Culture of Lawlessness

In the Comments of the blog post on the C.A.S. M.O.U. decision (or was it the M.I.C. K.E.Y. decision?) I wrote this paragraph:
"Seattle Public Schools suffers from a culture of lawlessness. No one enforces the rules (whether they be superintendent procedures, board policies, state law or federal law), so no one bothers to follow them. Typically, no one even bothers to check them before making decisions - decisions which often violate the rules. This culture of lawlessness pervades the District and not only makes all kinds of abuses possible but actually encourages them."
That little blurb there really rang true for a lot of folks. So much so that I reckon it deserves a little discussion of its own.



There is no denying the culture of lawlessness in Seattle Public Schools. No one feels constrained by any rules - not any of them. Ask families of students with IEPs and all you will hear is about the District's contempt and open disregard for IDEA. Look at the chronic non-compliance with the Native American grant. The only reason we aren't in trouble for how we spend Title I money is because we have a waiver from the Federal government. The Board readily admits that policies are routinely violated - without feeling any impulse to enforce them. We pour the capital funds together from beaker to beaker like mad scientists and often use them to cover operating costs. State laws are routinely violated - such as the one on conditional certificates for teachers. Health and safety rules and laws are disregarded. Hardly a year goes by that the District doesn't have to read some admonition about unfair labor practices into the Board minutes. According to ESEA, schools that reach Step 5 for persistent under-performance are supposed to be closed, re-invented and re-opened, or at least "transformed", but we have a number of these schools and none of them have been closed and none of them have been "transformed". So much for the ruthless punitive accountability of No Child Left Behind.

Think of anyone who gets credit for doing anything in Seattle Public Schools. They probably broke the rules to do it. Mercer Middle School's touted success is just the most recent example. No one minds that they broke the rules because the rules don't matter.

Think of any situation, any discussion, any Task Force or Advisory Committee. You would think that one of the first things they would do when faced with the need for a decision would be to read the governing law or policy - but they don't. It never even occurs to them to check the rules because the rules don't matter.

The rules don't matter for three fundamental reasons.

First, a lot of the rules are dreadful. Lots of them are meaningless or obsolete. They were written without thought or understanding. Many of them are so removed from reality that they are just silly. They are often completely un-enforceable. There are laws that make things illegal, but fail to cite an enforcement office or a punishment. There are others that have been de-funded. This isn't just a problem with the old policies; this is a problem with the new policies as well. Consider the new proposed revision of the Program Placement policy: it doesn't require anything. It is literally impossible to violate and impossible to enforce because it doesn't actually require anything. Bad rules foster contempt for all rules.


Second, the rules are completely un-enforced. The federal government isn't going to send FBI agents to Seattle to enforce the provisions of the Native American Grant and the Department of Education isn't going to cut off the funding. The state laws that govern the District are often supposed to be enforced by either the State Board of Education or the OSPI, but they can't be bothered. When the District requested conditional certificates for the Teach for America corps members, the State Board granted them without any review. The State Board didn't think it was their place to the review the applications submitted to them. The Board readily acknowledges that they have a duty to enforce policy, but they also readily acknowledge that they never do it. They never do it largely because they don't have any process for it. It continues down the line. Education Directors don't enforce rules on principals, principals don't enforce rules on teachers, and teachers often don't enforce rules on students. In the absence of enforcement, rules truly don't matter. It would be foolish, at least an an eccentricity, to obey rules when there is no consequence for breaking them.

Third, there is the absence of any element in the District's culture that the District is an institution. By that I mean that everything in the District is personal. Each boss makes their own rules and their own procedures. Those are the rules and the procedures for as long as that person is the boss and then, when that personnel changes, all of the rules and procedures are uncertain until the new boss sets them. Nothing is documented. Nothing survives changes in personnel - and the personnel changes like the weather. If you had a promise from Aurora Lora that she would do something, too bad. That promise is now void. The next Executive Director of Schools for West Seattle will be under no obligation to keep the commitments that Ms Lora made. It wasn't a commitment from the District; it was from Ms Lora. It wasn't institutional; it was personal. This contributes to the whole sense that everything is improvised and that managers have authority to make up anything they want.

