Letters : Principal’s Demotion

As a parent of a student at Moorpark High and as a high school teacher with 13 years of experience, I believe that I can speak with some credibility about the recent controversy surrounding the demotion of Mary Quirk from the principal’s job at Moorpark High.

My initial reaction to the demotion was one of shock, since the Moorpark school board and Mr. Michael Slater, superintendent of Moorpark schools, would have taken action with no prior warning had it not been leaked to the press a mere two days prior to the decision. Even with such a short notice, some 90 citizens (teachers, students and parents) showed up at the board meeting of Feb. 27 asking for a delay of the final decision pending an independent investigation of the facts surrounding the matter. The board was not to be swayed. Their decision was final. The citizens (students, teachers and parents of those student who, by the way, voted the school board into office) would have no say in the matter.

Mrs. Quirk requested a list of the reasons for the school board’s decision. This seemed a fair request since they were, for all purposes, ruining her professional career. She wanted to know why, with no prior warning; she wanted to know why, with no negative work reports in her personnel file; she wanted to know why, when she is respected by over 80% of her teachers, the vast majority of her students and the parents of those students; she wanted to know why, when she is highly respected by other Ventura County administrators, such a decision can be made. At the very least, she wants to know why so that she can clear her name of the circulating and inevitable rumor and innuendo. The sole “reason” that the school board chose to give her in response to her request for a reason was that they felt she would better serve the district as a teacher.

Carla Robertson, president of the school board, states that all Mrs. Quirk had to do was request a formal hearing of the board and they would have been happy to provide the reasons for their decision. Interesting that the board would fully cooperate after the demotion. In a government and judicial system where a cornerstone of our democracy assumes a person’s innocence before due process, the board assumed guilt, tried Mrs. Quirk, found her guilty of as yet unnamed accusations, demoted her and then agreed to tell her why. Bravo! Never mind that the board never made any on-site inspections of the premises other than their original visit to the school when they were introduced to Mrs. Quirk. Never mind that Mr. Slater did not visit the campus other than the four occasions that have been documented. Never mind that neither the school board nor Mr. Slater discussed the supposed problems of her administration contributing to her demotion with Mrs. Quirk. (In fact, she was given a thumbs-up evaluation from Mr. Slater in January, ’86.) Never mind that no negative job review or, at the least a list of shared by the board and Mr. Slater have ever been evidenced or seen by Mrs. Quirk. When the question of this apparent total lack of due process was posed to the board, Mrs. Robertson refused to allow time for the board or Mr. Slater to reply. This same board stated that they could not change their minds about their original decision to demote because they had not received any new information to cause a change. This came on the heels of presentations of a letter of confidence signed by over 80% of the teachers at Moorpark High and submission of petitions with 1,300 plus signatures requesting Mrs. Quirk’s immediate reinstatement.

Initially the outcry was for total board recall. Whether that action occurs remains to be seen. It isn’t necessarily true that removing the board is the answer. That doesn’t make the present board accountable, nor does it make Mr. Slate accountable, and that is the primary reason for taking any action.

Citizens for Accountability and Responsibility in Education (CARE) will not ignore its responsibility to the students of Moorpark. We fully intend to continue our efforts to make both the board and Mr. Slater accountable for their actions, and we will actively work to assure that neither the board nor Mr. Slater will be able to further abuse their power in like manner by initiating steps to protect future employees of the district. The main reason for any action is the benefit of the students and citizens of Moorpark, and when they clearly state their intentions and are ignored by those people who they elect to serve their desires, then those who serve should have to suffer the consequences of that arbitrary action. It is just the beginning.

BARBARA A. LOCZI

Moorpark