Seth Boyden In a Panic

Anyone know if Seth Boyden is close to finding Mr Frye's replacement? Seems the parents are in a bit of a frenzy with their board meetings after meetings. Does Mr Frye want to stay? Are the parents unable to let go? Seems he's already made up his mind. Any updated info would be great

My understanding is that Mr. Frye wants to stay. 

My understanding is that the only way (at this point) that he could even have a possibility of staying would be if he requested a Donaldson hearing, but I don't believe he has done that.  (I don't know the details, but this procedure is for untenured school staff who are not renewed.)

I’m very confused. It was my understanding that the principal refused to provide a place for a nursing mother to pump milk during the day. As a result, she suffered a severe infection. 

Am I incorrect?  If he refused to provide such a place, he broke a law. 

Can someone help me out here. Thanks. If he did indeed break the law and is retained I foresee a high lawsuit. 

Is it a law or a union rule? Is that the same thing!

It is a NJ law. 

a Donaldson hearing is the recourse here, but is rarely taken, as it puts everything said into the public record.  I’ve known a couple of SOMSD personnel who considered it (even lining up supporters to testify) and then decided against it, presumably deciding it was better to move on without having a public hearing on the reasons they were not renewed.

Jerseyperson said:
I’m very confused. It was my understanding that the principal refused to provide a place for a nursing mother to pump milk during the day. As a result, she suffered a severe infection. 
Am I incorrect?  If he refused to provide such a place, he broke a law. 
Can someone help me out here. Thanks. If he did indeed break the law and is retained I foresee a high lawsuit. 

 This was my understanding as well.  If this is accurate, he broke the law and mastitis is not something you ever want.  It's very painful and requires antibiotics.  

I've been reading discussions on Facebook about this and it seems an overwhelming number of Seth Boyden parents want Mr. Frye to stay which I find concerning.  While Mr. Frye may indeed be excellent with children, if this story is true, it shows a serious lack of respect for his teaching staff and an understanding of the law.  When principals do not show their teachers respect and support, it leads to low morale which hurts our children.  I also find it disappointing on the part of our community that we would not show more support for working mothers.

I am not a Seth Boyden parent, so I have no horse in the race.  I do know that good principals are hard to find.  Is this an unforgivable mistake, or is it something he could learn from?  That seems to be the question.

FilmCarp said:
Is this an unforgivable mistake, or is it something he could learn from?

 What do you say @sprout?

Information is hard to come by except for bare bones basics.  My understanding of the events is that a teacher was denied breaks and proper facilities for pumping.  The BOE got involved and said this needed to be addressed.  Teacher was still denied breaks for pumping.  Mr. Frye was suspended.  He was also accused of saying he didn't want to encourage teachers to have babies and didn't want to make it easy for working mothers, or words to that effect.  This was said in front of multiple people.  I'm not sure where in the timeline of events the comment was made, if it was before or after the first intervention by the BOE.

As far as it being a forgivable mistake, it happened twice.  The second time was after he was told it was unacceptable AND against the law.  That makes it harder to see a resolution that includes keeping Mr Frye.

On the flip side, the opinion of the parents supporting him, they are stating that he was set up to fail.  They state that he was told to give the teacher breaks, but wasn't given enough staff to cover these breaks, and also he didn't have enough room in the building to supply a private place to pump.  I don't know if they have anything to back up these claims or not.  They also alleged that the statement made by him is hearsay, and since we don't know EXACTLY what was said it is harder to hold that against him.  

My personal opinion is that the comment, if even half accurate, was pretty damning.  And it was said in front of multiple people, not just a single person.  

Mr. Frye is great for the students and the school as a whole, but the teachers are also very important, if not more so since they are the ones who have the biggest direct impact on the children.  They need to feel supported and valued.  Forgetting for a moment the legal aspect of this, part of supporting a teacher is supporting work life balance.  Telling teachers they shouldn't have children so that they can give their entire life to the school isn't very supportive at all. 

kmt said:

FilmCarp said:
Is this an unforgivable mistake, or is it something he could learn from?

