The vote on the overhaul of Wake County's student discipline policies was delayed Tuesday over the tricky issue of who should hear recommendations for long-term suspensions.
Currently, a panel of three teachers reviews any recommendations for long-term suspensions that are made by the principal of their school. The principal appoints the panel, creating a potential conflict of interest.
A bill expected to be passed by the General Assembly would say that these panels could no longer consist of people from the child's school.
The question for Wake and other school districts is whether to still have panels or to turn the issue over to a hearing officer. This would mean one person would be charged with hearing these cases instead of some rotating panel of people.
It's a pretty important issue because the hearing officer or hearing panel can decide whether to uphold the principal's recommendation for a long-term suspension, reduce it to a short-term suspension or dismiss the case entirely.
In a district the size of Wake, you could have more than 1,000 cases to review annually.
School board attorney Ann Majestic said the policy changes were pulled off Tuesday's agenda until the board decides whether to go with a hearing officer or a hearing panel. She pointed out that logistically it's harder to do a hearing panel than to have a hearing officer.
School board member John Tedesco said he was "torn" about the issue. He said he can see the "functional side" of going with a hearing officer because it would be more "efficient."
But Tedesco said he's concerned that children would be "losing a broader collection of open minds" by not having a hearing panel. For instance, he said students could be affected by whether the hearing officer is in a bad mood or having a bad day.
Tedesco said he would want the board to have "serious conversations" before making a decision.
Majestic responded that it would be "a significant manpower issue" finding people to serve on the panels.
School board member Keith Sutton joined Tedesco in saying he was concerned about using a hearing officer.
Majestic said they could continue to have teachers serve on the panels by bringing them in from other schools. But she asked the board to "think of the logistic issues." She said that principals now already have problems getting enough of their teachers to serve on panels.
She said there would also be issues finding administrators who would be able to spend the time on hearing panels.
“It’s about people," Majestic said. "It’s about manpower.”
Tedesco asked about the possibility of contracting with an outside agency to find people to serve on the panels. Majestic said it's "feasible" but the question is whether it's "advisable."
The board is set to discuss the issue again on June 21. It would likely be handled in the work session before going to the regular meeting.
Comments
Can someone please explain
Thu, 06/09/2011 - 11:24 — openmindCan someone please explain something to me? Tata has just created two new jobs within central office. Tadesco is talking about contracting out for someone to deal with long-term hearings. I was under the impression that we as a county were in a budget crunch and were laying off a lot of people in the Wake County Public School System. So my question is simple...Where is this money coming from if we are cutting other positions?
Managing a budget -- even a
Thu, 06/09/2011 - 22:27 — woodstockManaging a budget -- even a tight one -- includes acquiring the necessary resources one needs to facilitate good decision making and the skill sets needed to move forward. So, it may even include getting rid of some folks (dead weight or folks without sufficient experience or knowledge) and hiring new folks that can provide what is needed.
Still questioning
Fri, 06/10/2011 - 07:10 — openmindPositions weren't eliminated to free up money for these positions. These positions were created after we heard about budget shortfalls and eliminating positions because of those shortfalls. Once again I ask, where is this money suddenly coming from, the money tree?
Can't comment on Mr. Tata's
Fri, 06/10/2011 - 10:51 — HJ2ss2Can't comment on Mr. Tata's decision in relation to the budget. It would make sense to fill these positions with someone who demonstrates critical thinking skills. Currently, I am unaware of anyone at the top, other than Mr. Tata, who has that capability.
Are you kidding? Do you
Fri, 06/10/2011 - 07:22 — woodstockAre you kidding? Do you really think these positions were just suddently dreamed up and not part of the budget planning process? It was assumed all along that Tata would bring in some hand-picked talent to assist him. Is your suggestion that Tata should not acquire the talent needed to build an effective adminstration with all the resources and expertise necessary? It is a billion dollar budget with a long list of moving parts. The positions you are talking about amount to only a tiny fraction of that budget.
"Old boys club"?
Sun, 06/12/2011 - 09:12 — Dove314You mean we're just hiring a new "Tony's club" in the central office to be masters of "Del's club" who haven't departed? Nothing like adding to the bureaucracy during a budget shortfall where WCPSS is otherwise laying off staff and reducing resources.
Huh? A recent report pointed
Sun, 06/12/2011 - 09:34 — woodstockHuh? A recent report pointed out how lean the WCPSS bureaucracy was, so I am not sure what you are referring to. Also, are you suggesting that a new Superintendent should not be able to bring in the talent they feel is necessary and that supports their vision? This happens everywhere, every time new leader steps in... in government and private industry. Having the right people in leadership is important... they are critial resources for moving forward in a new and better direction.
Should I go back
Sun, 06/12/2011 - 13:09 — Dove314Should I go back and dig out your previous posts on the blog about how WCPSS doesn't need any additional tax dollars because there was still more central office staff to be cut at WCPSS while retaining classroom staff? If the bureaucracy is "currently" so lean, then why the earlier (not very long ago) posts about it not being lean?
