November 20,
2006
Beverly
Hall, Superintendent
Atlanta
Public Schools
130 Trinity AVE, S.W.
Atlanta GA 30303
Dear Mrs.
Hall:
I write you out of concern for Mr. Earnest Haynes, a teacher at
Baldwin High School. Over the past few years, a lack of sensitivity to Mr. Haynes’s handicapping condition by administrators
at Baldwin has caused the MACE staff (including a staff attorney and me) to address this situation
in various and sundry ways. I had hoped upon hearing of former Principal Gordon’s
decamping for Fulton County Schools that Mr. Haynes’s treatment at Baldwin would improve. I fear this is not the case. I am in
possession of two observations of Mr. Haynes’s teaching, observations created by the newly-appointed Principal Black. These documents lead me to conclude that nothing has changed at Baldwin,
and I am greatly aggrieved by this. Must I yet again state that Mr. Haynes suffers
from a disability that requires him to ingest multiple medications during the school day?
Because of this, Mr. Haynes enjoys heightened rights via Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Americans
with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA). It is my understanding that Atlanta Public
Schools does not discriminate on the basis of disability; therefore, why is Principal Black apparently doing so? Unless Mr. Haynes is afforded the professional treatment he deserves under ADA
as well as Atlanta Public Schools’
rules and regulations, MACE will be forced to act on his behalf.
Let me be specific. Mr.
Haynes suffers from bipolar disorder. He takes fifteen pills in the morning and
six in the evening. These medications serve to center him as people who suffer
from bipolar disorder typically swing from highs to lows without intermediating middle periods of calmness. People with bipolar disorder have minds that race, and the medications help slow down these racing mental
impulses. Symptoms of this include rapid speech followed by stuttering when the
bipolar individual tries to slow down his/her talking fast. I can understand
how someone new to Baldwin might not know about Mr. Haynes’s particular disability; however,
I find it difficult to believe that Principal Black did not know. Mr. Haynes
tells me that he specifically went to Principal Black to discuss concerns about previous evaluations at Baldwin. During the previous school year, Mr. Haynes was observed over twenty times by Assistant
Principal Donaldson and by Department Chairperson Rice, both of whom, I believe, may have been complicit in former Principal
Gordon’s apparent heavy-handed mismanagement style at Baldwin.
Mr. Haynes believes that they were out to “get” him, and I can attest to the fact that former Principal
Gordon earned three pickets from MACE and innumerable letters of concern from unprofessionally-, unethically-, and possibly
illegally-treated teachers who also are members of MACE. Principal Black must
have spoken with those two individuals because, as Mr. Haynes tells me, Principal Black approached him in the media center
in front of students and other staff members to discuss this school year’s evaluations.
According to Mr. Haynes, Principal Black said that since Mr. Haynes had experienced “problems” with Assistant
Principal Donaldson and with Department Chairperson Rice that he, Principal Black, would conduct Mr. Haynes’s evaluations. Mr. Haynes said that after he replied that he did not remember a discussion between
them about Principal Black being Mr. Haynes’s evaluator, Principal Black avowed, “Yes, you do!” This intimidated Mr. Haynes and concerned him because, as he understands, he is the only teacher whom Principal
Black is formally evaluating. According to Mr. Haynes, Principal Black stated,
“I’m evaluating you personally.”
I cannot help but read something sinister into Principal Black’s
statement that he would evaluate Mr. Haynes “personally,” especially considering the two evaluations Principal
Black completed about Mr. Haynes’s teaching. Principal Black’s first
observation of Mr. Haynes’s teaching occurred the morning of the day following Labor Day holiday, quite an inappropriate
time to choose. Why would an administrator pick such a date and time? I posit that Principal Black did want to “get” Mr. Haynes, and Principal Black’s subsequent
written evaluation supports my point. Mr. Haynes received eight ratings of “needs
improvement” and two of “not observed,” along with intensely detailed notes for each and every area of observation. In the twelve years that I have been Chairman of MACE, I can say that I have only
seen such negative obsession in the evaluation of a teacher when the administrator was endeavoring to “get” the
teacher terminated or have the teacher transferred or cause the teacher to resign. I
could go into detail showing how many of Principal Black’s comments contradict one another, but I will forego that exercise
in futility because I find it patently bogus that Principal Black would conduct an observation and produce such a negatively-detailed
document in a class taught by someone with a disability first thing in the morning following Labor Day. That Principal Black actually remained in the class for nearly an hour, from 8:48
a.m. til 9:42 a.m. underscores the point that I hammer, namely, that
Principal Black is apparently using the evaluation process to “get” Mr. Haynes.
I will, however, discuss the
evaluation Principal Black conducted of Mr. Haynes on October 4, 2006,
in which Mr. Haynes received six ratings of “below expectations” and four of “not observed.” First, it is insulting that Principal Black does not even know Mr. Haynes’s
name. The “Teacher’s Name” is written as “Ernest Haynes”
atop the Confidential TPEI Classroom Observation Record” upon which Principal Black handwrote his negative comments. In “Dimension 1: Content Knowledge,” Principal Black writes: “An appropriate lesson objective was provided in the lesson plans and was posted on the board. It is recommended that the objective be discussed.” Principal Black then marks as “needs improvement” the areas of “Goals & objectives
are set” and “Content differentiated.” This makes little sense
since Principal Black wrote that an “appropriate lesson objective was provided in the lesson plans and was posted on
the board.” If an “appropriate lesson objective” is found in
Mr. Haynes’s plans and on his board, how is it not “set” for the purpose of the evaluation Principal Black
completed? Also, how does Mr. Haynes know what Principal Black means by marking
“Content differentiated” as “needs improvement” when no commentary is provided to explain the negative
rating? Mr. Haynes tells me that he had discussed the objectives specifically
with the class when he went over the rubric by which the students would be graded. This
occurred on October 2, 2006, but Mr. Haynes again went over the objectives
of the rubric with students on the day that Principal Black conducted his observation so that previously-absent students would
be informed. As for differentiation of content, Mr. Haynes tells me that the
students formed groups to discuss their goals for their presentations of the literary text that they were reading and that
they also produced visual aids for their presentations. What more could Mr. Haynes
have done to differentiate the content? Why did Principal Black not provide specific
feedback to support his negative marking?
