Thought I'd start a new thread on contracts for school employees, since several have commented on this topic under the post on church services at LHS. Dennis said he believes rolling three-year contracts are common with superintendents in Oregon, but says he has not verified that. I would imagine he is correct, but would appreciate any knowledge other readers have on this. Again, I see this blog as a place for information exchange and respectful opinion sharing, not me having all the information or answers.
I can see how a rolling three-year contract could generally help a superintendent commit to a community, as being a superintendent is probably by nature, a contentious position and, regardless, we all like as much job security as we can get. Here's the way I could see that working if the superintendent is not meeting community needs: The school board becomes enough disgruntled with a superintendent to decide not to renew the three-year roll. So the superindentent has two years to find another job, or meet board expectations so that the following year, the two-year contract is renewed with another three-year contract, or another two-year contract, or is non-renewed and the superintendent has a year to find a new job.
The concept of needing to formally evaluate to decide whether to renew a contract seems odd, since it is a contract only for the set period of time. It seems like renewing it would be optional.
And does anyone know if a superintendent can legally break their contract and move to another district in the midst of a three-year contract? It seems like administrators take new jobs routinely, just like the rest of us. Do they all wait until the end of a rolling-three year period that rolls on perpetually, which would make it impossible for them to ever leave? I don't think most give three-year notice that they plan to leave, and then don't sign on each year for another three. This makes no sense. No one could ever leave a job if they were continually locked in to a three-year contract.
Can administrators break their contracts, but school boards must vote to continue them indefinitely unless they conduct a formal evaluation or they can be sued for not renewing a contract? Surely other school boards in Oregon have had a superintendent that no longer worked for them. How did those superintendents end up leaving those communities?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
It is one of the main JOBS of the School Board to formally evaluate the Superintendent.
anonymous -- I agree.
anonymous -- I agree
The main Job??? The main job for the school board is to make sure the children is getting the best education. Sure, the board can evaluate the Superintentent but it's a waste of time right now when the High School right now needs direction and needs to be more organized w/o all this interfence re: one man who only a handful of vocal people don't agree w/ the superintendent.
Can't we just all focus on working on the schools and their orgainzation skills? I mean these kids are counting on us to make this system work. How can we do this by fighting constantly with each other on this matter??
Getting rid of Robinson isn't going to fix any of our problems. I can guarantee you that you guys will find something else to argue about if he did leave.
Negativity doesn't work but finding solutions with what you have to work with will. Whoever the next superintendt may be in the coming years will be the same thing for your guys.
You will never agree w/ them. No matter who it is LEGALLY!!
Post a Comment