Confusion and complaints about how the Morgan Hill Unified
School District Board of Education makes decisions that affect
students have prompted trustees to create a subcommittee to study
the issue.
Morgan Hill
Confusion and complaints about how the Morgan Hill Unified School District Board of Education makes decisions that affect students have prompted trustees to create a subcommittee to study the issue.
During their Oct. 23 regular meeting, trustees decided the subcommittee will be composed of at least two board members and expanded to include other “interested stakeholders,” such as parents and teachers, as the subcommittee members see fit.
Because trustees did not seem to be clear about what particular “processes” the subcommittee would address, Board President Peter Mandel explained he put the topic on the agenda for discussion due to comments made about the issue during prior board meetings.
Board members who serve on the subcommittee could be discussing how to get more input from teachers and the community, as well as how board members set policy. The first meeting date for the subcommittee has not yet been determined.
During the discussion, however, it was clear that trustees were not sure if decision-making was being addressed to resolve a particular issue or something more broad. Trustee Mike Hickey said he would like to know more about the scope of the discussion.
“Are we going to say, maybe (the district decision-making process) needs to be tweaked, do you want to expand this and get a lot more people involved,” he asked the other trustees.
Perhaps the board has not been following what has been the established practice for decision making, Trustee Shelle Thomas said.
“How would a board establish policy, and how would that relate to what we discuss here,” she asked. “It’s changed … it’s changed from the way it has been done in the past.”
Morgan Hill Federation of Teachers President Donna Foster told the board she hoped they would keep in mind during their discussion that there are procedures in place to make decisions for the district, which include steering committees and task forces.
According to Foster, the union has felt for quite some time that the board, under the leadership of District Superintendent Alan Nishino, has failed to consult with them on critical education issues. The union represents more than 400 teachers who work for the district’s 15 schools. Also, after a hiatus of more than a year, the district has finally resumed meetings of city school liaison committee, which brings city and school leaders together to discuss common issues.
The union filed an unfair labor practice charge against the district in January of this year with the State Public Employment Relations Board alleging, among other things, that the district has excluded the teachers in violation of the Rodda Act, which was passed in 1975, allowing public school employees greater involvement in formulating policy.
Basically, the union is accusing the district of ignoring the union’s consultation rights, Foster said. Union and district representatives are working with mediators to resolve the grievance.
One recent example was the change to the district’s high school graduation requirements. The district did not get adequate input from the federation, she said, during the planning of the proposed changes. The changes included revisions to math and applied arts requirements as well as changes to allow credits from outside sources.
“They’ve stopped consulting with the teachers,” Foster said, adding that the district used to have a board policy committee made up of two administrators, two board members and one teacher. That committee, however, stopped meeting soon after Nishino became the district’s top leader, according to Foster.
The committee discussed all educational issues, from graduation to transportation policies. All draft policies would come before that committee, she said.
“We had a good process that worked, but now we have nothing,” Foster said. “We used to have site or grade-level department meetings and all teachers were included in curriculum changes.”
The subcommittee would report its progress during the “board reports” portion of the agenda, Mandel suggested, and he told trustees he would like to see something definitive by the end of the calendar year.
Trustee Don Moody volunteered to serve on the subcommittee, and a consensus of the board agreed that Fisher, who was not able to attend the meeting, should also be a part of the subcommittee. Mandel said he envisioned the subcommittee as an “ad hoc committee,” not a standing committee. Fisher, the newest trustee serving on the board, has expressed concerns about procedural issues.
He will serve on the committee, he said Thursday, adding that he believes consistency is needed and that board members must have a very specific idea about how decisions are reached and how and when the public and other groups can be involved.
Trustee Kathy Sullivan said that she would not volunteer to serve on the committee because she didn’t think the way the district is arriving at critical education decisions is flawed or needs revising.
She noted that other board members have publicly voiced dissatisfaction.
“If that’s the case, the people not pleased with the process might be the ones to look into how we might change it,” she said. “I would not be a part of that. If you are not pleased with it, that is your chance to get involved and do something about it.”
But a board decision is not a decision of a handful of trustees, Thomas pointed out.
“As a board, the only way to affect change is by board policy, not by individual actions,” she said.
