She's Not the Only One

There was this funny/sad article in the NY Times about Blackberry manners in today's world. I had to admit that Dr. Goodloe-Johnson behavior at Board meetings with her Blackberry crossed my mind. Then I got to this part of the article:

"Still, the practice retains the potential to annoy. Joel I. Klein, the New York City schools chancellor, has gained such a reputation for checking his BlackBerry during public meetings that some parents joke that they might as well send him an e-mail message."

There's a thought - we could either text her during meetings or hold up newspapers and pretend to read when she starts talking and see how she likes it.

Comments

owlhouse said…
What do you suppose Dr. GJ or "chancellor" Klein think of students texting during class? I was infuriated watching Carla Santorno message and read during public hearings re: school closures. I know we can all multi-task, but really, how rude and socially inept.
dan dempsey said…
Perhaps "Blackberry-ing while meeting" is a characteristic for Success that the Broad Foundation advocates for their Directors ....
Both Klein and MG-J are Broad Foundation Directors and surely Santorno would like to join the group.

Perhaps we could get some WA DC observers to watch Michelle Rhees and report on her Blackberry manners.
zb said…
Interesting phenomenon -- I think they might think that they are trying to get information/answers via blackbery (kind of like I do when I'm reading this email forum, via the internet) and on phone conversations. Others my also be communicating with them (with potentially relevant information) during the meeting.

But, I can see how turning to another source (especially a teeny one that results in breaking eye contact, changing focus, etc.) during face to face conversations would be very distracting to the other person. They should stop, or figure out some way to try to get the same information they're getting via blackberry. My guess is that they are not shopping online during the meetings, but that they are getting the kinds of notes assistants would push over in front of them on paper in the olden days. They could return to that method, which would be less distracting
Sahila said…
I dont think they are getting extra, relevant to the discussion information via their blackberries... the pattern of behaviour is not consistent with that - its too prolonged, not staccato enough to be action where you send a message to a staff member then wait for a response and then put your device down to return your attention to the speakers/action.

I'd be willing to stake a few dollars betting they're catching up on email, checking in on friends and family, making social appointments, all the things they'd be doing at home from 5-10pmish if they didnt have to do this pesky community engagement thingy...
Sorry, they can check their Blackberries AFTER the public comment time. Fine by me but when members of the public take the time to sign up and come to the meeting the least she can do is pay attention.
dan dempsey said…
Melissa,

I am shocked at your response.

Here I thought that MG-J was sending out emails to Senior Staff and others as to who was going to respond to each person testifying and appropriately follow up on the items brought up in each public testimony. We were guaranteed that would be happening.

Don't you think that is the case? ..... well call me gullible.
MoneyPenny said…
I know for a fact that she is sending/recieving information staffers relevant to the testimony. Why? I testified once and a staff person came out to meet me in the lobby, asked a question that the Sup had emailed her about something I had said.

Here is the thing for me, a lot of times the public testimony is painful for anyone to sit through, uniformed, and repetative. I would much rather have the Sup earning her money by doing things during those two hours than sitting there doing nothing. But that is just me.
Money Penny, please read what I wrote...repeatedly. I said she should pay attention during the public comment period. That's about 1 hour. And doing things? It's part of her job description. But really, tell me, when is she supposed to listen to the public?
WenD said…
@Money Penny: Repetition is in the eye of the beholder.

It's a public hearing. In this context, texting circumvents the fact that it's public, unless everything furtively conveyed between the players makes it into the record.
Sahila said…
I had the experience after my first speaking slot at a Board meeting, of walking out after the public testimony with my 5-year old in tow, who desperately needed to find a toilet ..

I stepped just outside the double doors and was literally pounced on by Ruth Medsker (?sp) and another woman I didnt know/recognise and told that the information I had delivered in my testimony was wrong... the information came from our principal and I was sure I had quoted him directly and correctly. They implied he had lied...

Several days later, I was speaking with another principal and he confirmed the information conveyed to me by our principal was accurate and that all school staff had been emailed the same information...

I was so mad - they were obviously upset that I had brought forward into the public arena discrediting information that was not necessarily widely known and they were in 'damage control' mode... and they were single-mindedly tunnel-visioned and insensitive enough to make it hard for me to take care of my child's needs - I had to insist several times as they were pushing themselves at me/us that we needed to find a bathroom NOW....

Because of this and numerous other examples on the part of Staff and the Superintendent and to a lesser degree the Board, I have no trust and very little respect left...

I dont believe and accept anything that's presented now at face value... I need to check and confirm for myself... and what a sad state of affairs that is when the public have no faith left in the public servants that are supposed to protect and act in the best interests of a powerless, vulnerable population - children/students, who are totally at the mercy of whatever the adults determine and do.

I listened to the programme this morning, and was idly wondering why and how such a large divide has been created between what parents think are changes that need to be made for the better, and the changes being pushed by the Super and the Board...

The changes are so far away from internationally-recognised research and reform implemented successfully in other countries that what's going on here makes no sense, UNLESS there is another agenda operating under the surface...

I wondered if it would be a worthwhile exercise to assemble information/research about effective education reform and school-based management and examples of where its been implemented and the outcomes (pros and cons) and compare it to what the Broad Foundation and Gates et al propose and promote... and see for ourselves what really is going on here in Seattle...

And IF what's going on is obviously aligned with the Broad/Gates path, perhaps even verifiably directly influenced by these groups, then maybe we can take action (legal) action to stop this before it becomes a fait accompli....

What do you think?
MoneyPenny said…
Melissa, obviously you and I disagree. For me, the public testimony is for the benifit of the School Board, who are not generally available to the public because they are well, off doing thier "real" jobs. It is all recorded, and often repetative. How many times do you need to hear Chris Jackins' PO Box number? I would rather the Sup spend that time productively. Like I said, that's just me.

Popular posts from this blog

Tuesday Open Thread

Why the Majority of the Board Needs to be Filled with New Faces

Who Is A. J. Crabill (and why should you care)?