Controversial Supervisor Restructuring Approved Amid Confusion
- Kathie Schwartz
- Mar 14, 2024
- 5 min read
Updated: Jul 24, 2024
Long post alert: Restructuring
Several people have asked me to explain the Supervisor “Restructuring” approved by the RIH BOE on March 11.
News of a restructuring leaked into the community prior to the Board meeting, and social media discussions prior to the meeting were full of concerns. Interim Superintendent James Baker sent a memo to the community asking people to not rely on ‘misinformation’ and to come to the Board meeting where all would be clarified. But at the Board meeting, there was no presentation about the restructuring, so some of the confusion continues.
Discussions about a move to a district subject supervisory structure began under Ms. McKay, and continued under Dr. Dionisio. While this topic is not new, the current restructuring, done under an Interim Superintendent, has been sudden and less than transparent.
Here is my understanding of what transpired:
Dr. Baker made a statement that the Supervisor Union came to the administration with a proposal to restructure building positions into district positions.
Joe DelBuono, an officer in the Supervisor Union, made a statement that the administration came to the Supervisor Union with the proposal to restructure.
Both narratives can’t be right. The conflicting narratives indicate a break down of trust between the administration and the supervisor union.
The Board Negotiations team, which should have been doing the negotiating since the Board is the party to the contract, was left out of the conversation (notably the three Board members on the Negotiations team voted against the restructure).
The general proposal, as I understand it, is to restructure the Subject Area Supervisors and Guidance Departments into district level positions instead of school level positions.
Additionally, at a time when our student population is declining, the administration is adding new administrative curriculum positions that our district has never had. The only real clarity I got from the administrators' comments during the meeting is that this change will cost an additional $100,000 in year 1.
The motions on the agenda read as follows:
Move to approve, as recommended by the Interim Superintendent of Schools, the creation of the following job descriptions:
A. District Supervisor, Curriculum, Instruction, & Articulation- STEM
B. District Supervisor, Curriculum, Instruction, & Articulation- Humanities
C. District Supervisor of School Counseling
D. District Supervisor of Wellness & Specialized Programs
Move, as recommended by the Interim Superintendent of Schools, the creation of the following positions for the efficient implementation of the educational programs of the District:
A. District Supervisor of Curriculum, Instruction, & Articulation 2 positions
B. District Supervisor of School Counseling
C. District Supervisor of Wellness and Specialized Programs
D. District Level Subject Supervisor 4 positions
The motions themselves were confusing. There was a motion to "approve the creation of the following job descriptions". Yet during Board comment we learned from Audrey Souders, formerly a staunch advocate for transparency, that the job descriptions had already been created and at least some board members had already seen them. The job descriptions were not made available to the public. Did the Board mean to motion to "approve the job descriptions"? That’s not what their motion said. Had the Board been transparent, worded the motion properly and posted the Job Descriptions, it could have helped clarify.
Dr. Baker stated that no one would be losing their job. What I presume he meant by that is that all of the current Supervisors would get one of these new jobs. This seems to indicate a deal was cut. A deal that should have gone through the Board’s negotiating committee first, not promises made by the administration. As the financial gatekeepers of our tax dollars, adding $100,000 cost and new administrative positions at a time of declining enrollment should entail a thorough, long term financial assessment. Certainly it raises additional questions including who will decide who gets which new spot? We have a temporary Superintendent and a Curriculum Director who has been here less than two months. How well do they know our staff? It appears that one of them will decide.
The Restructuring of the Guidance positions generated the most public comment at the meeting. We currently have a Guidance Supervisor in each building (Ms. Robinson at IHHS and Ms. Perry at Ramapo). They each supervise the buildings' Guidance departments and have a student caseload. It appears that their current positions will be eliminated. One of the Guidance Supervisors will presumably get the job of “District Supervisor of School Counseling” and one will get the job of “District Supervisor of Wellness & Specialized Programs”.
Community members expressed the importance the stability each Guidance Supervisor brings to the academic and social-emotional decisions for students in each building. Questions such as will they continue to handle student caseloads in their respective buildings, will they continue to work with the students they currently have until they graduate, were asked but not clearly answered. Dr. Baker and Dr. Quackenbush did not provide substantive information about the new guidance structure, and some members of the community expressed that their responses generated more questions.
The RIHEA (Teachers Union) made a statement at the beginning of the meeting about the confusion and distrust caused in the teacher ranks by administrative actions (specifically Dr. Baker’s) being taken with no communication to staff. This signals confusion and discontent in the ranks, which leads to poor morale.
The Interim Superintendent and the Board should take this statement very seriously as they continue to jam changes through our district without clear communication and buy in from staff and community. A healthy school district needs to operate on a premise of trust amongst stakeholder groups, and it appears this basic trust has been undermined.
I hope this summary was helpful to those of you that asked me for my understanding of it!
Links to new job descriptions
District Supervisor of School Counseling Link
District Supervisor of Wellness & Specialized Programs Link
Link to All Other Job Descriptions:
https://www.rih.org/administration/superintendent_office/human_resources_department/job_descriptions
Notably in the new Job Descriptions, the reporting lines and evaluators for Supervisors were changed. The new Job Descriptions do not say who is the Primary Evaluator for the position, which in my opinion could lead to confusion, lack of clarity and potential to further impact staff morale.
Link to North Jersey dot com article:
Update on March 23 at 8:30 am:
Two things notable about the Restructuring: 1) the board motion was to approve 'the creation of' new job descriptions. The board has not passed a motion to approve the new job descriptions (although they are listed as approved on the district website). 2) the new positions were added but the old positions (such as Guidance Supervisor and Subject Supervisor) were not eliminated. Was that an oversight or do they intend to keep the old positions too?
