LETTERS

School Administrator, Feb, 1997

Modeling a Problem

BY THOMAS P. JOHNSON

Professor, Educational Leadership and Policy Studies, Florida International University, Fort Lauderdale, Fla.

The two letters to the editor in the October issue offer a mini-course on one of today's vexing issues in school system governance.

Thomas Shannon's vituperative criticism of issues raised by William Powers in an earlier guest column ("Today's Superintendent: Imperiled or Just Challenged by Board Behavior?" May 1996) illustrates precisely the problem that Powers outlined. Shannon, former executive director of the National School Boards Association, read the article with a self-serving eye and put a spin on his response that wrapped himself and school board members everywhere in the American flag.

This is hardly the behavior of one whom we hope would be responsible for making measured and ethical decisions affecting children based on objective data. His letter fails to speak about respect or decency in board-superintendent communications.

I confess I am not objective about William Powers since I worked closely with him during the last year of his 18-year tenure as superintendent in Needham, Mass., in the late '70s. I have great respect for him as a leader and an ethical pillar of the community. He worked cooperatively with nine school boards and built networks to align community values with the public schools.

This vicarious exchange between Shannon and Powers models a problem that continually surfaces in superintendent-school board relations. Those in the governing body often listen to issues affecting the district with a politically partisan ear rather than review the problems objectively. Issues too political, which call for individual and collective courage, are routinely scheduled for public hearing, where other partisans form the public rally around views close to their self-interests. The superintendent typically is the one who must exercise courage and assume the risk. In these public performances, it is his or her recommendation that is often controversial.

We would all be well served to consider the advice contained in the letter in the same issue by retired superintendent Robert T. McGee. He suggests that the issues raised by Powers should be discussed in a broad forum. I agree. Let the conversation begin but on a level playing field of communication in a safe forum, not on a field of battle.

Missed Opportunity

BY DONALD W. BEDELL

Chairman, The Bedell Group, Arlington, Va.

George Goens in his article ("Shared Decisions, Empowerment, and Ethics") and Thomas Shannon in his letter ("A Flawed Critique"), both in the October issue, missed a great opportunity by not explaining in detail what imaginative organization regimens they would recommend to raise the academic standing of K-12 students.

Overlooked were two basic facts:

* Each state has sole authority to deregulate school boards and require them to mandate clearly the duties of boards. Or each state can eliminate boards altogether and shift governance responsibility directly to superintendents from the state Education Department.

* Academic performance of K-12 graduates has not risen in more than 25 years. The public has a right to hear explanations. Why have schools not adopted private-sector principles that over 25 years could have made them world-class performers?

No important progress can be made for systemic change unless AASA and the National School Boards Association make their case directly to each state governor and legislative body.

Elitism in Athletics

BY RICHARD A. DUROST

Superintendent, Easton School Department, Easton, Maine

With interest I read John E. Roberts' Viewpoint ("Refocus and Reaffirm School Sports," September 1996). I concur with his view that "elitism in interscholastic athletics is more than unbecoming, it is dangerous."

Too many parents and students today see interscholastic athletics as the route to a college education. This is an unrealistic expectation for most. Additionally, it places undue pressure on the student, often at the expense of variety in life experiences and in expanded friendships gained by participating in several activities.