It was with great dismay and more than a little disbelief that I read the recent article regarding Ignacio school administrators response to school board member Luke Kirk's proposal to conduct exit interviews with departing staff. (Pine River Times, May 27, 2016.) Beyond the fact that exit interviews are broadly considered proactive management in a professional organization, Superintendent Fuschetto's statement that attrition of 25-30 people yearly is not only acceptable but to be expected is startling. With a faculty of 63 professional educators, the Superintendent is suggesting that it's somehow common for a public school to lose almost half of it's teachers annually. To be specific, 25-30 teachers represents between 39.7 and 47.6 percent of Ignacio School District's faculty. In point of fact, according to a study by the National Center for Education Statistics, an average of 15.5 percent of teachers leave their positions annually. Superintendent Fuschetto's acceptable figure is roughly three times the documented national figure for teacher turnover.
Fuschetto's comment, "There are things that administrators know" about departing staff but can't talk about in public. "If you listen to them, you need to listen to the principals," is demonstrably disingenuous on two counts. The Ignacio School Board can, and has on many occasions, called closed door meetings to discuss human resources concerns, leaving his assertion that these issues would be discussed in public invalid. Furthermore, his demand to include principals in the dialogue is without merit when one considers the fact that both the superintendent and the high school's principal were active participants in the meeting.
Principal Taylor's comments are not only far more telling, but provide insight into the conflict itself. "Taylor commented, "Sitting here, I am taking it personally...Two of them (of eleven) hugged me and said they're burned out. Some are disgruntled. That doesn't mean staff is disgruntled." Taylor continued, "The majority that are leaving are from my building." I would suggest that it's a measure of concern that Taylor has personalized this issue, rather then provide the professional leadership necessary to resolve this hemorrhage of faculty resources.
I commend Board Member Kirk's concern at what appears, at the very least, to be abnormally high faculty attrition.
This is one of the most primary functions of a school board. The school board is explicitly tasked with providing oversight of school operations. Serving as a watchdog over administrative affairs is among its most critical responsibilities.
Failure to express these concerns would be an abrogation of his responsibility, and failure of the school board to investigate turnover rates among faculty would amount to nothing less than malfeasance, especially considering the superintendent's own reckoning that Ignacio faculty turnover could fall close to 50 percent annually, and still be considered acceptable. Fuschetto and Taylor's response is the administrative equivalent of them telling the school board "Don't worry your pretty little heads- we've got this."
Their patronizing dismissal of Kirk's concerns should raise a flag for all parents that they should not only consider more formalized exit interviews, but should do it expeditiously- before Ignacio Schools exceeds Superintendent Fuschetto's stated comfort level of 47.6 percent attrition.
As a parent of two alumni and graduates of Ignacio's school system, it comes as no surprise that the school district is facing these concerns. What does surprise me is the resistance from administrators in using a widely accepted and successful professional strategy, such as exit interviews, in order to identify the causation of such unsustainable and costly - both in financial resources and professional experience - failure in retaining professional educators.
Bravo, Mr. Kirk. Shame on you, Mr. Fuschetto and Ms. Taylor!
William Hedrick
Ignacio
