for maybe one contract, then left for HS programs. Jones put it back on square one and has spent the rest of the last 8 years trying to get it back to what it had been under Ortiz. As I said before, a nice person who loves the school. I am sure there are many children who love her. Does that mean she is the leader who will give (indeed, has given) them the tools they need when they are too old for their parents to pay our salaries. Students are not there to give me employment. I am employed to make sure they are educated, independent and can get their own employment. Hope they remember, hope they appreciate, but they do not owe me. Rather I as the teacher owe them. Principals are specifically contracted in this city (in the suburbs each teacher is indidually contracted as well) to make sure they run a school that will provide your children this. If they do not, or their learning curve is too steep (in this lady's tenure, two full graduating classes have moved - or more terrifying to contemplate, have not moved) through the school.
Don't expect these parents to settle for less than what you would want for your own kids. They are the families who can least afford for even one child to falter and fail.

10:31 - I would be very interested to see the school's accountability over the years from Ortiz to Jones. Could you post the actual website so that I can take a look.

Does anyone remember the Consortium study that showed Curie was a leader among city high school in graduating African-American males? There was press on it as well, as I recall.

Research and Accountability Webpage 'Test Results Over Time', for Curie.

http://research.cps.k12.il.us/resweb/ReportServlet?reporttype=ovtap&ideacat=a&year=2002&body=1&unit=1820&doctype=html

Ortiz was principal of Curie from 1996-2000.

11:33 -

Nice try, Rush Limbaugh; here's your news article -
http://www.studentsfirst.us/news/contentview.asp?c=142628

And then here's the actual report-
http://ccsr.uchicago.edu/publications/p75.pdf;

Look over both and you will see that the reporter was spoon fed a cut and paste of the statistics (including, again, a nifty appropriation of gains under the previous administration), giving the distinct impression of it all happening under Jones. Shame on the reporter for being lazy and doing no research past her heartwarming walkthrough, but somebody fed her that careful construction, and I don't think it was U of C. These were stats on cohorts (groups) followed together, and the last one they reported on was 2000, the year Jones took over; the grad rates were projected, since the stats include students who took longer than 4 years to finish.

This article and the more recent ones since the issue flared up keep talking of gains since '96, when in fact most scores plateaued the year after Jones took over.