Adversarial politics and professionalism in education

Adversarial politics was meant for the three branches of government, not our education system.

I have been telling teachers for years that there a level of politics that must be played by teachers if teachers are to have a genuine voice in BOE policy. The position of the teacher rep on the board is a “check” the affects of BOE policies on students, teachers and the entire system. The problem or challenge has always been to “maintain a level of professionalism and objectivity” for what is best regardless of the messenger (administration or teachers). When I first proposed tenure for teachers the former COE said “it is us against them” meaning the board and administration AGAINST teachers and setting the conditions for the adversarial confrontation the CNMI witnessed between the board and me when it should have been all about collaboration—not confrontation. I’m sure teachers and people with common sense have figured it out now.

The recent blunder(s) of the board with PRAXIS is proof of failed professionalism due to the adversarial politics of the board. First, the COE and board predicted 80 percent of teachers were suppose to pass the test on their first try—didn’t happen, next teachers only needed the Reading & Writing Test—had to add a “content test” for each subject and finally all teachers were to complete their testing by 2006—now its 2009. The merits of my arguments proved to be true and the board still remained in denial as to the value of a teacher rep. I even gave the board data and alternatives to help teachers and they didn’t even recognize me for giving them the solution of using federal funds to train teachers and even pay teachers to pass PRAXIS—the adversarial and unprofessional politics of the previous board.

Now, here we go again. The idea for an after-school and outreach programs over the summer for our students has been denied “without cause” with no explanation. The response only stated “not a good use of funds.” But if the term “without cause” sounds familiar, that’s how principals get rid of teachers and staff they don’t like and their termination usually not based on “merits” just like the rejection of the grants. I actually wrote the board and the commissioner to inquire “WHY” the after-school and summer grants were denied but I never got an answer. Every government official has a fiduciary responsibility to respond to EVERY inquiry by a voting citizen addressed to them because they work for the PEOPLE—people don’t ignore their boss, duh! But the 19th century “TOP DOWN” style of leadership dictates that the hard questions and inquiries the board doesn’t like will continue to go into the trash can figuratively. That’s why we are now discussing it in the news because the board doesn’t want to live up to its fiduciary duty to reply with rational based on “sound facts.” The board has also trashed the certified questions I presented on behalf of ALL teachers—a total disregard and disrespect of teachers. The board is even trying to get the law changed so they don’t have to answer these hard questions because the questions clearly favor teachers based on principle. Common sense tells me the board has chosen adversarial politics and un-professional behavior in dealing with teachers.

Teachers were asked to write Innovative Assistance Grants (IAP). Teachers were well aware of the needs at the school and the teachers and principal prioritized and approved the after-school and outreach program. common sense tells me that teachers and principals know more about what the students needed at the school level to help their students than a person sitting in an office on Capital Hill. Saying an after school program is “not good use of federal funds” but not saying WHY or giving any rational for denying teachers and students outreach programs is typical of the 19th century style of leadership. No reason was given because there isn’t a legitimate one. The lack of money is not an excuse because there is more than enough in federal funding available. So why ask teachers to be innovative only to turn down their proposals without cause or even trying to see if the program is feasible—it’s called educational experimentation and research to improve student outcomes.

I would suggest that the board members, the commissioner and deputies and some principals that don’t have leadership in education credentials at the masters or doctorate level read the seventh edition of “Management of Organizational Behavior” by Hersey, Blanchard, and Johnson that includes the Hawthorn Studies and the X & Y Theory. It would also help if they read “Educational Governance & Administration” third edition by Sergiovanni, Burlingame, Coombs, and Thurston. I have never doubted the commitment of any board member or the COEs to education. I also believe they are all very smart and capable people but what I do question is their “leadership in education skills.” Just because a person has a degree(s) and a good education and they are very smart DOES NOT make they are a leader. The previous commissioner had a doctorate in counseling, the present commissioner has a doctorate in business, none of the deputy commissioners have graduate degrees in educational leadership and I think most if not all of the present board members don’t have a graduate degree in educational leadership—see the problem. As unique as education is in our society, the PSS is run no different than any other part of our government and we all know how dysfunctional our government has operated. When you ask why the PSS has not caught up to the mainland in student achievement in over 30 years it should be clear our leadership style and decisions have been poor. The PSS must change the decision process to solve the mystery of attaining equal scoring and equality in our educational services with schools on the mainland.

The after-school programs I proposed are not needed on the mainland because there is a library in the neighborhoods of schools and many academically driven activities easily accessible to students. There is nothing in Kagman or any of the other villages for our students. You would think it is only natural that we create some form of educational outreach facility in Kagman for students after school and during the summer—duh. I do want to make it clear that I was not placing the responsibility on the school system because it is really an issue for the CNMI government to provide Libraries and educational facilities for students but it’s very apparent the Legislature thinks we only need baseball fields in the villages.

I was merely asking PSS to step up and fill the void for educational activities after school and during the summer, especially when teachers wanted these programs, we have the federal funds to pay for the activities and given the obvious need for these activities in the communities on all three islands. Instead, I was accused of putting it all on PSS and parents were reminded of their “parental duties.” But still no rational as to WHY NOT have these programs—adversarial politics to flip the real issue of the program to turn the focus on parents and me oppose to the merits or lack of merit in the programs. There wasn’t anything bad thing said about the idea for the programs which speaks volumes to the real reason for the rejection and I’m sure people with common sense know the reason—and it wasn’t merit, fairness or necessity like it should have been.

Parents need PSS’ help, not a “parenting speech.” Parents can’t create afte-school programs and activities for EVERY child—PSS can. Parents don’t need to be told to plan educational activities—parents need PSS or DCCA to offer the venue for the activities and parents will make sure their child attends. What “outreach programs” do PSS have in place to assist in the community with the education of our children after school and during the summer? Where is the “activity listing of events” after school and during the summer sponsored by ANYONE to help parents? Asking parents of preschools to have their child ready to read but where are the “standardized books and materials” for preschoolers to help the parents get their child ready, especially the majority of parents who child doesn’t attend Head Start which is why I proposed the Ready Set Go Project five years ago that was denied. To put all the responsibility of pre-schooling, after-school activities, and summer activities on parents when neither the government nor PSS want to offer the proper support system is a hypocritical statement. Parents have heard these parenting speeches from PSS’ leadership for years and it should be clear by now with our PTA participation being at an all time low—ITS NOT WORKING!

Real leaders welcome challenges and problems—not throw them in the trash. Real leaders listen objectively and respects the recommendations and the people that work under them—not ignore them. Real leaders promote an atmosphere where a subordinate employee feels she/he is apart of the decision process—not 19th century “Top-Down Leadership.” Real leaders create conditions for employee moral to be at its highest—not conditions where teachers are afraid to even run for the board when they should be fighting over such an honorable position. Real leaders cherish their responsibilities to their clients (students in this case)—not put their responsibility off on individual parents, especially when every child and adult knows there is NOTHING academically driven for students after school and during the summer for FREE. Real leaders accept this type of constructive criticism like a professional and make the necessary changes because real leaders know their attitude will definitely determine their altitude and the altitude of the organization.

Under ordinary circumstances this news letter would at least get me an audience to discuss the programs and their merits but this is the CNMI and I don’t have a local last name so I won’t hold my breath waiting—the sad and ironic truth that improve possibilities face in the CNMI. But I do hope this will help to end the adversarial politics and create a more professional attitude towards the working relationship with teaches because it is needed and its common sense.