In refusing two open records requests (of 4/21 and 5/1/07), Supt. Barter’s reluctance to allow the public to read any “raw data” now looks increasingly self-serving. She insisted that “personally identifiable information” would be harmful to those who made comments - but reading comments printed in Sunday's Herald suggests that the harm would be to the superintendent herself, and at least one other high level administrator, definitely not the teachers she has claimed to be protecting.
According to the Herald, negative comments about 9-R Central Administration were made by some 25 staff members and positive comments by 13.
Some of the 2006-07 staff comments resonate with a report made two years ago by outside consultant Robert Tschirki. 2005 Herald story.
"9-R embodies the philosophy of: when we want your opinion, we’ll give it to you. Anyone who speaks out against any idea forwarded by administration is harassed, bullied and intimidated into submission.”
“Teachers feel there will be retribution if they get out of line."With over 1500 comments on everything from school climate and size, drug and alcohol use, student safety, the open campus at lunchtime to the high school's dress code, survey results could form the basis of a productive community conversation -- but that cannot happen if 9-R continues to deny their relevance.
A majority of board members have indicated that the comments themselves are more useful than the quantitative synthesis substituted in deference to teachers who feared that a public reading would make their lives more difficult.
This is a community that supports its teachers. Barter's claim that it would be harmful to allow the public to read 9-R survey results has an increasingly hollow ring. To ignore them because they aren't "scientifically sound" doesn't make good sense. To find out more does.
