Who is responsible for the evaluation of Bernice Demovsky’s performance?
The Case of Bernice Demovski (Merseth, 1997, pp.256-265) tells us about a controversial situation that a local Museum in Denver and a range of local schools became involved in. Having been performing as a gifted and responsible teacher of art, Benice Demovski is invited to the position of an educator as a member of the Museum staff and is expected to teach in several local schools within the Museum’s educational program. However, her intent to popularize her ideas about the problems that exist in their community and the whole society when teaching in the class leads to students’ discontent and conflicts between Bernice and the administration.
Thus, Bernice Demovsky’s performance has not justified the expectations of Jerome Glatzner, schools’ administrations, and students. The following question arises: who is responsible for monitoring Bernice Demovsky’s work and evaluating her performance, the Museum or schools themselves?
Having offered the educational program for schools, the Museum has automatically taken the obligation to make this program meet the rules and values existing in schools, as well as the interests of the students. The Museum should provide a program that corresponds to the curriculum, students’ background, and skills, their rights, and needs. Besides, it is the responsibility of the Museum to monitor whether the program continues to meet all these requirements in the course of its implementation.
This monitoring is in the interests of the Museum itself, as in case any problem appears, the Museum is responsible for schools for its consequences and its elimination. Thus, it could be the right decision for Jerome Glatzner to “keep an eye” on the performance of teachers sent by the Museum to schools. Glazner could periodically attend his subordinates’ lessons, involve students in the evaluation of their work, and communicate with schools’ administrations. In this case, the problem would be revealed and recognized by Glatzner much earlier.
On the other hand, a school has responsibility for its students, their wellbeing, and interests. Having invited a teacher “from the outside”, a school should regularly monitor his/her performance and make sure that the lessons and a teacher’s behavior do not violate students’ rights and interests. In case some problems arise, the school administration has the right – and even the responsibility – to inform the Museum administration and take corresponding measures.
Thus, both sides are interested in evaluating a teacher’s performance and are responsible for it. In the case of Bernice Demovsky, the problem with the way her teaching came to light only after several students complained to their parents.
How can a principal balance a teacher’s right to freedom of speech and the best interests of students?
The case described in (1997) arouses such important issues as the bounds of a teacher’s freedom of speech. Demovsky from one side and the administration from another side demonstrated that they understand this issue in different ways. The situation was aggravated by the fact that the teacher’s ideas had grounds (which was even admitted by the administrators themselves), and she felt it was her duty to promote these ideas in the society; Demovsky had good intentions and felt she was right.
Thus, the controversial situations connected with a teacher’s freedom of speech may arise at school, and the principal must find the optimal approach to managing this issue; however, it may be quite difficult. Several aspects should be taken into account when discussing this issue:
1. In some cases, problems that exist in society are to be discussed in the class, especially when we talk about liberal arts, civic studies, and – sometimes – art. Students may be required to do research on a given issue and express their opinion verbally or in writing. Even when writing a usual argumentative essay, students may choose a burning issue and express their attitude to it. Thus, there is no surprise that a teacher often has to comment on a situation and express his/her opinion on it.
2. It is very difficult to outline the bounds of a teacher’s freedom of speech and define what is admissible to say and what is not. For example, we remember the Keyishian v. Board of Regents (1967) case which touches upon teachers’ rights to express “seditious and treasonable” ideas: the Court decided that the terms “reasonable” and “seditious” were too vague and did not inform a teacher about what ideas are appropriate to express and what is not (Zirkel, Richardson & Goldberg, p.97). Such situations may arise when not only “seditious and treasonable” ideas, but also any other contradictive issues are discussed.
However, we should understand that in such situations, we weigh a teacher’s freedom of speech against students’ interests. As a school is responsible for students’ wellbeing, their interests should be the priority for the principal. If students complain that an educator’s way of teaching is inadmissible for them, the principal should immediately react to such requests. He/she should discuss the problem with a teacher and give him/her neat guidelines on what issues can be discussed in the class and what should be omitted.
In The Case of Bernice Demovski, the actions of the principals were correct: they reacted to students’ complaints and took measures to change the situation. Besides, there are no grounds to say that Demovski’s right to freedom of speech was violated: the administrators had nothing against her activities beyond school. Moreover, they reassigned her not for her convictions, but for her professional incompetence: Demovski did not follow the curriculum and assigned students to read extraneous books (p.260); she also lacked the flexibility to notice that her students were not satisfied with the way she taught them.
Thus, to keep the right balance in such situations, a principal should:
- see the border between freedom of speech itself and other issues that seem to be relevant to it but are not.
- Make students’ interests the priority and be ready to take action to defend them.
References
Merseth, K. K. (1997). Cases in Educational Administration. USA: Allyn & Bacon.
Zirkel, P.A., Richardson, S.N., & Goldberg, S.S. (2001). A Digest of Supreme Court Decisions Affecting Education. Bloomington, Ind.: Phi Delta Kappa Educational Foundation.