home | contact | faq

action items

The issue of involuntary teacher and staff transfers between grades and schools was front and center at the June 21 Readington school board meeting due to the alarming number of changes implemented at last minute of the end of this school year. Other personnel issues that have long been simmering also came to a boil, not the least of which is the tyrannical management style of certain staff supervisors. With over twenty members of the public and even some of those affected by the changes offering comment, it was a long night. In this article we will examine some of the underlying standards, values and thought processes that are the basis for administrative and managerial behavior that can only be described as appalling. We’ll review what has happened and we will attempt to answer why it is happening.

Perhaps the most emotionally charged point during the June 21 meeting was when Julie Nealon, now a former employee of the district, stood up and asked for her blemished professional reputation to be restored. She related the unpleasant circumstances surrounding her “RIFing” (Reduction In Force) by Director of Pupil Services Jim Gillock during the final weeks of school. Jim, who is now retired, was charged by Julie with giving her a poor evaluation based not on fact but on whim and with inserting a disciplinary report into her personnel file indicating that she should never be hired by the district again. Julie also noted that Jim had trouble remembering her name. Apparently all that brain based research and biofeedback has not helped Jim with his long term memory.

Mr. Gillock’s behavior came up frequently during the meeting, and when it was suggested during public comment time that an investigation be opened to hold him accountable for his actions, the idea was met with long applause.

This one exchange raises some of the questions we need to address. Aside from the tyrannical behavior exhibited by Mr.Gillock itself, why is it that such a management style is tolerated in our district at all? What effect does such a style have on culture and on morale?

The questions only multiply when the other hot subject of the night is considered. The number of involuntary teacher and staff transfers to other grades and schools is astounding. As members of the public stood up to protest the moves, the mood turned uglier. Though two board members, Rick Finn and Joanne Sekella, made their own effort to prevent the approval of involuntary transfers on the meeting agenda until a greater understanding could be had, their effort failed and they were outvoted. One could see in the stiffening backs and tightened lips of many other board members their refusal to even consider an alternate route from that given to them by the superintendent. For her part, Irene Benfatti defended the moves as a necessary part of running a district, an opportunity to allow professional growth, and a “paradigm shift” for the district. But, alas, lead balloons do not float.

Members of the public relentlessly ferreted out the inconsistencies in the superintendent’s defense of the moves. Why, for example, do the bulk of the transfers occur only in one or two schools if the idea is to spread around talent and provide opportunity for growth? As midnight approached, one could begin to see the true outline of the superintendent’s plan beneath the bright fabric façade worn thin by repeated wear.

Management textbooks, using the labels first offered by MIT professor Douglas McGregor, describe two opposing management theories to college students: theory X and theory Y.  In the early nineteen hundreds, industrial engineering practice and “scientific” management came of age. Job tasks were broken down into components, standardized and timed by the second. Authoritarian, top-down management style with linear thinking as the basis for decision-making was the norm. This style is loosely referred to as “theory X” management. By contrast, “theory Y” management style is marked by a focus on human relations, collaborative group effort, psychological well-being, and self-direction. Instead of the linear thinking of theory X where a problem exists with a single cause and a single solution, theory Y management recognizes systems thinking where problems are embedded in an environment and a solution requires analyzing both intended and unintended consequences. This is Management 101. Using the theory X and theory Y framework, we are better able to understand the basis for some of these personnel decisions.

The true plan of our superintendent is not to offer new worlds to our teachers by forcing them to move to other grades and buildings like a mother bird pushing her young off the branch to fly. Our superintendent did, finally, recognize a real problem in our schools as illustrated by the now infamous “cancer” article on this website. We can assume that she sincerely wants to fix the problem. In strict theory X fashion, however, she has made the mistake of using linear thinking and authoritative decisions to solve the issue and then she has compounded that error by presenting an implausible explanation for the decisions.

