Shocking. That’s an apt way to describe the immediate dismissal
of Gilroy High School teacher Kristin Porter, who was told Friday
morning when she showed up for work to get off campus now or she’d
be dealing with the police.
How utterly unnecessary. How unprofessional. How unfortunately
defining. How ugly.
Shocking. That’s an apt way to describe the immediate dismissal of Gilroy High School teacher Kristin Porter, who was told Friday morning when she showed up for work to get off campus now or she’d be dealing with the police.
How utterly unnecessary. How unprofessional. How unfortunately defining. How ugly.
Gilroy Unified had already notified Porter and three additional non-tenured English teachers that they would not be retained at the end of the year. Porter contested that decision and openly criticized it in an interview with reporter Lori Steunkel.
The night before her immediate dismissal, she again publicly criticized the GHS administration and school district policies in front of the school board. Porter, too, acknowledged that she had also been critical in the classroom in front of her students.
Clearly, criticism of the administration in the classroom – beyond reason – isn’t appropriate. But far more inappropriate and troubling is the way the district chose to dismiss Porter – with a planned morning “surprise attack.”
The devil is in the details and, clearly, this dismissal involved “angry retribution” as one letter writer opined today. Someone wanted to make an example of Porter and did so to the detriment of Gilroy High School, the students and, most importantly, this community. The circumstances surrounding her dismissal are a shameful embarrassment. Porter was not a threat to the students. In fact, by all anecdotal accounts she was a dedicated and conscientious teacher who challenged her students. When she was allowed back into the classroom late Friday afternoon to gather her belongings, the message written on the chalkboard behind a weeping Porter said volumes: “Thank you … you have taught us so much.”
The school board should insist on a report from Superintendent Edwin Diaz that sheds light on the planning of Porter’s immediate dismissal. Whoever is responsible should be held to the highest standards of accountability – that could include termination.
Regrettably, that’s only half the public criticism GUSD deserves. Besides poor judgment, Porter’s dismissal shows a glaring problem in the district regarding teacher evaluations.
Tom Bundros, the lone GUSD school board member to vote against Porter’s dismissal, refused to go along because he could not – despite repeated requests – get a copy of Porter’s evaluation.
Why not? How can trustees make that critical decision without objective, consistent information? There are “temporary” teachers with skill and potential who should be given the same respect in the evaluation process as tenured teachers. Certainly all teachers deserve fair, honest, objective evaluations rather than summary dismissals based on the hollow words “You’re just not a good fit.”
It’s absolutely necessary to define what is a “good fit.” It’s constructive and imperative that written evaluations are done and then signed off on by the teacher, the supervisor, the principal and the superintendent. And those evaluations should be made available to school trustees.
Lastly, school district leaders need to subject themselves to honest scrutiny regarding their attitudes toward dissent and criticism.
The truth, sometimes, does indeed hurt. But it is not fatal. It can be a catalyst for positive change in a troubled system in need of repair.
