ISSUE ANALYSIS

Joshua Gignac
EA 748
Huron Valley Schools is located in Oakland County Michigan, and serves the communities of Commerce
Township, Highland Township, Milford, and White Lake. The district services just under 10,000 students, spans roughly
107 square miles and is made up of fifteen schools, including three high schools, three middle schools, and nine
elementary schools.
Like every school district in the state of Michigan, HVS is facing the issue of adopting, implementing, and
monitoring a pilot program for educator evaluations. This pilot will be rolled out in SY 2014-2015 and serve as a
foundation to build upon as we adapt and adjust to a more robust, nuanced evaluation system to be implemented upon
the expiration of our current CBA in August, 2015. Ultimately, the goal is to generate a model that is
collaboratively created, fair for all stakeholders, adheres to the primary function of providing a system that
uses professional practice and student growth to measure teacher efficacy, and in terms of professional
growth, serves as a light, not a hammer in supporting the continued professional development of Huron Valley
teachers.
Having been a teacher in the district for many years, and more recently a key stakeholder and parent,
reflecting on the social architecture that governs the district is more amorphous than the districts
organizational chart would suggest.
The District Organizational Chart as provided from the Human Resource department, is rather typical in
that the vertical configuration includes the community, the School Board, the Superintendent, Deputy
Superintendent, Assistant Superintendent, Executive Director of Human Resources, etc. Like most school
districts, these tend to be the major players in large scale decision making process such as closing buildings,
adopting new standardized assessments, contract negotiations, etc. Not found on the chart, is the Huron
Valley Education Association. As one of twelve school districts in Michigan with a full-time release president,
the HVEA has traditionally been a key-stakeholder in many initiatives the district has either brought forth or
pulled away from. Some of these initiatives include the passage of a recent non-homestead millage, the
adoption of the NWEA MAP test, and the soon to be rolled out INSPIRE U initiative aimed at increasing
professional learning opportunities for staff as well as building leadership capacity at all levels. With recent
changes to legislation making teacher evaluations a prohibited subject of bargaining, developing and
adopting a new evaluation system could feasibly be done by one administrator, in one room with little to no
insight from any additional outside sources. In most districts (including Huron Valley Schools), however, this is
not the case. The past three years have seen a reimagining of Huron Valley Schools, with laser-like focus on
relationship building, collaboration, and communication. As a low funded district, new leadership on all levels
recognizes that our greatest asset is each other human capital. Because of this change in culture, the
decision to engage in discussions (not bargain) for adopting a pilot evaluation program for the 2014-2015
school year began in 2012-2013 at the bargaining table, was overwhelmingly approved (ratified) in a recent
contract extension, was unanimously ratified with a 7-0 vote from the school board, and, at the behest of the
superintendent, is now in the process of being developed by an internal committee made up of the union
president, deputy superintendent, director of instructional services, and the executive director of human
resources.
In our district organizational chart is also a lateral structure that serves to provide clarity in oversight of
many of the middle management positions (principals, APs, supervisors, etc.). Peoples behaviors are often
remarkably untouched by commands, rules, and systems. Lateral techniques formal and informal meetings,
task forces, and committees pop up to fill that void. In Huron Valley, these lateral forms are less formal and
often sunset when task is complete. Although this structure offers more collaboration, communication and
specialization of skills, the process can often times be laborious, and consuming, however, collaboratively
developing the new evaluation system in a small committee or task force allows input from district leadership
at both the central office and labor levels. This will be crucial for the overall buy-in from those most affected
by the new system principals and those being evaluated. Greater transparency in the areas of intent and
rationale behind the new model, will lead to increased trust, specifically from those being evaluated.
Upon completion of a draft of the evaluation system, significant time should be spent by leadership
(district and union) explaining the structure of the new system, and more importantly, the why behind the
components of the system. Perhaps, and before final implementation, the model should first be introduced to
a broader group of stakeholders principals, associate principals, department chairs from all grade levels, and
possibly parent council leaders. Input should be considered from this larger group before ultimately deciding
on a final product to adopt for the 2014-2015 school year.
