Doesn’t it sound appealing, practical and reflective of good management practice to provide more local flexibility in the face of unfunded mandates, increased academic accountability and shrinking school budgets? Of course it does; but, unfortunately, we must be careful what we ask for because it could be costly – for K-12, not the state. Providing increased flexibility to the school model without also recognizing the need to provide funding for important revisions to the SOQ can be used as a way to let politicians and other decision-makers off the hook. Many have already made it clear that they believe educators can do more with less so with additional flexibility they believe that you will not need to add staff, just move them around and push those extra papers aside. Politicians love this kind of policy – they have operated on this premise before – because it allows them to claim that they have “given” localities what they really need and pushes the fundamental issue of funding further into the background.
When the State Board of Education met in July to begin the year-long review of the SOQ, VASSP President Keith Perrigan reminded members that the Comprehensive Plan included that the Board would provide leadership to create safe and secure school environments. The State Board in 2003 proposed an increase in the number of assistant principals in the SOQ, in part because school safety is one of their major areas of responsibility. Included in the recommendations was an increased ratio from one AP for every 600 students to one for every 400 students. Currently, because of reductions in staff and low SOQ staffing requirements for AP’s, these positions are often split between schools, an ineffective and tedious practice.
In making its case to the General Assembly when proposing the increase, the Board noted that the demands and responsibilities of assistant principals have intensified based on a myriad of factors, including increased safety concerns, mandates attached to those concerns, the discrepancy between SOQ requirements and actual staffing practices in middle and high schools, as well as the increasing complexity of the principal’s role. It is essential that principals be allowed the time to be effective educational leaders in their schools, which makes it even more important that assistant principals deal with issues of safety, security, discipline and provide assistance with teacher evaluations/observations.
This will become increasingly important as the new evaluation criteria are instituted. Flexibility will not be the answer to the question of how to provide additional review, assistance and guidance to teachers during the evaluation process. That will require the continuity and professional support from assistant principals trained to work with principals to make the new evaluation system work.
When money is tight, it is more important than ever for politicians to prioritize, and it is critical that educators and the State Board support standards that are essential to student achievement. Local flexibility should be a given, not a gift, and should never be accepted as a substitute for standards that reflect local needs and best practice.