There was a time, after the disastrous audit of 2010 and after the Pottergate scandal blew up, that Director Carr spoke a couple of times about creating a "culture of compliance" within the District. She doesn't talk about that anymore. She mostly doesn't do it because she wasn't really willing to implement such a thing. No one in the District actually wants to follow the rules because the rules would constrain them from doing what they want to do. So not even the people charged with enforcing the rules has any interest in following them. No one has the moral standing to enforce the rules. In truth, no one really wants them followed because that would be hard and unpleasant.

Actually, there are some people who would like it if the rules were followed: the vulnerable people that the rules were written to protect. But those vulnerable folks are not the people in charge, so they don't get a say.

Comments

Jack Whelan said…
Thomas More: "This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? " --A Man for All Seasons

Give due process its due. It can be a cumbersome pain, but it protects us, particularly the most vulnerable among us, from the caprices of devils and men.

The rule of law has a leveling effect, and the powerful don't like that before it they are equals with the powerless.That's the way it's supposed to be, at least, until the relatively powerless allow the powerful to do as they please, which includes the making of bad laws. And that's why the "law" and "justice", while they often overlap, often do not.

That's why it's important for bad laws and rules to be challenged and expunged, because it is extraordinarily difficult to promote a culture of compliance when the the laws themselves are perceived to be illegitimate because they represent the will of the powerful or otherwise have little to do with justice and good order.

Now ask yourself whose will does this incessant push for a charter schools law represent? Is it really about giving families a choice, or is it about clearing the way so that a foul wind might blow without obstruction?
Ed said…
Charlie

You and I could spend all day talking about examples of the culture you so succinctly articulated. I could go in priority order and hit the highlights in half a day but who knows what might "pop up" next week.

Really though, this blog is the sunshine that SSD needed and it makes a big impact. For example, between you all, you brought down MGJ and her crew (except the remaining couple of "Superintendent's men" as Arch called them).

When I think of all the activists that came and went after failing to achieve "market share" for this kind of dialog (anybody remember Connie Sidles? Or Linda Jordan?), I marvel at your "sunlight as disinfectant" roles.

Yes, you touched me, but only because I realize that this effort is JUST what we've needed.

Go, gang, go!

And lets hope Jose participates as much as we all do. If he's as smart as he seems, he will.
Noam said…
What makes this all worse is that the culture you speak of uses our tax money to sell us the "emporer's clothes" (Strategies 360 and the whole shadow crew) and lawyers (start at the top) who will say anything they are paid to say with no respect for "law" whatsoever.

At least the streetwalkers who serve customers needs for money in a similar fashion, usually seek to get out of the business, these folks seem to revel in it and go far (except Gary Little) when hired away by firms they have used while at SSD (Hoge).

The fact that our current General Counsel has been "outed" probably means he will be here a long time.
Paul said…
Hey Noam

Except for Brenda Little.

Her firm may have an opening for Ron E. except he may not reach her "standards".

Remember Shannon McMinimee?

Bad pennies.
dan dempsey said…
It is beyond a culture of lawlessness... insert idiocy and incompetence to the list.

Try carefully reading School Board Action Reports ... a great many are simply puff pieces for what staff wants. There is rarely much in the way of a real justification or accurate presentation of facts ...... and the Board does not care.

To improve a system requires the intelligent application of relevant data ... Neglect of this fact is common practice in a lot of SPS decision making.
mirmac1 said…
"So not even the people charged with enforcing the rules has any interest in following them." Of course not, because then Sara Morris, Tim Burgess, Frank Greer, ad nauseam could not dictate what they know to be best for us.
Charlie Mas said…
Here's the transcript of a short speech from Jose Banda from the July 3, 2012 board meeting on the connection between policies and staff action:

