Dear Editor:
On behalf of the teachers of the Gilroy Unified School District,
I would like to thank you for your coverage of the firing of
Kristen Porter. Hers was a story that needed to see the light of
day.
Dear Editor:
On behalf of the teachers of the Gilroy Unified School District, I would like to thank you for your coverage of the firing of Kristen Porter. Hers was a story that needed to see the light of day. It is extremely unfortunate that temporary teachers can be summarily dismissed, as long as they have not served at least 75 percent of the year. Flaws in the Education Code give districts carte blanche to fire any temporary or probationary teacher who doesn’t meet the district’s “standard” during the first two years of that teacher’s employment with that district.
Even teachers who are permanent can be dismissed without too much difficulty. Doug Meier and the editorial board of The Dispatch are mistaken in believing that it is impossible to fire a teacher with permanent status. Neither the Education Code nor our contract prevents the district from firing a permanent teacher.
Did Kristen Porter deserve to be let go? By all accounts, she was doing a fine job in the classroom. On what basis did the Gilroy High School administration determine that she was not a “good fit?” Legally, they are not required to give a reason, but common courtesy would dictate that they do so. What they do need to provide is evidence that they followed the correct procedure when they were evaluating her. They have not produced such.
To date, there have been three grievances filed against the administration at the high school. The grievances all have the same theme, which is, failure to follow the evaluation procedure. The administration failed to follow timelines, failed to hold meetings with the teachers prior to and after each observation, failed to provide copies of the observations, and, more importantly, failed to give any hint that there was a concern. The result is that, when these teachers were told they would not be asked to return in the fall, it came as a complete surprise. The purpose of the evaluation is to provide constructive feedback and guidance. In the case of these three, and possibly others, there wasn’t any.
Understandably, Kristen asked for copies of those evaluation documents to which she was entitled. She is still waiting. She asked the high school administrator for an explanation. There was none given. She asked what it was that made her a bad fit. The administrator declined to say. Was she seen as a “poor fit” because she wrote a letter in support of another teacher who had questioned district policies and procedures? It is entirely possible.
What was it then that made the district fire Kristen on the spot that Friday morning? Was it the fact that Kristen had answered her students’ questions at the end of the period? Was it the letter she had written to The Dispatch? Was it her speech to the Board? Did she represent an immediate threat to her students that particular morning or was it just because the district wanted to silence her?
There have been other instances in which employees have been dismissed before the year was over, but usually, a union representative was called, a meeting time was arranged, and it was handled in a professional manner. Two years ago, when the dismissal of an employee was not done correctly, the Association was assured that the administrator responsible had been counseled as to how to handle similar situations in the future.
The way Kristen’s firing was handled was much worse, and, rather than preserving her dignity, only succeeded in humiliating her, in the presence of students and staff alike. The reasons for prior dismissals were also of a much more serious nature, but Kristen was singled out for special treatment because she had dared to publicly question the administration. What is so painfully ironic is that when Kristen first started teaching in this district, she stated to a union representative that she wanted to work with the administration as much as possible. What a difference a year makes.
Just how safe is it for the employees of this district to speak out? At one school last week, a teacher had wanted to write a letter in support of Kristen, but her colleagues were afraid to sign it. At the beginning of this year, it was almost impossible to get a teacher to be the union representative for a particular school because of the fear of reprisals. At another school, a teacher went to great lengths to avoid being “discovered” after sending the negotiating team some information. At yet another school, a teacher tried to keep “under the radar” just to survive.
Unfortunately, these examples represent just the tip of the iceberg. This is not an environment that is conducive to the free and open exchange of ideas.
Fortunately, even in a district such as ours, there are still teachers who will continue to question district policies and procedures, whether it is the hiring and firing practices, the allocation of resources, or, in this case, the evaluation process. Even if there is nothing that can be done in this case, it will serve as a painful reminder that we must change unfair practices and policies, and we are determined to do so.
Michelle Nelson, President, Gilroy Teachers Association
Submitted Thursday, April 1 to ed****@****ic.com
