After reading a comment on Inside Ed here (it always seems I start my posts this way...) I'm confused about how things work in the BCPSS. The comment was about many teachers receiving non-renewal letters because they weren't certified when in fact they were certified, but that North Ave. hadn't processed the paperwork in over a year.
My question is about the management responsibilities in BCPSS. The structure seems similar to my corporation's in that there are local leaders (in BCPSS the department heads, assistant principals, principals) and corporate leaders (North Ave. staff). We also have training requirements that come down from corporate. What's different is that our local leadership helps us meet corporate requirements. Let me make up an example to illustrate what I mean. Say we need to have ESD (electro-static discharge) training to continue to test boxes and meet our quality procedures. This training might be done on-line. Let's say the system doesn't record me finishing my training, even though I did it (perhaps a computer glitch). I would talk to my boss (or maybe my boss's boss) and let them deal with it. They've got schedules that count on me being able to test boxes, so they will make sure that any problems get fixed before my certification goes up. Also, if the system didn't work for me, there are probably other people in the same situation. It's more efficient for a local leader to fix the problem once than for each lower level person to individually work on the problem. Wouldn't the school's administration feel the same way about teachers being terminated for not getting certified when in fact they were certified?
From the comments being posted, I guess I wasn't being clear. I think that a big part of the problem in the situation of certifications falling through the cracks is that the school administration isn't standing up for their people the way that a good boss should. I'm not saying that HR isn't messed up in this situation, but if your principal values you as a teacher they ought to go to bat for you in this situation. They are higher up the food-chain and they should have more clout. If they're unwilling to use some of their influence standing up for their staff then I would be more angry with them then the faceless bureaucrats of HR.