Righting a Wrong

The school board trustees did the right thing over the weekend, putting Micaela Philpot back in as the principal at Sonoma Valley High School.
It was not quite that easy, of course, since the trustees do not have hire/fire power over school district employees, save one: the superintendent. So they had to direct Superintendent Barbara Young, who had already requested, received and accepted Philpot’s resignation, now to reject it.
Surely, if Young were not retiring at the end of this year, the board’s action would have caused her to leave. No executive can tolerate such interference with operations and still maintain authority over the staff. That’s particularly true in this case, since Young had sought and received concurrence from the board for the dismissal. She posted the open position over two weeks ago and had met with the high school staff to explain plans for hiring a new principal, so the board’s reversal at this stage was a vote of no confidence, certainly in Young, and perhaps even in itself.
This brings up two interesting questions, both of which we have heard in conversations this week in coffee shops and markets. First, were the trustees so out of touch with what was going on at the high school that they didn’t know it was a bad idea to dismiss Philpot? And second, were they so easily swayed by a couple dozen letters and speakers on a controversial topic that they were willing to undercut the superintendent’s authority? In their defense, the high school Boosters Club did urge the trustees to override the dismissal, and perhaps there were hundreds of calls and letters, not just dozens. Still, there are literally thousands of parents and staff directly involved in the public schools, making it tough to judge the depth of unrest on this or any other issue.
The trustees very soon will be interviewing candidates to become the newest superintendent. We expect they will need to reassure those candidates that this particular situation was much more severe than any that might arise in the future – that whatever it was in this case that warranted the trustees to direct the superintendent to reverse a decision that they had earlier affirmed, it would not occur again. Otherwise, the new superintendent, who will be called upon to implement bold changes in the coming years, may be worried about being second-guessed by the trustees.
These events may have relevance for the coming elections in November, too, when three of the five school board seats are to be filled. One of the trustees is completing two terms (eight years), and two are completing one term (four years). This seems an ideal topic during the campaign for discussions about the high school, about the role of the trustees, and about the challenges facing the schools and our community.
Looping this discourse back to our opening comment, we note again that the trustees have righted a big wrong, and we applaud their strength in doing so. The welfare of students should be our principal concern, and keeping Philpot was the right thing to do.