APS to test administrative theory at RGHS

There is an old saw that goes like this;

"There is no one of us as smart as all of us."

It serves as the basis for one of the most fundamental tenets
of decision making;

involve stakeholders in decision making
that affects their interests.

At Rio Grande High School then, it could be argued,
the best decision making model would allow stakeholders
to participate meaningfully in the process.

The leadership of the APS has a different take;

there is no group of stakeholders, no matter how large,
that is smarter than the "right" administrator.

Rather than empower stakeholders, they will continue their
search for the "right" administrator.

This will be his third stab at finding the "right" administrator for the job at RGHS.

In the selection of the new permanent principal, Brooks will pretend to empower stakeholders. According to the Journal, link;

"As for parent involvement, Brooks said the district will form an interview committee of parents, teachers, students and district administrators."

Sounds like empowerment doesn't it?

It is followed by, what teachers call, the weasel clause.
After the "selection process" he will appoint whomever
he wants. All he has to do is to ask for a list of candidates
long enough to include his choice.

Every rule or regulation that the leadership of the APS writes, that empowers stakeholders, contains a weasel clause that revokes the empowerment at the whim of any administrator.

The most infamous example of the weasel clause can be found in the APS Student Behavior Handbook. The handbook has within it; Mandatory Minimum Consequences. They represent the district's commitment to teachers that, if teachers will accept the burden of enforcement of the school and district's discipline policies (actually an administrative responsibility), the miscreants will receive a consequence that is of some consequence. The teacher or staff member will not take a recalcitrant student to the office, only to see him/her immediately released with a warning that "if they do it again, there will be consequences!"

Too many administrators are loathe to enforce meaningful consequences upon even chronically disruptive students because those students and their parents, usually start making waves rather that accept the responsibility and the consequences for their misconduct.

So, they added to the handbook, a weasel clause which reads (in significant part)

Nothing in the following (the handbook, including the
"Minimum Mandatory Consequences) is intended to
prevent a principal or other administrator from using
his/her best judgment with respect to a particular situation.

There are minimum mandatory consequences except when
an administrator prefers to take a less bumpy path. Then,
their "best judgment" does not require explanation or
defense, and is not subject to review; it is simply their ""best" judgment".

When ever the leadership of the APS makes a promise, one is
well advised to look for the weasel clause, the one that reads,
we promise to do this unless we (administration) decide we
want to do something else instead.

Should there be any doubt that Brooks lacks respect for stakeholder sentiment; consider that he has come right out and told stakeholders that their 600 petition signatures (a huge number), did not move him to remove the embattled principal. It was instead, "... a whole combination of other things ..." (none specified) more important than stakeholder sentiment to moved him to his conclusion.

His latest appointment to the school, Asst Supt Linda Sink echoed his sentiments, link, saying; "It certainly wasn't because of the parents" that the former principal was finally removed.

So Brooks will use the "final decision" to appoint a principal
that is willing to spin the truth; APS' top appointment priority.

Community members will participate in process believing that they are part of the decision
making process, when in fact, Brooks will appoint whomever he wants.