Accountability should be a key component in measuring the
success, or lack thereof, of this new position
When it comes to the wisdom of the school district’s decision to hire a grant writer/public relations employee, the devil’s in the details.
The Gilroy Unified School District has hired Teri Freedman, a former teacher, to fill the position that offers an annual salary of up to $78,120.
It’s hard to quibble with the decision to seek grant money. If a grant writer can cover their own salary a few times over and handle some other important duties, then it’s a win-win situation assuming the grant money is put to effective use.
But our main caution is that the board and administrators must establish objectively measurable standards for success as part of evaluating job performance.
In the current written job description, there is no such accountability standard.
When the board approves the hiring of a grant writer, how can it defend not setting a measurable standard of success?
Given the emphasis on accountability, the board is hardly holding itself to the same standard that it expects from its teachers and administrators.
What success rate is reasonable for grant writers in general? How about for grant writers at other school districts? How much have grant awards increased with the arrival of a dedicated, professional grant writer? These all need to be components of a grant writer’s job description and performance evaluation as well as periodic management reviews of whether or not the keeping the position makes fiscal sense.
A secondary caution is to choose care in the types of grants sought. We’d hate to see the district hamstrung by strings attached to “free” grant money, or caught up in administrative red tape by seeking relatively small grants that have overbearing application or documentation procedures.
But we’re saving our deepest concern for last: the public relations function of the new job.
GUSD does not need a traditional public relations employee: A palace guard who protects administrators and trustees by sheltering them from contact with the public and spinning news to put the district in a favorable light instead of an honest light.
Instead, GUSD needs two-way communication – and isn’t that a key component of the word “relations,” anyway? – with the community. If Freedman becomes a conduit or an ombudsman for the community, who provides important information to parents and students (prospective and enrolled), teachers and other employees, the media, and who also communicates concerns from those people to administrators and trustees, she will make an invaluable difference in the district.
If, on the other hand, she writes press releases that spin the news simply to highlight positive aspects, however meager, the district will have embarked on a giant waste of taxpayer dollars that could be far better used in an expenditure directly related to the classroom.
On paper, seeking grants and paying attention to public relations are worthy ideas. But there are red flags waving. In this case, precise direction and measurable accountability are the keys to success.It’s hard to quibble with the decision to seek grant money. If a grant writer can cover their own salary a few times over and handle some other important duties, then it’s a win-win situation – assuming the grant money is put to effective use.
But accountability is necessary. The school board and administration must establish objectively measurable standards for success as part of evaluating job performance.
In the current written job description, there is no such accountability standard.
How can the board defend not setting a measurable standard of success given the emphasis on accountability? The board is hardly holding itself to the same standard that it expects from its teachers and administrators.
What success rate is reasonable for grant writers in general and at other school districts? How much have grant awards increased with the arrival of a dedicated, professional grant writer? These all need to be components of a job description and periodic management reviews of whether or not the keeping the position makes fiscal sense.
A secondary caution is to choose care in the types of grants sought. Strings attached to grant money can be debilitating, as can red connected to small grants.
But we’re saving our deepest concern for last: the public relations function of the new job.
GUSD does not need a traditional public relations employee: a palace guard who protects administrators and trustees by sheltering them from contact with the public and spinning news to put the district in a favorable instead of an honest light.
Instead, GUSD needs two-way communication – and isn’t that a key component of the word “relations,” anyway? – with the community. If Freedman becomes an ombudsman for the community who provides important information to parents and students (prospective and enrolled), teachers and other employees and the media, and who also communicates concerns from those people to administrators and trustees, she will make an invaluable difference in the district.
If, on the other hand, she writes press releases that spin the news simply to highlight positive aspects, however meager, the district will have embarked on a giant waste of taxpayer dollars that would be far better used in an expenditure directly related to the classroom.
On paper, seeking grants and paying attention to public relations are worthy ideas. But there are red flags waving. In this case, precise direction and measurable accountability are the keys to success.