In viewing the issue of teacher evaluation implementation in Huron Valley Schools, one must first
understand what makes the district unique from neighboring districts. Huron Valley Schools is a district that
receives the least amount of per pupil funding the state provides. In 2012-2013, that amount was roughly
$6,986 per student. For 2013-2014, a slight increase of roughly $32 per pupil put HVS just over $7,000 per
pupil. When the state allocation of per pupil funding was at its peak, we received roughly over $7,400 per
pupil. Although, at that time, Huron Valley Schools was still among the lowest in the state, the $400 per pupil
difference meant more flexibility in programming, class sizes, resources, and compensation for employees.
Add to these numbers an average decrease of roughly 100 students per year over the past four years, and our
financial troubles are magnified. In 2011, these extremely difficult financial conditions led to the ratification of
a four year collective bargaining agreement containing concessions that took salaries back to 2001-2002
levels. Simultaneous, changes to health care and pension contributions brought many employees to the edge
of a financial precipice.
Ironically, changes in district leadership, including Executive Director of Human Resources and
superintendent, as well as changes to union leadership, brought a much needed breath of fresh air to the
human element of the district. Understanding that our greatest asset as an organization truly is our people,
renewed focus on communication and relational trust served to inject optimism into a largely optimistically
depleted workforce. More time was spent with central office leaders and board members listening to
concerns of the rank and file employees. Direction was provided with the guidance of a moral compass as
much as a fiscal compass. Communication, honesty and trust between key communicators have become
commonplace. Unexpectedly, attacks aimed at public education specifically funding have served to
galvanize our district rather than polarize us.
Enter the issue of adopting an evaluation system with heavy emphasis on student growth as a major
contributor to teacher effectiveness ratings. Human needs based on the conditions or elements in a workplace
allow people to survive and grow. In education, and moreover in Huron Valley Schools, the needs of
belonging, self-actualization, and personal intrinsic rewards are often nurtured by relationships with teacher
and student or teacher and parent. Sadly, lack of satisfaction in the workplace is commonly attributed to
manager (principal)/teacher relationships. Too often, top down mandates or directives are delivered in a way
that lack focus, clarity, purpose, and coherence to the schools mission, vision, values, and goals. Not
surprisingly, in order for the implementation of a new evaluation model to be successful this cannot be the
case!
With the adoption of a new model, principals are provided an opportunity to begin anew their
professional relationships with their staff. Increased attention can be focused on the common goals of
teaching and learning. Professional growth opportunities can be recognized and addressed via PLCs and school
improvement, potentially building teacher leadership capacity. What cannot be allowed is for the new
evaluation model to be used to undermine a system intended to support teacher growth, not affect
employability through effectiveness ratings. Considering the delicacy and potential volatility of teacher
evaluations, if not done carefully, thoughtfully, and in good conscience, previous years of the trust and
relationship building could be undone rather quickly.
The district must spend ample time training administration on how to use the new model. It would be
wise to include either department chairs or union representatives to be simultaneously trained. Clarity and
communication of purpose and practice must be well defined and consistent from building to building. Prior to
district wide implementation, a focus group of highly effective teachers could be used as hold harmless
participants in the model. Pitfalls as well as highlights of the model must be openly addressed, allowing for
changes in the tool prior to district wide implementation.
Lastly, the district and the union should be in unison in communicating a message that identifies key
talking points, specifically that the direction the state ultimately takes will greatly impact the districts
evaluation model moving forward. Most importantly, both parties mutually agree that it is in the best interest
of the employees (administration and teachers), students, and parents that we do our best to prepare our
instructional staff for a system that will undoubtedly include student growth as a major factor in determining
teacher effectiveness ratings. Continual collaboration will be essential to ensuring a smooth transition from
the prior evaluation model to the new.