 What do you say @sprout?

As Spontaneous indicated, official information is hard to find, and I have almost no reliable information about what occurred. 

From the bits and pieces, it's appears an original attempt with a restorative practices approach was made. As personnel issues are kept private, it's hard to tell if he was unsuccessful in maintaining that restorative approach, if he was set up for failure by the district who didn't provide resources for success, or if he was set up for failure by teachers who wanted him out.

Perseverance said:

I've been reading discussions on Facebook about this and it seems an overwhelming number of Seth Boyden parents want Mr. Frye to stay which I find concerning.

 How do you characterize "overwhelming"? There are almost 500 students in the building, so I'm curious if there is a rough estimate for what percentage of parents want him to stay (or care one way or the other).

There were a few dozen people who applauded the "keep Mr Frye" comments at the meeting I attended last Wednesday. A few people had signs. But I wouldn't call it overwhelming. A relatively small number of highly motivated people can seem like a lot more if they're loud enough. 

I honestly don't know the answer... I'm asking out of genuine curiosity.

Holy crap, none of you people have any idea what is happening at SB. You are saying, you heard this or that and that the parents support Frye. But, you would rather demonize him based on some thing you heard rather than the overwhelming number of parents at the school. My kids go there, he is a great principal. I have no idea if the BOE is dismissing him because of the breast feeding issue or not - they won't say because they do not feel like they are accountable to anyone. The reality is, they likely wanted to install the suspended former Marshall principal who is getting paid because she is tenured. They thought that the SB families would not notice this and they could use the breast feeding issues as cover. Then, once called out, they backtracked on the Marshall principal but are stuck with dismissing Frye because they have to save face. 

It is a disgusting situation and in no way has the best interest of the SB kids in mind. The BOE is lying and they know that eventually people will forget or move on and bitty's on MOL will say they heard this or that and, oh boy he had it coming.

He also was using the loss of recess as a punishment for kids that misbehaved.

This was in clear violation of district policy.

cleg said:
My kids go there, he is a great principal. I have no idea if the BOE is dismissing him because of the breast feeding issue or not - they won't say because they do not feel like they are accountable to anyone. 

FWIW: My child is at SB as well. There are privacy requirements around personnel issues, so I don't think it's a lack of accountability, as much as a legal privacy one.

cleg said:
....I have no idea if the BOE is dismissing him because of the breast feeding issue or not - they won't say because they do not feel like they are accountable to anyone. ....

 They are not permitted to discuss personnel issues in public.

Close to 500 people signed the online petition to keep Mr. Frye as Principal. About 60 people spoke in support of Mr. Frye during public speaks at the two meetings. I wouldn’t call that a small number. 

Okay, that's fair. I didn't know how many people signed the petition.

I only remember a few people speaking out about Mr Frye at the meeting about the capital plan on Wednesday. One person said "Keep Mr Frye" as she was leaving, and a couple more brought it up. One man stated that he didn't think the BOE was showing any respect for the concerns of the SB parents which got a round of applause from some of the audience.   

Did a lot more people attend the meeting at Marshall in Thursday to support him? Or were you referring to other meetings?

I was referring to the BOE meetings the week prior. 

sprout said:

cleg said:
My kids go there, he is a great principal. I have no idea if the BOE is dismissing him because of the breast feeding issue or not - they won't say because they do not feel like they are accountable to anyone. 

FWIW: My child is at SB as well. There are privacy requirements around personnel issues, so I don't think it's a lack of accountability, as much as a legal privacy one.

Exactly.  We went through a very similar situation around 9 years ago at South Mountain.  Mr. Gibbons was insanely popular with parents and children (including our family), but was less popular with administrators and staff (although I don't recall any accusations of clear violations of HR law or District policies).  

