We Need to Fix Broken Lines of Communication, and Fast

After taking some time to reflect on the April 9 Budget and Finance Committee Meeting, and the comments that have flowed from it, I need to share some of my thoughts as well.

First and foremost, it is absolutely unacceptable that curriculum administrators presented one thing to the Board and then were patently unable to support (or even explain) it before the public last Tuesday evening. Things need to change, and things will change, with regard to communication from this district to its parents, staff and Board members.

As a Board member, I was presented facts that *seemed* promising in preparing for Tuesday’s committee meeting.  I was told that curriculum administrators, in true collaboration with the elementary principals, were going to present a way to run the elementary schedule more efficiently while at the same time preserving specials and increasing instructional time, collaboration among the schools and professional development (all of which directly improve the quality of education our students receive).

It *appeared* as though someone was finally thinking outside the box, working together and really taking a close look at how we manage programs and staff in this district.  I was told flat out that this did not evolve from a budget discussion, but rather from a strategic discussion about professional development.

Personally, I hoped that any savings presented to us by administration, if accepted by the Board, could pave the way to bringing back the FLES program, which was cut before I was elected to the board (if not FLES, then another program identified with the newly constituted parent advisory committee).

While I know that change is always hard, I understood that positives could come (at least in theory) from the sharing of ideas – especially in the areas of the arts where creativity is at the core – and so exposing students to different teachers with different styles and ideas (so long as not done in a disruptive way) could have a positive impact on their education.  When Loomis recently received the International Reading Association’s Exemplary Reading Program Award, I asked what we were doing to share that school’s experience with other schools in the district.  Maybe this was one attempt to answer that question.

After the concept of a unified schedule was suggested to the Board a few weeks ago, I asked the questions that the parents rightly asked on Tuesday night.  I asked if the principals supported it (I, along with the rest of the Board, was assured that they did).  In fact, I asked for a direct meeting between the principals and the Board to discuss the personnel-related aspects of this proposal in advance of the committee meeting, but was assured that this was unnecessary because they would be sharing in the committee presentation.

I asked – and was assured – that things such as the Evening of the Arts, book fairs and field day had been considered and that a plan had been conceived (even if not finalized) to ensure that these valuable assets would not be lost.

I asked for information on other districts, where this concept had been applied successfully, and was told that it would be looked into.

I asked if the proposal could be considered as a pilot only in those areas where retirements and other staffing changes meant that no actual loss of jobs would occur (in other words, excluding the music department).

None of this was presented or shared with parents on Tuesday night.  If it turns out that this is because any of the information previously provided to the Board was simply untrue, I will insist that there be accountability for that.

This was quite possibly one of the most frustrating meetings that I've attended in the past four years, as I’m sure it was for the parents in the audience as well.  Like everyone else, I want better answers about this breakdown in communication than I’ve gotten so far.  Knowledge and information are power, and not something that the district should be afraid to share.

I expect to see a very different, and more professional, presentation at this Tuesday’s CIT meeting (one that is evenly balanced between Board/parents’ questions on one hand and clear answers by administrators who are knowledgeable about the subject on the other).  If the “common schedule” isn’t the great innovation that was originally advertised to the Board, then without question it will not go forward.

On a personal note, one of the speakers on Tuesday night correctly recalled that I voted (and in fact was the only vote of 9) against cutting classroom aides and several other positions in 2011.  There was no election for me that year, no television media coverage, but I voted for what I believed was best for the district.  That hasn’t changed.  I won’t vote for a budget that eliminates our art, gym or music programs, or that I believe hurts those programs in any way.  But I will expect everyone to be given the information and opportunity to discuss these issues – and have real conversations about how to start restoring quality programs back to the district – based on what they believe is best for the district and its children, without first worrying about how they will be portrayed.