In “Dimension 2: Teaching methods,” Principal Black
writes: “The class was organized into groups and asked to work on preparing
their presentations. The students were given a rubics [sic] that detailed how
their presentations would be evaluated. The groups were not as focused as needed.” Principal Black then marks as “needs improvement” the areas of “Methods
facilitate the achievement of objectives,” “Methods encourage student interest and involvement to accommodate
needs, abilities, & developmental levels,” “Activities involve students,” and “Instructional time
is maximized.” Again, Principal Black provides no specific feedback to
support the areas that he marked as “needs improvement.” In fact,
as relates to “Methods encourage student interest and involvement to accommodate needs, abilities, & developmental
levels,” Principal Black actually writes in “Dimension 6: Demonstrates professional conduct relative to oral and
written communication skills” that “Mr. Haynes provided instructions for the students’ assignment and moved
around the classroom to monitor their progress.” How does this commentary
segue with rating him as “needs improvement” in the area specified in Dimension 2?
Mr. Haynes is more specific. He tells me that one young man continually
refused to move into his group, finally stating that a gunshot wound prevented him from moving; therefore, Mr. Haynes says
that he had the other group members to relocate around that youth so as to maintain on-task attention to the lesson. Mr. Haynes says, too, that he was involved with a group of students who appeared “lost”
as to what to do because a number of their group members were absent. He assisted
them to achieve success. How does this warrant the marking of “needs improvement”
of “Methods facilitate the achievement of objectives” and of “Activities involve students”? The vast majority of individuals in the room were students. As
for “Instructional time is maximized,” Mr. Haynes tells me that he assessed each and every student during class
to ascertain whether the individual texts were being interpreted correctly, that he actively listened to the groups’
various conversations to determine whether the groups were on-task, and that he worked the night before assigning students
to groups so as to insure maximum learning. This appears to be a worthwhile lesson,
but Principal Black carps about it: “The class was organized into five
(5) small groups and given instructions to prepare a dramatic presentation that included the elements of a rubic [sic] that
was provided. The work of the groups was not as focused as desired, and this
limited the progress made towards accomplishing the objective.” Again,
why does Principal Black fail to provide specific feedback to support his claims that the students’ work was “not
as focused as desired” and that “limited” progress occurred? According
to Mr. Haynes who conceived, executed, and evaluated the lesson, the students’ “excellent presentations proved
that the students had learned what they needed to in order to be successful.”
A disconnect exists here, and I believe that it exists because of Principal Black’s apparent desire to “get”
Mr. Haynes.
The crux of my belief that Principal Black wants to “get”
Mr. Haynes rests on the fact that Principal Black apparently violated the most reasonable professional consideration there
is relating to the evaluation of a teacher. Prior to conducting the evaluations,
Principal Black never met with Mr. Haynes to have him sign the form acknowledging that he understood the process by which
and by whom he would be evaluated. Principal Black had Mr. Haynes sign a “Pre-Evaluation
Conference Acknowledgement” on October 12, 2006, eight days after
completing the “Confidential TPEI Classroom Observation Record” and months after completing the “James Baldwin
High School Classroom Observation Form.” And, to emphasize Principal Black’s
apparent unethical attempt to “get” Mr. Haynes, Assistant Principal Donaldson, whom Mr. Haynes had mentioned to
Principal Black had mistreated him during the previous school year, was sent to obtain Mr. Haynes’s signature. This occurred, as stated previously, when Mr. Haynes was in the media center with
his students. Supposedly, Assistant Principal Donaldson brusquely stated, “Mr.
Black wants you to sign this. He’s busy.” After stating his objections to signing the document, which he duly signed, Mr. Haynes was subsequently
visited by Principal Black whose business, obviously, was not of such importance to prevent him from going to the media center
to confront Mr. Haynes in front of his students to assert the claim that the two of them had engaged in a pre-evaluation conference,
in which Mr. Haynes denies participation. It strikes me that Principal Black
and Assistant Principal Donaldson, believing Mr. Haynes to be less than able to think properly because of his disability,
endeavored to use Mr. Haynes’s bipolar disorder to confuse him and to make him think that their actions were ethical,
when, I assert, they were not.
Mr. Haynes’s disability necessitates the taking of many pills,
which he does morning and evening. He starts his day around 6:30 a.m. with the ingestion of fifteen pills to combat his bipolar disorder. He takes them so early to offset the trance-like state into which they place him. Principal Black may have purposefully opted to evaluate Mr. Haynes as early in the morning as he could,
hoping, to catch Mr. Haynes in the throes of his bipolar disorder so as to make a case against him on the evaluations. If so, this violates ADA as well as Atlanta
Public Schools’ rules and regulations.
Mr. Haynes deserves ethical, professional treatment, even more so because of his disability. It is my request that the negative documentation Principal Black has promulgated about Mr. Haynes be discarded
and that Principal Black and his administrative staff be formally instructed to treat Mr. Haynes in an ethical, professional
manner commiserate with the law as well as with common sense.
Respectfully,
John R. A. Trotter, Ed.D.,J.D.
Copy: Mr. J. Anderson Ramay, Jr., Esq., MACE
Mr. Earnest Haynes
