Criticism That's Hard to Swallow

School Administrator, June, 2000 by Lorna Jimerson

It happens perhaps once a year, and it always takes me by surprise. At some particularly difficult school board meeting, a member of the audience will cry Out: "Hey, you weren't listening. What about input from parents, taxpayers, the community?"

I am a veteran school board member with more than a decade of service, but I am always dumbfounded by these indignant questions. At first I'm confused, then I feel defensive. I'm being accused of not listening to the public, of not caring about public sentiment. And it is just not true.

We make an enormous effort as a district to keep not only community members informed, but to solicit their opinions. The principals, the superintendent and the board have consciously created vehicles to expand the level of engagement of community members.

The superintendent has formed committees on technology, standards and policy review. These groups include community representatives as well as board members. Our search committees are similarly inclusive. We have community members working on strategic planning, facilities and school improvement initiatives. And, of course, all board meetings are announced in advance and open to the public.

So I feel like shouting back, "Darn it, we do listen. We actively invite your input and it does count." Usually, though, I nod and stifle a frustrated sigh.

Individual Complainants

If I sound defensive, I plead guilty. I feel attacked and besieged.

My defensiveness comes from experiencing attacks on two fronts. First, as in the scenario above, are complaints from within the community. The second, and much more disturbing and difficult, are the multipronged assaults on public education and school board governance.

I can and do deal with the first. Community members that reprehend me of not listening usually disagree with a particular decision of the board, a principal or the superintendent. My board colleagues and I, with help from the administration, can defuse these concerns by explaining the context of a specific decision.

As public officials, we are mandated to attend to the best interests of every child. Most decisions, therefore, involve tradeoffs we must carefully consider. Obliging the wishes of individual parents may not best serve the needs of all children in our schools.

We almost never please everyone with this reasoning--nor should that necessarily be our goal. Most individual complaints dissipate, however, when people understand the bigger picture.

Unwarranted Attacks

Much more insidious are onslaughts against the institution of public education itself. These attacks often are aimed at removing the decision-making power from publicly elected and community-based officials (board members and the leaders we hire) and surrendering that authority to those much further removed from the community and its schools.

Some of these proposals give authority to politicians--many of whom do not know the community or understand local concerns. Other propositions grant powers over public education to businesses and individuals who stand to make a profit. In both cases, educational reform can be motivated by political or financial considerations rather than the best interests of children and communities.

Last November, for example, the influential Education Commission of the States released a proposal for alternative governance structures that effectively would disenfranchise school boards. One option would transform school boards from policymakers to fiscal agents, whose main responsibility would be to collect money and then contract our for all services. Contracts could involve nonprofits, for-profits and religiously affiliated enterprises.

This plan basically represents a publicly funded voucher program, presented under the illusion of increased accountability to the public. Discussions about instruction and curriculum would not necessarily occur in open sessions or take into account public sentiment. The ECS proposal reserves the right for educational institutions to restrict admission.

So much for the obligation to educate all children. So much for the public.

Other threats to school board governance come from laws that restrict board authority. In some states, all curricula and textbooks are mandated. Other states have limited boards' ability to hire superintendents, set taxes and negotiate contracts. In some urban centers, school boards have been abolished.

A Custodial Mandate

These governance proposals, whether designed to eliminate or merely to limit school board authority--all have the effect of removing direct community influence from local public schools. They sever that connecting thread between local people and local schools. That is, they take the public out of public education.

Perhaps our prime edict is to be custodians of the public of public education. It is, in fact, our mandate.

School boards are bound to do this by law and by tradition. We have an obligation to educate all children in our community. And we are directly accountable to our communities.

Our meetings are open. Our minutes are published. Our documents are publicly available. We hire and fire, if necessary, our administrators. People can call us, petition us and vote down our budgets. We are obliged to prevent political, ideological and profit motives from eroding our collective actions. We are instruments of a democratic society and work for the common good.