In the arena of public education, most, if not all decisions are fraught with political agendas and special
interests, and too often hyperbole and chicanery. At the federal, state and local levels, funding invariably takes
center stage. Pro-education lobbyists and politicians often advocate for more resources both capital and
human. Conversely, those concerned with cutting budgets and providing tax relief argue that the government
overspends on education and, if educators and administrators could be more effective and efficient, more
could be done with less. This continual tension has led the battle to preserve and improve public education to
a proverbial tipping point. Extreme politicians have moved forward agenda-driven policies that receive very
little bi-partisan support. As resources become scarcer than ever, accountability standards reformists ramp up
their pressure on educators to do better; to improve test scores at all levels and ensure that, upon graduation,
all students are college or career ready. Add to these increased pressures, high stakes standardized tests
scores that greatly influence educators effectiveness ratings, and potentially, future employability, and the
stresses of being an educator in this current political arena become greater than ever before.
In considering the issue of adopting a fair, feasible, transparent teacher evaluation, its imperative to
take a long hard look at decisions and possible political ramifications of adopting such system. Because the
state has made teacher evaluations a prohibited subject of bargaining, the school district, in essence has carte
blanche in choosing a system to adopt. Although this is potentially the easiest path to choose, the district must
be aware of the potential damage that this decision could do to the inter and inner working relationship
between the union and the district. Beyond that, it makes sense to include union leadership in the discussion,
as many of our educators are instructional leaders and have valuable input that can make for a better, more
reliable system. Digging deeper than the actual adoption of the plan, it is more important to look at this
decision through a moral lens. The potential for developing an evaluation system that is misused (intentionally
or unintentionally) weighs heavy on both teachers and administrators. Huron Valley, more now than in years
past, prides itself on treating people fairly and ethically, and has worked to create a community of trust and
openness. In short, the current leadership is guided by a strong moral compass that has helped to lead us
through some of the most troubling financial times in decades. This ethical approach to leadership has
galvanized major political factions of our district (parent groups, administration, school board, and union).
The instructional leadership of Huron Valley schools should work collaboratively with teacher union
representatives and building administrators to develop an evaluation system that serves to promote
professional growth across all levels. While too often, differing political factions have divergent interests, for
this decision, the interest to produce a fair, feasible, transparent evaluation system is universally accepted by
all parties. A commonly agreed upon charge should be developed by the group. The charge should continue
to support the current ethical and moral values the district and union have worked hard to establish:
openness, fairness, respect, honesty, and communication
Prior to the implementation of the pilot system, training should be provided to administrators.
Feedback and communication throughout the year should be fruitful and frequent. The district, the school
board, the community, and the union share a common desire to support the professional growth of our
teachers, translating to increased student achievement district wide. Data collected from teacher evaluations
should be used for this purpose.
In developing the district evaluation model, it is important the district continue the tradition of hands-
on value driven decision making. In continuing the themes of positive relations and celebration, it will be
important that the pilot is touted as a collective victory in collaboration. Focus should be given to the fairness
and transparency of the plan and how the system maintains the integrity of whats at the core of how we
operate as a district relational trust. It would be wise to have both union and district leadership present the
plan to the School Board. This will continue to send a message of collaboration and togetherness not just to
district employees but to the entire community as well.
Beyond the year of the pilot program, it will be crucial for Huron Valley Schools to adhere to the basic
principles that for years have been symbolic of the district. Huron Valleys most valuable resource is, and has
always been the people. As resources grow scarcer and pressures from external sources mount, educators
will undoubtedly need continued support from coworkers and administrators, parents, and the community. If
evaluations are not performed with fidelity and integrity, but instead are used as a means to place less
effective teachers on lay-off, or worse to terminate, without giving them the time, effort, and support,
needed to improve, our entire district - students, educators, and ultimately the community - will suffer.







































BOLMAN AND DEAL: REFRAMING ORGANIZATIONS 1









REFRAMING ORGANIZATIONS: BOLMAN AND DEAL
Josh Gignac
EA 740