Friday, August 12, 2022

Changes Introduced to Controversial Pemberton School District Measures Pertaining to Recording of Meetings, Grading, But Others Now Under Fire


Policy Regarding ‘Insubordination’ Draws Concern from Board Member
After Alleged ‘Comment’ That Official Intended to ‘Hold People in Contempt’
for Speaking Out at Meetings; ‘Regulation’ Banning Leggings Also Criticized

By Douglas D. Melegari
Staff Writer

PEMBERTON—As the Pemberton Board of Education and its various committees are now introducing changes to two highly controversial measures entailing the recording of its sessions and the grading of students, respectively, an existing “regulation” pertaining to student dress code that was reportedly recently put into writing, as well as a board policy that can charge a teacher with “insubordination” for airing concerns at public board meetings without first following the “chain-of-command,” are now coming under fire.

 

The latter, as Board Member Sherry Scull indicated at the latest Pemberton school board meeting, has been on the books for a while, but came into focus only recently after a teacher at a board meeting here in the spring publicly questioned the removal of hand sanitizer from district classrooms while Coronavirus was continuing to spread, and reported that the removal forced members of the school community, including students, to instead use disinfectant wipes, with the teacher pointing out that they contain strong chemicals that are irritating to an individual’s hands.

 

Following that public revelation, according to Scull, the “comment” was purportedly made that “the superintendent would be holding people in contempt for letting board members know what is going on in the district that concerns them.”

 

The revelation was among many distressing ones to emerge from the last school year, with the others about student behavioral and mental health issues, low morale among employees, the adverse impacts of a no-zero grading policy, removal of printers from classrooms due to budget constraints, and a transportation system breakdown. Many of those other revelations also came directly from district staffers who spoke out at public board meetings, which in turn generated critical coverage in this newspaper.

 

Word that officials were possibly considering holding district staffers in contempt for speaking out at public meetings came just months after the school board passed a revised Recording of Board Meetings policy that contains a number of what First Amendment activists describe as “unconstitutional” elements, including imposing requirements that those who wish to record a session notify the board secretary at least three days in advance of a meeting, and that a person turn over any video recordings.

 

Following outcry, the Pemberton school board recently introduced a revised version of that measure, also known as Board Policy #0168, in which, according to Board Member Terry Maldonado, chair of the school board’s Policy Committee, “a lot of things were struck out” to make it “a little more friendly.”

 

Among the provisions that would be struck out is the one requiring advance notice of an intent to record board meetings, which also requires the board secretary to provide a person making notification a copy of the policy.

 

Additionally, the provision requiring those who video record board meetings to turn over the recordings to the board, described by First Amendment activists as what essentially amounts to an illegal “search and seizure,” would also be struck out.

 

Also on the chopping block, is a provision that allows for “preference” to be given to those who wish to record a board meeting in the event the presiding officer determines the number and position of the recording devices interferes with the meeting.

 

However, should the revisions pass on second reading, as of right now, the presiding officer will still maintain the power to limit the number and position of the recording devices if he or she feels they interfere with the meeting.

 

Second reading of the board policy is anticipated to occur at 6:30 p.m. on Aug. 25, should no further changes be undertaken during the board’s workshop meeting scheduled for Aug. 18 at 6:30 p.m.

 

While it was not listed on the agenda, Scull publicly disclosed that she had also asked the board’s Policy Committee to “look at the policy on chain-of-command,” and in doing so made a point of saying she wanted to “explain to the board and public as to why” she made that request.

 

That’s when she revealed the comment had been made about holding district staffers in contempt for speaking out to the board.

 

Scull, in recognizing that “we have had staff come to the board meetings and complain about various issues,” from time-to-time, pointed out that she has been attending school board meetings since the 1980s and that, “I can tell you that (staffers speaking out) it is not something that happens quite often.”

 

“And what bothered me was the last sentence (in the policy), which said, ‘The superintendent can charge the employee with insubordination,’” she said of why she requested it be reviewed.

 

However, Scull revealed that she was informed by Maldonado that the Policy Committee has since “decided other districts have similar wording, so they didn’t feel that it was an issue that needed to be brought to the (entire) board.”

 

Scull, who has either opposed or critically questioned a number of the administration’s positions, and demanded that many of the grievances brought to the board during the last school year be looked into further, pointed out that “we never had that kind of an issue” (in which employees faced being held in contempt) after staffers chose to bring their concerns to the board.

 

“Yes, some administrators might get upset with some of the staff and be at their door the next day, but I still feel they have every right to come and express their concerns here without having a concern they will be labeled ‘insubordinate,’ which could really cause them to be terminated from their position,” Scull declared.

 

Maldonado, who revealed the policy at issue is #1100, maintained in response that the “Policy Committee felt there was nothing wrong with that policy and we were in agreement with keeping it within the manual.

 

Board President Tom Bauer added that when it comes to board committee decisions, “if the majority agrees,” that is “what goes.”

