What would be best for Bella Vista students?
By Judy La Russa
During last month’s regular meeting of the Bella Vista Elementary School District Board of Trustees on Dec. 8, 2004, Superintendent Tim Shannon reveled that the Board had voted three to two during a special closed session meeting on Dec. 6 not to renew his contract for the 2005-6 school year.
On the agenda for this month’s regular meeting of the Board of Trustees on Jan. 12, 2005 was an action item listed; report and discussion regarding possible revision of District Administration.
This addendum came after a meeting at the school campus, which occurred between Trustees Gordon Lemke and Lisa Siem and school staff on Jan. 4. During this meeting the school group voiced their concerns to the trustees about the direction the school was going after the non-renewal of Dr. Shannon’s contract. During the meeting there was a request for the two trustees to make up a letter that would be sent home to parents asking their opinion on “What they believe would be the best for our students”. The letter is as follows:
Dear Parents: On our meeting at 6:00 p.m on January 12, 2005 the Board of Trustees is expected to discuss and decide on whether or not to retain our current Principal/Superintendent administrative configuration or realign it by employing a part-time or shared Superintendent with a full-time Principal. Your input is always helpful in making these decisions and we would appreciate it if you would take a minute to respond to the following: In your opinion, what do you believe would be the best for our students:
- Stay with the current Principal/Superintendent configuration,
- Hire a part-time Superintendent and a full-time Principal,
- Hire a shared Superintendent (1/2 time) and a full-time Principal
Please return this survey to Suzanne Kofford, school secretary, by Tuesday, Jan. 11, 2003.
Thank you,
Gordon Lemke, Board President
Lisa Siem, Board Member
One hundred and four parents responded to the survey. Fifty-four favored the first option; 28 preferred the second, and 16 chose the third. One parent did not select any choices given due to being new to the school.
A full house of Bella Vista parents, teachers, and staff came to Wednesday night board meeting. In the room were supporters of Dr. Shannon who wanted him to remain as the current Principal/Superintendent and people who were in favor of a change to a full-time Principal with part-time Superintendent.
This discussion of the issue at hand began with Board President Lemke reading an overview statement on the possible reorganization of administration. His statement read:
I would like to briefly relay some background related to possible re-organization of the District Administration. The idea of hiring a full-time principal along with either a part-time or shared superintendent arose in 2000. Although the board had preliminary discussions with one school district, it was determined, at that time, any move in that direction was not prudent.
As of February 2004, the Board has requested that an item be placed on the monthly board agendas allowing time for discussion of the possible re-configuration of the administration. As per Board’s request Dr. Shannon has provided job descriptions detailing Principal and Superintendent duties. These have been included in the packets along with job descriptions from other Districts.
The Board called a community meeting and had Carol Whitmer, Superintendent of Shasta Co. Office of Education, speak on the benefits and problems with various administrative configurations. In some schools the full-time Principal, part- time or shared Superintendent model has not worked well. It is my understanding that in other districts this configuration has been beneficial, examples included the Weed and Mt. Shasta partnership, Weaverville Elementary and the partnership the Redding School District has with Igo-Ono, French Gulch, and Shasta Elementary Districts.
In order to be as best prepared as possible, and to provide the rest of the board members with additional information for them to make a decision, I contacted and spoke with two Superintendents that I heard might be interested in a part-time or shared Superintendent position. The point of these discussions was an attempt to gauge the interest level, at least in the local area, that would allow us to change to this type of model. I cannot report to the Board and community that it is my opinion there is a possibility that a change to a part-time or shared Superintendent with a full-time Principal configuration could be accomplished. Recently, Lisa and myself met with some of the staff to discuss issues related to any change to the current Superintendent/Principal configuration. It appears that many of the staff would prefer we continue the present configuration and immediately begin the search for a new Superintendent/Principal. Another point that was strongly voiced, was their utmost concern the staff be included not only in the process of hiring of a full-time Principal, but be equally active in the employment of a part-time or shared Superintendent if this is the type of configuration that is approval. As a result of our discussion my opinion was changed and I agree with the staff that their participation in the Superintendent hiring process would be beneficial. The staff also emphasized the need to find, regardless of the type of administrative configuration, individuals who will be a “good fit” and will respect the values and traditions of our school.
Along with finding individuals who are a “good fit” for our school, we must also deal with the costs. Any decision must also make good financial sense.
After the statement was read comments/questions were taken from the spectators. Fourth grade teacher Nikki Manning expressed her concerned that the board was not working together but as individuals. Then site-council member and parent Derek Willis asked, “What is the reason you are moving in this direction?” Trustee Lemke then read an opinion written by him explaining why district reorganization is needed. He said he felt that it would greatly benefit the students and that he has listened to all side on the issue and as a board member for the last six years it was his opinion that the duties of the Superintendent/Principal are too great for one individual to handle effectively. Lemke continued, “As we all know, the demands on educators, whether they are teachers, classified, or administrative, has greatly increased over the last few years. It is my view that the duties of the Principal are so important, so critical to the education of our children, that it requires the devotion by one highly qualified person.” Lemke then went on to list some benefits of having a full-time Principal.