He was denied renewal to huge parent outcry and threats of Donaldson hearings.  In the end, he stepped back from the Donaldson hearing and moved on (possibly to retirement?). His departure was wrenching for my rising 5th grader, but that doesn't mean it was wrong.

The law is that the District cannot comment on personnel issues unless there is a Donaldson hearing.  So we hear one side of the story and end up angry at the administration.

Tenure forces the administration to be very tough about who to keep at the two to three year mark.  If the District has concerns before tenure, they owe it to the whole district to discontinue, so that we don't end up with another principal without a school, sitting on "special assignment" while we wish he/she would just get another job already.  

If the administration knows for certain at the two year point that they will not give tenure, there is little reason to keep someone for a third year rather than start the search for a candidate who achieves across the whole spectrum of job requirements.  Making the families love you is wonderful, but not the whole package.  

I sympathize with the Seth Boyden parents, but support the District in its HR decisions now, as I very reluctantly did during the Gibbons debate.  I wish Seth Boyden a successful search for a principal who can build on what Mr. Frye has done, while avoiding some of the issues.

susan1014 said:

sprout said:

cleg said:
My kids go there, he is a great principal. I have no idea if the BOE is dismissing him because of the breast feeding issue or not - they won't say because they do not feel like they are accountable to anyone. 

FWIW: My child is at SB as well. There are privacy requirements around personnel issues, so I don't think it's a lack of accountability, as much as a legal privacy one.

Exactly.  We went through a very similar situation around 9 years ago at South Mountain.  Mr. Gibbons was insanely popular with parents and children (including our family), but was less popular with administrators and staff (although I don't recall any accusations of clear violations of HR law or District policies).  
He was denied renewal to huge parent outcry and threats of Donaldson hearings.  In the end, he stepped back from the Donaldson hearing and moved on (possibly to retirement?). His departure was wrenching for my rising 5th grader, but that doesn't mean it was wrong.

The law is that the District cannot comment on personnel issues unless there is a Donaldson hearing.  So we hear one side of the story and end up angry at the administration.
Tenure forces the administration to be very tough about who to keep at the two to three year mark.  If the District has concerns before tenure, they owe it to the whole district to discontinue, so that we don't end up with another principal without a school, sitting on "special assignment" while we wish he/she would just get another job already.  
If the administration knows for certain at the two year point that they will not give tenure, there is little reason to keep someone for a third year rather than start the search for a candidate who achieves across the whole spectrum of job requirements.  Making the families love you is wonderful, but not the whole package.  
I sympathize with the Seth Boyden parents, but support the District in its HR decisions now, as I very reluctantly did during the Gibbons debate.  I wish Seth Boyden a successful search for a principal who can build on what Mr. Frye has done, while avoiding some of the issues.

 My god, was that nine years ago already?  My how time flies.....

An article on Gibbons’ Donaldson hearing, held on June 8, 2009:

http://www.nj.com/news/local/index.ssf/2009/06/south_mountain_principal_gets.html

The article notes that even a public Donaldson hearing does not allow the district to reveal specifics about why an educator was denied tenure.

DaveSchmidt said:
An article on Gibbons’ Donaldson hearing, held on June 8, 2009:
http://www.nj.com/news/local/index.ssf/2009/06/south_mountain_principal_gets.html
The article notes that even a public Donaldson hearing does not allow the district to reveal specifics about why an educator was denied tenure.

Thank you...my memory failed me.  I thought the hearing was cancelled (confusing two situations I guess).

susan1014 said:

Thank you...my memory failed me.  I thought the hearing was cancelled (confusing two situations I guess).

Me, too. I was confusing it with the social studies teacher decision (Steven Cohen) at SOMS in 2012.

Regarding the thread title - my family was at Seth Boyden during the early years of the Demo program when we had 5 or 6 principals in as many years.  We had a wonderful experience not because of the principals, perhaps in spite of them, but because it was a wonderful community of teachers, children and parents.  And, from what I hear, it is still a wonderful community and I have confidence that there is no need to panic.