 

But Scull retorted that “it is ‘board’ policy,” putting an emphasis on the word ‘board,’ and pointed out the elected public body as a whole comprises of nine members (versus the reported two or three board members who may sit on a committee).

 

“And there might be five board members who don’t agree with it,” Scull contended. “I understand about the committee and that there is a great desire to support our superintendent, but sometimes things need to be questioned.”

 

Maldonado, in defending the decision of the Policy Committee, declared that she can “guarantee you this Policy Committee takes policy very seriously,” maintaining that “90 percent of the districts have this same language” in their policy.

 

“But it doesn’t make it right!” quipped Scull in response Maldonado, who recently lost a GOP mayoral primary bid to Jack Tompkins amid controversy surrounding the grading and recording of board meetings policies.

 

Vicki Adams, a grandmother and district employee who previously decried the “no-zero” grading policy and spoke of its adverse impact on her granddaughters, and took Havers to task both at school board meetings and online, also creating a petition to have the grading policy overturned, declared in response to what she observed, “It is something I told you guys before, you guys are his boss (while pointing her finger at Havers), he is not yours!”

 

“(Who cares) what another school district does – this is ‘our school district;’ we do not have to follow what other school districts do!” Adams further declared. “You are his boss! Just because he may like something, does not mean you have to follow it!”

 

A recently retired school employee, in also speaking out, pointed out that she didn’t even know there was a “chain-of-command” policy in place.

 

Havers, in response, called it a “good point,” and explained that he “met twice” with Rob Horn, president of the Pemberton Township Education Association, and reviewed the district’s “organizational chart,” as well as impressed upon him to make teachers aware of the items.

 

“There are a lot of policies, so maybe somebody doesn’t know of that policy, so the first time you talk to somebody, and show them the policy, and say, ‘Here is the policy, you need to honor the policy,” Havers maintained. “That would always be the first response. If it is blatant, and you know somebody knows the policy, that is different.”

 

Adams also contended that she just learned of what essentially amounts to a “new school uniform policy,” maintaining that after reading it, “it is almost like you should have a school uniform, and not a dress code.”

 

She decried the policy for “being specific about what you can wear – especially what girls can wear.”

 

“You are taking away leggings, and I wear them all the time,” she said. “I have seen women in the municipal building wearing leggings. There is nothing wrong with leggings.”

 

A board policy did not appear, however, on the agenda pertaining to student dress code. Rather, in response to Adams, Havers explained to the board and attendees that dress code “regulations,” as he put it, “have been in place for quite some time,” but recently the district “put it in writing” because officials “felt there was a need to improve attire in school.” He contended that some students have been wearing hoodies while they are in school, for example.

 

“… Strict adherence to a dress code is a change for us, and those changes often need to be incremental,” the superintendent declared.

 

However, “realistically,” Haver acknowledged, “we need to make changes” to the regulations, further explaining that he “got feedback from the principals” who had “concerns, specifically about leggings.”

 

“That is something I am considering removing from the regulations and we can reassess it next year,” he said. “But that is something probably to be removed based on the feedback that I got, and based on the fact that a lot of other things I think we need to improve upon in our dress code, that are probably more significant, more important.”

 

Board Member Sheri Lowery, who has also at times been critical of the administration and questioned various positions of top officials, thanked the superintendent for agreeing to review the policy, pointing out she was wearing leggings during the latest session.

 

As for the controversial no-zero policy that Havers defended in the past, but has left Board Member Robert “Pete” King calling for its reversal, there continues to be indications that some sort of change might be in the offing.

 

Lowery, in mentioning the policy, pointed out that the board’s Grading Committee recently “worked on that” by meeting with staff from both the middle and high schools.

 

After “teachers came together, worked hard and debated the issues based on the needs of the students,” she said, there was a discussion about “Formative Assessments versus Summative Assessments,” with the teachers deciding it was best to move ahead with “collaborative” forms of assessments.

 

“Nobody is ever going to be happy,” she said. “But my thing is, we want to give our students a chance, and want to work with it and get feedback on what works for our students in the district and how to get the kids to be successful.”

 

The teachers coming to the board meetings and speaking out, however, appears to be having an even greater impact, with Lowery also announcing action has now been taken with respect to a point recently raised by one educator about how Pemberton was using an eight-point scale, all while surrounding districts were using a 10-point scale.

 

“We are going to go to a 10-point scale because the districts surrounding us are all doing 90 to 100 (as an ‘A’ letter grade versus 92 to 100),” Lowery announced. “This is another thing we (the Grading Committee) came up with, to stay aligned with our sister schools helping our students.”

 

When someone asked if the changes to the grading policy was on the agenda for the full board to consider, Havers replied that they were a “discussion item” of the Grading Committee with the “details on the committee’s agenda.”

 

“Technically, it is not as much of a policy as it is a procedure,” Havers added.



Source link

Other Articles

spot_img

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

spot_imgspot_img