Name-calling and ascribing motives to personal vendettas is
becoming an all-too-frequent and distracting feature of school
district business. When individual opinions expressed at the public
podium and democratic and lawfully ensured processes such as the
recall or public records requests are perceived as harassment, it
is clear that some of us have lost perspective.
Name-calling and ascribing motives to personal vendettas is becoming an all-too-frequent and distracting feature of school district business. When individual opinions expressed at the public podium and democratic and lawfully ensured processes such as the recall or public records requests are perceived as harassment, it is clear that some of us have lost perspective.
Morgan Hill School District Superintendent Carolyn McKennan and our trustees are entitled to a personal level of respect due their position. However, it is a fact of life that separating the issue from the person becomes increasingly difficult as one nears the top of any organizational pyramid.
It is also important to note that our leaders themselves have a long history of such tactics. The tirade leveled at Jasmine Woodworth was more scathing and without justification than any I have heard leveled at the administration or board. I myself endured the first in a long series of public harangues at the hands of former Live Oak and now Sobrato Principal Rich Knapp and McKennan more than five years ago.
As unproductive and distracting as perceived personal attacks are, playing the victim while painting themselves as noble crusaders out to change the system is likewise an inaccurate description.
Trustee Mike Hickey asked the question at the heart of the issue at a recent board meeting. “What is the goal of ongoing criticisms leveled at leadership now that Dr. McKennan’s contract has not been renewed and the senior trustees have agreed not to seek re-election.”
The answer is simple. It hasn’t been about McKennan or the senior board members since the beginning. Regardless of who sits in those seats, the issues that have prompted opposition are still very much alive.
Until a fundamental understanding is reached regarding the way the district will conduct business, we are all destined to continue down the same dismal path that we have all suffered for some time. A pessimist might even suspect that months of lame-duck leadership will result with little else than petty retributions leveled at critics. There is certainly evidence to suggest such a thing, but we will go into that some other time.
Instead, a brief summery of issues and taking stock of our current situation is in order. Fiscal responsibility, representative leadership, positive employee and community relations all contributing to a high quality education for our children is the goal.
Attaining that goal in the current climate is difficult until a balance can be struck between many competing needs. Educational program offerings, employee compensation and workload, facilities and maintenance are just a few of the competitors for meager resources.
But equilibrium has been upset on all of these fronts – and a critics contend, it has been upset without proper study or genuine endorsement from stockholders due to an autocratic leadership style.
Our district embarked on the construction of Sobrato to move ninth graders to high school and to avoid double sessions soon to be brought on by alleged rampant growth. At least that is what taxpayers were told and that is what the voters supported.
Since the bond election, the purpose of Sobrato has mutated. Secondary enrollment has in fact declined over 20 percent (Live Oak has dropped from 2,024 to 1,598 students during that period).
Sobrato is now being justified to provide future capacity for Coyote Valley growth and tentatively to provide a “revolutionary approach to education.” The fact that school district taxpayers pledged money to serve our existing not future students and that the educational plan has come under significant fire seems to be lost on leadership.
Add to the mix a growing sentiment for a separate Coyote Valley school district and justification for Sobrato becomes pretty thin. Perhaps that is why eager Coyote Valley developers have anonymously pledged $100,000 to ensure the opening.
And yet, a physical Sobrato High School is a fact. The current task must be how to best tailor our schools to the existing student audience within the limits of the resources available. Sobrato offers opportunities to the school district. How to best use it takes frequent review both short and long term. Alternatives such as vocational, continuation, satellite campus etc. all offer cost savings that must be explored before pay cuts, job cuts, and program reductions continue.
Ten years from now, our district may be embarking on a building spree to accommodate a tripling student population. Or 10 years from now, we may be continuing to operate two comprehensive high schools with an even smaller student base than we have now.
Creative planning and brainstorming is needed to adapt to such widely different potentials. The foundation for such brainstorming rests on many crucial and often asked questions that are still awaiting answers.
How many students justify a high school? How many students does it take to offer the programs that students want and need? How many more students per class are we willing to add to a teacher’s load in order to free up the resources to operate exceptionally small schools. Are small schools with larger class sizes any better for students?
If Sorbrato is to be opened as a comprehensive high school, where’s the budget? How will the impact be evaluated as it is estimated that the build out of Coyote Valley will take 10 to 20 years? Have we developed such tunnel vision on opening the campus that we have forgotten that there will be years not just opening day to fund with our current level of resources? How much of a hit and for how long will employees bear a disproportionate financial burden? What impact will that burden have on our hiring ability as well as the educational quality of the district?
Those alternatives are not the only available. Perhaps a build out of Sobrato for the originally planned 2,500-student capacity and moving Britton Middle School students to the existing Live Oak campus should be explored. Could resources from selling the Britton site finish construction without more taxes? Asking such out-of-the-box questions and demanding accurate answers from staff is one way for our Board to become proactive rather than reactive.
Regardless of the course taken, it is essential to justify the course of action to district residents, students, parents, voters and taxpayers. Claiming to be casualties of taking on the system and expecting those footing the bill to trust in your judgments is clearly not working. Re-establishing trust by genuine communication with and inclusion of stockholders in major decisions must become the Board’s priority. Institutionalizing such inclusive decision-making would be a positive and suitable legacy for this board to leave – it would also be a tangible sign that the district will move together to correct systemic problems.
Readers interested in writing a guest column should contact editor Walt Glines at ed******@*************es.com or 779-4106.