Whitehouse School, clearly the building with the deepest issues, is the best example. While no organization or work environment is perfect, only a little over a year ago Whitehouse School was a desirable place to work with relatively happy teachers, a cohesive and collegial atmosphere, and a principal who practiced collaborative management in his building. When—for reasons still not publicly understood—that principal was forced out, a potential problem was created. At the start of this school year only one or two staff members were moved into Whitehouse School so the staff was largely the same. Yet, all hell broke loose. The new principal hired to replace the one forced out did not help matters and was obviously a poor fit for the job. Why is it that a change of one principal and a couple of teachers has made for such a dramatic decline? What now is our superintendent’s goal?

A theory Y superintendent would see Whitehouse School as a number of intertwined problems set in an unhealthy environment internally and a volatile environment externally. Using systems thinking, a theory Y superintendent would examine the intended and unintended consequences of decisions designed to restore normality to the school. A theory X superintendent, on the other hand, would simply see a bad mix of teachers who need to be broken up and moved, with little regard for the consequences. That, in a nutshell, is the plan of our superintendent. Will it work? Well, that depends on the definition of success.

Certainly the new principal and vice principal tapped to run Whitehouse school next year are capable and promising people who appear to have a more nuanced understanding of staff management than the previous pick. And, transferring warring factions to other buildings may alleviate the one problem of in-fighting. However, the unintended consequences are left to foment new trouble. Teachers are not production tooling—they are real people who have their own desires and their own options. Forced to move to an unwanted position, some will leave the district, some will suck it up and get through it, and some will help cultivate discontent in their new environment. Parents and residents who have already indicated their displeasure with previous decisions, and who already distrust the administration, will burn even more brightly with this new fuel. These unintended consequences will, at a very minimum, prolong the process of healing.

A theory Y superintendent would have approached the Whitehouse school problem differently, seeing the in-fighting issue in the context of the previous history there and the current management there. A solution offered by a theory Y superintendent might have been to install the same new principal and vice principal, but then to give those new managers a chance to fix the problem collaboratively. During the June 21 meeting when Rick Finn suggested tabling the first motion to transfer a teacher he was attempting to give theory Y management a chance.

Now let us pan our camera out of Whitehouse School and show the larger picture. Theory X management mentality helps explain a lot of administration and school board behavior and values. When the district is viewed as a series of distinct and independent issues, when progress is understood to be the result of breaking down tasks into standardized components, and when authoritarian direction is thought to be the key to staying on track, the choices our school leaders make are predictable, automatic and devastating. Teachers are interchangeable production tooling. They are moved at will and homogeneous Stepford teaching is promoted through the use of paint-by-numbers curriculum. Students are serial numbered production units. Student progress is measured by simplistic standardized test scores and students are tracked into neat categories based on those scores. Stakeholder discontent is the result of poor discipline and unprofessional conduct. Decisions will be made privately, held close to the vest, and dispensed on a need-to-know basis. The superintendent is the top dog, and the school board members must support her without question and with one unified voice.

Our superintendent and many members of our school board are theory X’rs. Lacking a more subtle understanding of collaborative management and techniques for reflective discussion they simply push colleagues and stakeholders where they think they should go. Seeing teachers as technicians or workers rather than intellectuals and professionals they limit teacher discretion, disregard their expert opinions, and train them to take direction efficiently. Missing the interrelated nature of district problems, they blame parents and reporters for grandstanding and calling attention to the mess. Faced with direct questions about their decisions, their response is to close ranks and try to lull the worker-ants back into their lethargic routines with fanciful stories.

At the June 21 school board meeting our superintendent did agree to investigate the recent behavior of Jim Gillock. She also asked for patience and some respect for her decisions. What she needs to learn in order to be successful is that patience and respect are things that are given based on performance. One can earn these things but one cannot ask for them. Our problems are embedded in a complex environment. The grandstanding she accused another board member of performing will stop when the whole environment is addressed. Our school leaders must come around to theory Y.