Monday
Feb162009
« Former Central Gwinnett principal's actions questioned »
Monday, February 16, 2009 at 8:22PM
I really hate to write this article. First, it reflects poorly on my high school alma mater and, second, I was introduced to Dr. Valerie Clark at a Central sporting event several years ago by a teacher I had when I was a student there. I found Dr. Clark very likeable and engaging and was favorably impressed. However, journalistic integrity (if you can call a local blog "journalism," though I shall for lack of a better term) requires that I comment on this story because there is a greater policy question involved for Gwinnett County Public Schools.
The issue of which I write regards reports that Dr. Clark, while principal at Central, intervened in a disciplinary decision by another administrator on behalf of her son who was a student at the school. Any preferential treatment in school matters, whether academic or displinary, by a teacher is inappropriate (though I can understand there occasionally may be bextenuating circumstances). This is especially true when a parent uses their role of authority to influence a subordinate to offer such preferential treatment. Granted, as I have blogged in the past, so many discipline issues in school today are esalated far higher than they ever would have been when I was in high school, most falling into the "making a mountain out of a mole hill" category. However, based on the AJC article, Dr. Clark's intervention was not over a trivial violation being blown out of proportion.
In Dr. Clark's defense, she did tell the AJC that, after administrators fully investigated the case, all involved students were taken to a disciplinary panel. However, drug-related rule violations in school is a serious offense and any student soliciting marijuana on a high school campus should be dealt with strictly. Unlike throwing a water balloon or pulling a prank on school property, trying to obtain drugs is a serious matter deserving severe punishment. Drugs are not something that should be merely dealt with at home by a parent. I have no doubt that this situation resulted from parent's protective instinct for a child. However, good judgment and professionalism requires that a parent in an authority role must suppress this instinct to avoid leaving even the impression of unfair interference in a disciplinary process. Perhaps the best course of action is never to put a parent in a position to have to fight back this powerful urge, which argues for a policy such as that in Cobb County.
There is a reason many businesses will not allow a spouse to supervise one another. In close relationships such as that, unbiased judgment can be strained to its limit. Granted, in a school this may not be a perfect solution. When I attended Central, I had a class where the teacher's daughter was in a member of the class. However, because that was the only section of that course offered, Cobb's rule would have prevented the daughter from taking the class which be unfair as well. The best option would be a rule that provided a general guideline but allowed for judgments calls when appropriate. Unfortunately, in America's public schools where "zero tolerance" and inflexibility hold sway, a rule incorporating such common sense could be difficult to achieve. Nevertheless, in a school system as large as Gwinnett's, the chance of a parent and child crossing paths in a educator-student relationship is certainly non-trivial. The Gwinnett County School Board would be well advised to come up with a policy to prevent any nepotism while allowing for reasonable exceptions where necessary before a case such as the one at Central Gwinnett happens again.
The issue of which I write regards reports that Dr. Clark, while principal at Central, intervened in a disciplinary decision by another administrator on behalf of her son who was a student at the school. Any preferential treatment in school matters, whether academic or displinary, by a teacher is inappropriate (though I can understand there occasionally may be bextenuating circumstances). This is especially true when a parent uses their role of authority to influence a subordinate to offer such preferential treatment. Granted, as I have blogged in the past, so many discipline issues in school today are esalated far higher than they ever would have been when I was in high school, most falling into the "making a mountain out of a mole hill" category. However, based on the AJC article, Dr. Clark's intervention was not over a trivial violation being blown out of proportion.
When an assistant principal decided students under suspicion of soliciting marijuana should face serious consequences, Clark intervened, the summary said. Clark’s son was among those facing long-term suspension, placement in an alternative school or expulsion.
...
In Clark’s case, things went differently. According to a witness’ statement, Clark told her assistant principal, Eric Davidson: “I’ve never asked for a favor before. … I am telling you as your principal not to take him.” Clark said her son had a violin concert that evening, and she would punish him later.
In Dr. Clark's defense, she did tell the AJC that, after administrators fully investigated the case, all involved students were taken to a disciplinary panel. However, drug-related rule violations in school is a serious offense and any student soliciting marijuana on a high school campus should be dealt with strictly. Unlike throwing a water balloon or pulling a prank on school property, trying to obtain drugs is a serious matter deserving severe punishment. Drugs are not something that should be merely dealt with at home by a parent. I have no doubt that this situation resulted from parent's protective instinct for a child. However, good judgment and professionalism requires that a parent in an authority role must suppress this instinct to avoid leaving even the impression of unfair interference in a disciplinary process. Perhaps the best course of action is never to put a parent in a position to have to fight back this powerful urge, which argues for a policy such as that in Cobb County.
Cobb Schools is one of the few districts with rules prohibiting conflicts of interest involving district employees and their children who are in school.
“A teacher cannot have their child or stepchild as a student,” said Doug Goodwin, a Cobb Schools spokesman. “A principal can have a child at the school. They cannot be responsible for the supervision or discipline of that student.”
There is a reason many businesses will not allow a spouse to supervise one another. In close relationships such as that, unbiased judgment can be strained to its limit. Granted, in a school this may not be a perfect solution. When I attended Central, I had a class where the teacher's daughter was in a member of the class. However, because that was the only section of that course offered, Cobb's rule would have prevented the daughter from taking the class which be unfair as well. The best option would be a rule that provided a general guideline but allowed for judgments calls when appropriate. Unfortunately, in America's public schools where "zero tolerance" and inflexibility hold sway, a rule incorporating such common sense could be difficult to achieve. Nevertheless, in a school system as large as Gwinnett's, the chance of a parent and child crossing paths in a educator-student relationship is certainly non-trivial. The Gwinnett County School Board would be well advised to come up with a policy to prevent any nepotism while allowing for reasonable exceptions where necessary before a case such as the one at Central Gwinnett happens again.
Categories: Gwinnett County Public Schools Tags: Central Gwinnett, Cobb County, Cobb County Schools, Crime, Dr. Valerie Clark, Eric Davidson, Gwinnett County Public Schools, Gwinnett County School Board, Lawrenceville, discipline, drug possession, marijuana, principal, public schools, zero tolerance
Gwinnett County Public Schools Tags: Central Gwinnett, Cobb County, Cobb County Schools, Crime, Dr. Valerie Clark, Eric Davidson, Gwinnett County Public Schools, Gwinnett County School Board, Lawrenceville, discipline, drug possession, marijuana, principal, public schools, zero tolerance
Reader Comments (2)
Holy Cow! Is this the same Dr. Clark running for State House in Lawrenceville? Set the countdown if she wins, it's only a matter of time before she's covering up something else and abusing her position. We have one set of rules/laws for her and her kids, and another set of rules for the rest of us. Just great.
[...] commentary may be found at GwinnettBuzz.com from the article titled, “Former Central Gwinnett Principal’s Actions Questioned” , dated February 16th, [...]