The main purpose of the Employee Engagement portion of this meeting was to review the results of an HPS employee survey.  However, the results of the survey, which the Superintendent’s PR guy, Jesse Sugarman, won’t be trotting off to WFSB or the Hartford Courant because they reveal some really unflattering stuff about HPS, was not the main message received from this portion of the meeting.

The questions and comments made by Board members about the survey resulted in a message which to all listening should be loud and clear: there is a culture of fear of retribution among HPS employees.

Board Member Deristel-Ledger wanted to know if the survey responses were given anonymously.  Dr. Curtis replied that it was anonymous due to the fact that HPS partners New Measures LLC and Qualtrics conducted the survey and collected the results before they were given to the Superintendent’s folks.

When Dr. Curtis stated that the district, to incentivize the taking of the survey, resorted to conducting prize raffles if a teacher or employee took the survey, Member Deristel-Ledger asked how they knew who took the survey and would get a prize if it was anonymous.

Dr. Curtis explained that employees used their email to take the survey, thereby giving the district information on who took the survey, but how a particular respondent answered a survey question was not revealed.

Member Deristel-Ledger also inquired if a teacher or employee taking the survey was asked for their race and gender.  She stated that her concern was that using these personal metrics may in some way identify the individual taking the survey.  Ms. Curtis wasn’t sure if the survey asked for this information, however, during the meeting an email was delivered confirming that, yes, race and ethnicity had been a question on the survey, gender wasn’t confirmed.

Board Member Escribano piggy-backed on these concerns by asking if the survey asked for a respondent’s particular department or subject of teaching, saying that this may be able to be used to identify a survey taker.  Although the results could be aggregated by school, there was no collecting of individual field of employment, in fact, Dr. Curtis said that the survey was not even issued so that the results could be filtered for only responses by teachers, despite the fact that they knew 57% of HPS teachers had taken the survey.

Board Member Walker underscored the gist of the line of questioning employed by the other members.  Mr. Walker stated that by using a third-party to conduct the survey, it should result in a “non-biased, no-fear, honest” survey, and to qualm fears of retaliation for responding openly and honestly, and to elicit  a greater response rate, the survey should have been promoted to teachers and employees that it is not to be conducted by the district but rather by an independent third party.  Mr. Walker stated that fears of retaliation by the district “need to be put to bed…Board members should not be hearing this.”

Also underscoring the implication of the Board’s questioning, is the fact that despite giving away “swag” to folks who took the survey, and despite extending the time for folks to take the survey, only 43% of HPS employees turned in responses.  Member Deristel-Ledger said that this number “sends a message,” and it requires a conversation as to “why.” 

Curiously, while Dr. Curtis gushed over her new logo and Board members were revealing that there exists in Hartford Schools a culture of fear toward the administration, Superintendent Torres-Rodriguez sat quietly by and offered nothing to the conversation; none of her usual feel-good rhetoric, no “we’ll do better,” nothing.

What is more interesting is that the Superintendent, with survey in hand showing dissatisfaction with the district by teachers and other employees, was at this moment skipping a live, district scheduled “Community Conversation” with teachers and the teacher’s union that was taking place simultaneously at Milner Middle School on the topic of teacher engagement! 

Why, if you are trying to get employees to “really believe” that you listen to their input, would you skip a live meeting with those employees to attend a meeting without any of those employees and a meeting where you do not participate?  You can’t even add this up using Eureka Math.  As Lexington Superintendent Paul Ash was quoted earlier as saying, “You can’t fix what you don’t talk about.”

And talk they must because the implications by the Board members at this meeting is not just talk, it is real and it is happening in Hartford Public Schools.

A week prior to this meeting and the unveiling of the listening logo, a number of teachers were reprimanded when they dared present an alternative view and question the facilitator of a professional development meeting.  Rather than being listened to, these teachers were castigated for being “unprofessional” and “disrespectful” because they did not see things in the same light as sages in the administration.

During a follow up PD meeting, led by a district Director rather than a district coach, these teachers felt the retaliatory hand of the administration.  While not punitive in nature, the administration’s retaliation consisted of an intimidating, condescending, disrespectful, and unprofessional “scolding” for having dismissed the notion that the administration and its polices are beyond reproach.

The following are a few other examples relayed to me by teachers who have experienced the retaliatory nature of the district under Superintendent Torres-Rodriguez:

•  A teacher has been relocated from one school to another after pointing out bad behaviors by school leaders.  I am told this forced relocation step happens frequently if teachers “speak up.”

• If a teacher speaks out, they are suddenly and immediately intimidated with unscheduled walk-throughs and evaluations.

• Teachers who have been outspoken are intimidated, pressured, and forced into a hostile work environment.

• Teachers who have gone against the grain have been suddenly hit with DCF investigations over weak or nonexistent charges.

Liz  Ryan, a former Fortune 500 Senior Vice President, leader of the Human Workplace Movement, and a writer for Forbes Online and the Chicago Sun-Times on the workplace environment since 1997, writes that there are 10 signs of an “unmistakable fear-based” culture:

• Employees forego collaboration or innovation as they fear missing daily goals.

• Rather than listening to employees and collaborating on problem-solving, employers specialize in assigning work, measuring results, punishing infractions and maintaining order.

• Employees are afraid to tell the truth.

• There will exist a rumor mill because “sticky” conversations by employees and employers are feared by the former and avoided by the latter.

• Employees work under a cloud of fear and suspicion.

• Following rules and avoiding blame are top priorities.

• Talk of collaboration and out-of-the-box thinking is just rhetoric to the fearful and beaten-down employee.

•  Employees disappear without explanation or warning.

• The smartest and most capable employees are passed over for promotion by those “who most wholeheartedly embrace the fear-based culture.”

•  Employees do not “stay human,” they lose their sense of humor, their warmth and their confidence under a cloud of fear.

Paul Ash retired from the Lexington School District in 2015 after 10 years as Superintendent.  At his retirement party, “hundreds” of past and present colleagues, school committee members, and even parents came to honor him.  “You brought humanity to our schools,” said one former school committee member.