"You know we’ve heard some really wonderful explanations of some policies and plans and, y’know, I guess one thing that I’m just want to really remind all of us is we’re only as good as the implementation of them and the intent behind them. And so I think it falls on us, staff, to make sure that they’re not just a policy that we have that sounds great but that something we’re really gonna use, put into practice, that’s gonna guide decisions, that’s gonna guide the work that we have cut out for us. Whether it’s dealing with ensuring educational equity or the affirmative action plan or the equitable access. Those are wonderful, wonderful policies and plans that have been put forth and a lot of work that went into those and I really want to thank staff because it’s obvious that a lot of work has gone into crafting these and making sure that they represent the goals of the Board and represent the goals of this district. And so, again, I think they’re only as good as our intent to put them into action and I think that’s what we’re going to be committed. And I’m so glad to hear Marty say there’s an accountability piece because there is an accountability piece. We don’t just want to put them on a shelf and just say they really sound great but what do we do with them. So. One of the things I was writing down as it was being presented is 'Is it going to change our strategies?' in term of how we go about doing our business here. Will it change the practices? Will it guide our decisions? Is it going to guide our practices? I think it will. And I think there’s a lot of merit behind these and I think that there are obviously some things that we need to attend to in the District and the community in our engagement. And how we practice and how we make decisions. And I think that these are wonderful ways of addressing those. Again, it’s gonna really fall on our shoulders here – meaning the leadership. To make sure that we put some intent behind it and that we make them happen."
mirmac1 said…
Actually, Charlie, I have no problem with Banda's statement. Contrast it to the "Talk to the Hand!" response we've had for years now, including from our interim extraordinaire. As I read it, I get the sense he was actually listening to the testimony and questions (not texting or checking email).

I believe that procedures ARE necessary so that the district's bosses (no, not you Morris, Korsmos, Bridge or Burgess), the general public (or "populace" as Bridge is wont to say), can determine that staff is doing "The Work" (doesn't that phrase sound pretentious?) according to laws and district policies. But I concur with Banda that procedures can just be so much paper in a binder on the shelf that NOBODY cares about or follows.
Charlie Mas said…
It would be one thing for Mr. Banda to say that procedures can just be so much paper in a binder on the shelf that NOBODY cares about or follows - if it were not HIS JOB to implement them. It's another thing entirely when it is his job.
Ed said…
Charlie/Mirmac

I don't like it when you disagree.

Two of my favorite people.

I'm willing to let the "new sheriff" approach the lawlessness we all have seen.

Deserves a chance but its a big job.
mirmac1 said…
Hi Ed,

I believe when Banda could have elected to sit back and let the Indian Heritage program move without comment, he took a strong stand - at his first meeting. He realizes his comments and actions are being scrutinized carefully, and when my opinions and Charlie's are at cross-purposes, then you know Hell is freezing over as we speak...
Anonymous said…
(I've been out of state and out of eTouch with the happenings of my employer, so excuse this late post as well as the "simple" nature of my questions)...

Did Banda give a rationale for not moving the program? Knowing the rationale would give me the most "hope" for our future with him.
- teacher
Charlie Mas said…
Consider the rationale given when the District decided to move the John Marshall Alternative High School. The rationale was that the program is in a decrepit building (John Marshall) and that it will be in a better situation in its new location.

And what was that new location? That wasn't determined at the time of the decision - they didn't even suggest a menu of choices.

So how could the District officials be so sure that the new location would be better than the John Marshall building? They couldn't. It was false.

In the end, they broke the school up into bits, sent most of the bits to Wilson-Pacific, a building even more decrepit that John Marshall, and then eventually shut down all of the shards that they had created.

How the District manages the Indian Heritage Middle College and the Middle College program that was at South Seattle Community College will be a significant test for Mr. Banda. These are his first controversial decisions and not only will people be watching WHAT he decides but HOW he decides.
Charlie Mas said…
Let me head off some potential criticism before it comes.

Some might say "Charlie, you are living in the past. The people who did that to John Marshall are all long gone. You cannot hold Mr. Banda responsible for that action and he shouldn't be asked to work under the shadow of that decision. Be fair and only hold him responsible for his own decisions, not the decisions of his predecessors."

There is a lot to that line of thinking. Mr. Banda comes in and he wants a blank slate.

Too bad. We're out of blank slates. If the history were good he wouldn't be asking for a blank slate, would he? He inherits the trust that the institution has earned - good or ill.

That's all part of the District acting like an institution. It has an instituional reputation and an institutional level of trust. It's not personal. I don't hold Mr. Banda responsible for the decisions of his predecessors, but I do hold the institution responsible for them. We have experienced the past and we have learned from it. Our lesson has been not to trust the District or District officials until they have earned the trust.

Essentially, the default position is no longer one of trust but one of distrust. Individuals can earn trust, but no one gets it to start with. Sorry.

You can say that it makes no sense to start from a position of distrust, but neither does it make sense to start from a position of trust. Historically, that has proven the wiser course.

Popular posts from this blog

Tuesday Open Thread

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

First Candidates for Seattle School Board Elections 2023