The Role of a Building Leader as the "Supervisor" of Professional Staff

By Michael J. Julka, Attorney, Boardman Clark

INTRODUCTION

Principals and associate principals, as building leaders, are generally directly involved in the utilization of the Wisconsin Educator Effectiveness process to evaluate teachers, thereby fulfilling their statutory requirements to evaluate these personnel in the first year and at least every third year thereafter. The Department of Public Instruction encourages the use of the Educator Effectiveness system as a learning-centered model for professional staff member growth and development. In addition, many building leaders are directly involved in more informal coaching and mentoring of teachers to improve the ultimate goal of student achievement.

However, there are frequently instances when the building principal or associate principal determines that formalized evaluation or coaching/mentoring systems will not effectively directly address professional staff performance or conduct. It is in those instances when the building leader must put on a different “hat” and become the “supervisor” of the professional staff member and play, in many respects, an entirely different role from that of professional development. This article will address the important role of a building leader as a “supervisor” when being such is appropriate and necessary.

THE “TRIGGERS” OF A SUPERVISORY ROLE

From my perspective as legal counsel to school boards and districts in Wisconsin, the three primary “triggers” that bring about the conversion to a supervisory role are:

• Allegations of misconduct by the professional staff member, including allegations of off duty misconduct

• Assessment of circumstances in the building or department that indicate that the professional staff member is a “bad fit” and is not comporting with the culture of the building or department

• Despite attempts via the Educator Effectiveness procedures and whatever related coaching/mentoring may be provided, the professional staff member has repeatedly failed to meet expectations as set forth by the performance rubrics

Any one of these three “triggers” (or a combination thereof) requires the applicable principal or associate principal to engage in direct follow-up with the teacher to address the circumstance and either bring resolution to it or closure to it. In essence, any one or more of the above “triggers” puts the continued employment of the teacher at issue and puts the building leader in the supervisor role that responds to the circumstance.

INITIAL STEPS

When faced with being placed in the role of a “supervisor,” one of the first things that a building leader should do is assemble the potentially relevant documents that set forth the expectations and standards applicable under the particular circumstance. For example, in almost every instance, the employment contract, Employee Handbook, job description, board policies, and standards set forth in the Educator Effectiveness rubric are fundamental to moving forward. These documents likely contain not only substantive standards that may be applicable, but also procedures that are dictated to be utilized in the particular circumstance. For example, if the “trigger” is an allegation of off-duty misconduct, it is likely that board policy and/or the Employee Handbook set forth investigation procedures that may be applicable. In addition, if the continued employment of the teacher is at issue, the Grievance Procedure that the school board has approved for the district should be reviewed so that any standards for “discipline” or “termination” are known on the front end of the process that the supervisor will be following. One of the advantages of assembling these documents on the front end is the ability to then utilize them in structuring all of the applicable elements that they bring into the process, rather than reviewing them sequentially during the process in which case missed procedural steps could have already occurred.

The second recommended action is for the principal and/or associate principal to review the employment history of the teacher, including the teacher’s employment file, evaluations, and related documentation that may provide a backdrop for what is currently under consideration.

Finally, the supervisor should at this point in time make a focused determination that thorough documentation will be essential in dealing with the performance, conduct, or “fit” issues which are under consideration. Personal notes are generally not subject to the Public Records Law, so there should be consideration of the consequences of sharing personal notes with anyone else in the process.

ACTION STEPS

If the circumstance that has brought about the supervisory role is governed by a policy or procedure, the building leader should immediately review and prepare to comport with that procedure. In some instances, that may involve investigation procedures (e.g., review of documents, interviewing of witnesses, etc.); if the “trigger” is conduct that requires mandatory reporting (e.g., child abuse) or potential criminal allegations, the supervisor should be very aware of the mandated procedures associated therewith, including requirements that give appropriate warnings to the teacher (e.g., Garrity warning related to self-incrimination). Finally, in instances where the teacher will be interviewed in such a way that the teacher perceives that his or her job security is at risk, the teacher has a right to representation at such an interview.

In almost all instances of any follow-up by a building leader in the instances which are being discussed herein, the building leader will have personal interactions with the teacher, particularly to understand the teacher’s perspective on whatever is being subjected to this shift to supervision.

Those conversations are essential to the building leader understanding the perspective of the teacher, but also the potential for additional context to whatever is being reviewed. The best decisions going forward are almost always the product of the best assembly of facts, perspective, and context against which the district’s standards are then applied.

OPTIONS

When the building leader is comfortable that he or she has established a base line of understanding the circumstances involved in the consideration of the teacher’s continued employment, there are multiple options for the building leader to consider, all dependent upon the circumstances:

• A Letter of Expectation or Warning regarding performance or conduct is certainly an option in the appropriate circumstance.

• If some form of disciplinary action is appropriate, it may be imposed in a manner consistent with policy and Employee Handbook provisions, including the potential requirement in the district that progressive discipline be utilized whenever possible. Progressive discipline should be formalized with a letter that lays out the circumstances and the discipline, but also warns of the consequences of repetition or failure to respond positively.

• If it is determined that whatever has “triggered” the supervisory role is remediable when individually considered on a per teacher basis, a Professional Improvement Plan is certainly an option which, if properly applied and responded to by the teacher, may bring a positive resolution to the entire circumstance.

• There are circumstances where a Last Chance Agreement may be the appropriate resolution. Such an agreement lays out the prohibited conduct or deadline for expectation of the expected performance and sets forth the mutually agreeable result of termination of employment if the Agreement is not complied with.

• There are instances where the degree of “bad fit,” misconduct, or failure to meet expectations does generate a recommendation of termination (or nonrenewal) of the teacher’s contract. If such is the case, resignation from employment should be provided to the teacher as an option.

CLOSURE

Depending upon which of the above options is instituted, there are instances where the building leader has the authority to take dispositive actions at the building level. In other instances, depending upon the authority delegated via board policy or job descriptions, the action that is necessary may require involvement of the district administrator. In such instances, the building leader will in almost all instances make a report to the district administrator and include in that report a recommendation for the action to be taken. Depending upon the consequences under consideration, due process or other procedural considerations may be involved.

Finally, if nonrenewal or termination of contract (or, in some instances, if suspension without pay) is the recommended action, the board must take such action. Again, contracts, policy, statutes, and any applicable due process must be complied with.

CONCLUSION

This article is intended solely to provide a framework for the supervisory role that building leaders are often called to assume. It is by no means comprehensive. It is not uncommon in circumstances that give rise to questions about the continued employment of a teacher for the supervisor or the district administrator to consult with legal counsel as to all of the applicable legal, procedural, substantive, and professional aspects that may be involved. Doing so at the appropriate point of the process may assist in de-escalating the circumstance under consideration and avoiding the teacher’s allegations of harassment by the building leader as the building leader carries out its role in the process. Finally, it may also help avoid the utilization of the Grievance Procedure by the teacher. In the end, as always, the goal of everything under consideration in this article is the opportunity for improved academic performance by the affected students.