Another parent then asked if all the members had these same opinions and then requested that each member give his/her response to the same question asked by Willis. Trustee Siem began her statement by saying how much she loves Bella Vista School but would like to see some changes. “Things are just not working as they used to,” said Siem and then adds. “API scores are dropping and the Superintendent jobs are becoming more work. With the combined Superintendent/Principal something is going to suffer. I want a full time Principal available for the staff and students.”
Trustee Dan Terzian answered the question by saying, “We need a one and one half person, if it is a full time Principal with part time Superintendent or shared Superintendent.” Terzian commented that he thought at one time this would be a cost efficient move, but later found out that was not going to be the case.
Trustee Andrea Williams said that she was in agreement with the rest of the board members and wanted to see a full-time Principal.
Trustee Heidi Silva started her statement with “I want to begin with a rumor that has been going around. In my job I have been promoted to LA, but my children will remain at Bella Vista until I relocate them in June. I will be here two times a month and will attend the board meetings, unless I forget.” Silva then said that she is in favor of a full-time Principal. She also said that she, too, is frustrated with the scores that are dropping. “Two employees have to be the way for separation between these two positions. Even though I am leaving, this is my wish,” said Silva.
Parent Rick Sherman made a statement to the board. “I want to talk about change.” He said that after reading the duties of the Principal and of the Superintendent (a packet of duties was provided to those in attendance), “The accountability issue comes up because the principal specific duties have to deal with teachers.” He then made reference as to why teachers would not like to have a full-time Principal. Teacher Teri Minor then made a comment about how offensive his comment was to her. “Dr. Shannon is always welcome to my classroom and he has been in there numerous times.”
Another parent stood up to say that he was in favor of two separate individuals because when there was a problem at school concerning his child, he felt he could not get satisfaction and there was no one else he could go to. Then on the other side of the issue, another parent felt that the Board said that they were in favor of what was best for the staff, but wouldn’t listen to the staff.
Willis then asked the board to consider that if they were to go with a shared superintendent, he/she would be dealing with two boards. “It would be like keeping track of two businesses.” He suggested they consider hiring a Principal/Superintendent and a shared assistant Principal. Trustee Siem said, “They would put it out there and we will have to see if that applicant fits.”
Trustee Lemke then moved that the Bella Vista School District begin the hiring process for a part-time Superintendent or pursue a partnership with another District for a shared Superintendent along with the hiring of a full-time principal, based on the following conditions: 1) These individuals are a “good fit” for our school and community and will respect the values and traditions of our area. 2) The Bella Vista staff and parents will be actively included with the Board in the selection process. 3) Any selection makes good financial sense. 4) If it is determined that the above model is not beneficial a search for filling the Superintendent/Principal position start immediately. The motion was passed unanimously.
Dr.Shannon later presented a letter to the Board and to those few who stayed after the motion had been passed. The letter read:
I would like to give my opinion of the controversy surrounding the “reconfiguration of the administration.” The clause has been added to my report, at the request of the Board, since February 2004. Many times I was asked to submit information to the Board, which I supplied, and then nothing appeared to happen. I have never been consulted about what would be best for our school district on this matter. I have nothing for me to believe except that there are members of this Board who have one agenda alone—to move me out of the position.
I was given a scathing evaluation last January. It criticized my Friday letters to the Board. The “Board” or at least two Board members decided that the letters they were receiving were inadequate. The letter I received with the evaluation had certain directives about providing the Board with more information in a Friday letter. I have never had this request or any negative comments for either Board Member about the Friday letter until my evaluation. The directive was complied with immediately. There were no other significant issues in the evaluation.
I was told whenever I asked about my contract renewal that they needed to wait until December. I was given no feedback about the improvements, which were requested, nor were there any comments pro or con about my performance as Superintendent/Principal. I was asked to provide the Board with a format to use for my 2004 evaluation, and before I had the evaluation I was told that the Board was not going to renew my contract and that I was being given the opportunity to resign. I chose not to resign because of specific issues that I needed to resolve within myself about my performance. I feel that I have done the best job that I can do under the circumstances and that this school District deserves the consistency of leadership to bring this district forward. I believe that I have the qualifications to make this determination. I believe that there are others who feel that it is to the detriment of our District to change leadership at this critical time.
Everyone can be replaced – Thomas Sergiovani has said that schools need Students and Teachers and that’s all – I believe this is true. Why do Board members think that they can do something “that will be better” for teachers when the teachers believe to the contrary. The issue has always been “get rid of Shannon” not reconfigure the administration for the betterment of our District. I think that they are wrong and I will continue to serve this District to best of my ability until the end.
Thank you, Tim