New talent
Sun, 06/12/2011 - 13:02 — Solon77No disagreement, a new CEO often makes changes, however they do not add to layers, they change out people and most of the time eliminate positions. Being lean is an on going process and is not a license to add back. By the way the senior staff has been this way for a number of years under Burns, are you saying Burns should have added these positions.
Uh...
Sun, 06/12/2011 - 15:43 — Bob_SconceSo, first of all, Tata has eliminated a number of central office positions.
The fact is that we don't really know what's going on from this blog post. I expect that he'll be making more changes in relatively new future. I don't think it makes sense to prejudge the end result based on one of the first few steps.
Where is the documentation?
Sun, 06/12/2011 - 18:17 — Dove314Can you point to the documentation regarding how many central services positions and at what salary grade have been cut? Given Solon's figures below, it appear to be between 950K and 1.2 million. If both individuals hired by Mr. Tata have salaries >= $100K, then ~15-20% or more of the cost savings from central office staff reductions were used to pay a couple of new people high up in the central office bureaucracy while individual school staff saw their pay reduced (by # days paid) or their job lost altogether.
Eliminate Central Office Positions
Sun, 06/12/2011 - 16:50 — Solon77Central Services Vacancies 173 $(1,285,836)
Central Services Clerical Positions 174 $ (954,900)
I don't see it as adding
Sun, 06/12/2011 - 14:11 — woodstockI don't see it as adding back, I see it as adding differently to restructure and refocus the organization.
As for Burns, there are so many things he "should have" done that it seems kind of pointless to single out any one thing.
Imagine
Sun, 06/12/2011 - 09:30 — Solon77Imagine if Del Burns asked for these positions. Do you think Woodstock would be trying to justify it through - it is a billion $ budget with moving parts. In the end Tata is responsible for student achievement and strategic direction of the district along with the board. Show me a business that adds a layer between the functional VPs and the CEO.
With regards to being a tiny fraction of the budget - the same could be said of the magnets, which Tata has determined to be a sound investment for the small amount of $ spent.
Who are the "VPs" you are
Sun, 06/12/2011 - 14:12 — woodstockWho are the "VPs" you are referring to? Is Hargens one? If so, it is pretty obvious she in on her way out. As for magnets, in many ways they represent the core of what is wrong... they highlight the often enormous program inequities that exist and how the challenges of low-income and many minority students are too often ignored as they struggle in the shadow of the privileged and affluent.
Not Kidding you...
Fri, 06/10/2011 - 13:52 — openmindIf he does not have an effective administration get rid of the people that are not being effective. He constantly refers to doing what he can to maintain things in the classroom. If that is the case don't make the cuts there and create new jobs. Eliminate people that are not be effective on your current administrative staff. If you take the "tiny fraction of that budget" you are talking about, I am willing those "new" salaries could equate to a several teaching positions or other positions that would help directly in the classroom. I am not that nieve to think that Tata didn't have this planned all along and not realize he is bringing in people from DC, but don't cut positions and in the same breath create new ones.
So....
Fri, 06/10/2011 - 14:09 — Bob_SconceIt could be that the organization is ineffective even though every person in the organization is effective.
In any case, he's already cut a bunch of folks from the Central Office. Should he has saved a few of those positions so he could cut them now?
...
Thu, 06/09/2011 - 03:20 — red_balloonNice. More progress in the march to defunct disciplinary standards. I wonder if any consideration is given to the teachers and other students.
Tedesco and Sutton's
Wed, 06/08/2011 - 10:15 — Eric_BTedesco and Sutton's concerns about having a single hearing officer who could be in a bad mood reminds me of this article I read recently:
When Lunch Is Served, So Is Justice
?
Wed, 06/08/2011 - 10:04 — Bob_SconceIf there's a problem getting people to volunteer for these positions, then pay them to do it.
The biggest problem I see isn't the number of people making these decisions, but their level of training in making these decisions. After all, most people have trouble evaluating only proffered evidence based on its merits. Pulling teachers from the student's school makes the problem worse -- they presumably know a lot about the situation, just from being in the school. And, they're likely to bring that knowledge into play, even if they're instructed not to.
The answer? Have each principal nominate ten teachers to form a central pool of potential hearing officers, train them appropriately, and then when there's a need for a hearing, select randomly from the pool, making sure that no pool member has advance knowledge of the situatiion. Then, pay them $200 for each hearing.
I understand that you ignore
Wed, 06/08/2011 - 22:44 — HJ2ss2I understand that you ignore my responses in hopes that it will ameliorate the problem. (My, in your opinion, senseless contributions to this blog)? I hope you will not find it offensive if I agree with your opinion regarding the competence of those making the decisions regarding long term suspensions.
What would you suggest regarding the training of individuals making the decisions? How do you train them to distance themselves from the "drama" in order to make an objective assessment? Given this is a school system and not a court of law, how do you train them to recognize extenuating circumstances and the fact that this decision could have a dramatic affect on their future as productive citizens vs another reason to become involved in criminal activity? I am in no way advocating leniency but am suggesting an approach that teaches responsibility for actions and consequences for behavior.