If dysfunctional families raise children with social and
emotional problems, poor grades and inability to fit in, what kinds
of students do dysfunctional school districts turn out? This is a
question that School Board members need to be asking
themselves.
If dysfunctional families raise children with social and emotional problems, poor grades and inability to fit in, what kinds of students do dysfunctional school districts turn out? This is a question that School Board members need to be asking themselves.
We know the teachers are the ones with the biggest impact on the education of students, but what if those teachers, working in a climate of distrust, rumor and gossip, feeling disrespected and under-appreciated, despite their best efforts, begin to show the strain in the classroom? This can’t be good for the students.
And even if the district’s dedicated teachers are able to maintain their composure, isn’t the dysfunction bad for the students, the parents and the community in general?
The last few School Board meetings have been fraught with tension. A divided board is one thing; when trustees begin to take things personally and let anger rule, it is a completely different matter. When the meetings themselves, running late into the night and even continuing into a second night occasionally, start to resemble an old-time vaudeville show, with hisses and boos from the audience, shouted questions and comments from the audience and even Assistant Superintendent for Personnel Denise Tate leaving a meeting because she believed she had been disrespected, it is time for change.
Right now, the situation is just plain ugly.
As for Tate to up and leave in the middle of a meeting, trustees need to send a clear message to the administrative staff that this is unacceptable. Tate has done a good job in the past, but if this occurred in private industry, she could well be out of a job.
Another example of the distrust and dysfunction is the recent rejection of the nearly $500,000 federal small learning communities or “cluster” grants.
The grant was initially accepted by the trustees, though in a divided vote, and would be used to pay for teacher collaboration time, staff development time, for a more focused education environment at Live Oak. After a bare majority of Live Oak teachers voted to reject the grant, Principal Nancy Serigstad asked the board to reconsider. The grant was ultimately rejected by trustees in a 4-3 vote.
Refusing half a million dollars in the current economic climate seems like madness; however, many of the teachers were rejecting not the money but anything presented by district officials. There were good things about the grant and there were ambiguities that teachers were afraid of.
Superintendent Carolyn McKennan, who has become a lightning rod for the criticism, claimed that change is always hard, that people are afraid of change, but it is another symptom of the district’s dysfunction that for certain members of the administration to be associated with something is to seal its fate. The idea of small learning communities or clusters could not win because there is a lack of trust in the motives and methods of some district officials.
Not surprisingly, some district officials would like to believe the people who express dissatisfaction, whether through e-mail, phone calls or speaking out at meetings, are a small but vocal minority. The reality is, there is a depth of dissatisfaction in the district and in the community. People who do not have children in the district are concerned because the reputation of the district affects the reputation of the entire community. People can worry about property values, attracting businesses and home-purchasers to Morgan Hill; those are legitimate concerns.
But our biggest concern is the students. They seem to get lost in all the dysfunction. During a typical meeting, at least half the people who speak refer to wanting “what’s best for all children.” That includes members of the public who fill out speaker cards to address the board, members of staff and trustees. Yet, we still have acrimony, we still have inadequate information or too little too late, we still have closed minds.
A major source of contention has been Sobrato High School, which opens in August. Perhaps what is really the target is yet another symptom of the dysfunction, what the public perceives as mismanagement, poor planning and fiscal irresponsibility. It is sad that what should be an exciting time, the prospect of opening a new high school, returning ninth graders to the high school after nearly a quarter century, should be marred by dysfunction.
And we, the public, as well as the trustees, have yet to learn how much it is going to cost to run the school, much less where the money will come from. Only a week ago were trustees presented a partial budget.
“The money follows the students” is a common mantra now, but it is apparent there won’t be enough ADA, or average daily attendance, funds for everything.
There can be change. There is an active recall effort afoot to remove the four “senior” trustees at a special election, but there will also be three seats on the ballot in November. The filing date for candidates for these seats is in July.
