The Face of Holiday on Ice (updated)
While my eleven years of advocacy in Seattle Public Schools may appear to be one long contest, it has actually been hundreds of brief ones. This is not one long reaction to a single outrage, this is a series of reactions to literally hundreds of different outrages. Hardly a month goes by – not even the summer months – when the District doesn’t do at least a couple things that really trouble me.
I’ve contemplated this – a lot. I’ve wondered and pondered over the central question of what, exactly, is it that the District does that inspires me to action? I think I know the answer. It's the willful violation of trust. I’m bothered when a public institution fails to keep faith with the public that they have pledged to serve. That irritates me, but only a little. It certainly doesn’t surprise me. What compels me to action and stokes the fire that burns in me is when they are brazen about it. People are, after all, only human. I am ready to forgive and forget not only accidents but even transgressions. I’m even quick and sincere about it. But I cannot forgive people who will not ask forgiveness. I cannot forgive the spite and abuse inherent in hubris of those who revel in their fault.
So when the school district does things like ignore the written procedure for forming an advisory committee, that’s not really a big deal. When I contact them about it and point out the fact, all they would have to do is acknowledge the procedure and admit that they did not follow it. It would be a bonus if they would offer some explanation – one with real merit – about why they had to skip the written procedure. I don’t even have to agree with them that their reason justifies not following the procedure. I would be satisfied. But that’s not what they do. They deny the existence of the written procedure. They deny that the procedure applies in this case. They claim that they followed it when they clearly did not. They refuse to offer any explanation for neglecting the procedure. And, in the end, they rub my face in it. They say “That’s right. We didn’t follow the procedure because we don’t have to. No one – and certainly not YOU – can make us follow this procedure or any procedure if we don’t want to. We choose to break the rules to demonstrate the fact that we don’t have to follow the rules. And there’s nothing that you can do about it.”
And it’s not just superintendent procedures that they violate. They freely – joyfully – violate district policy. They revel in breaking state administrative codes and state laws. They get some special thrill from breaking federal laws. They do it as an affirmation of their power, of their invincibility, of their authority. And they are right. There is no one who can or will stop them. There is no one who can or will enforce any of these rules. The supervisors within the district don’t enforce the rules – they break the rules themselves. The superintendent doesn’t enforce the rules – she breaks the rules herself. The Board doesn’t enforce the rules – they are breaking them too. The OSPI and the State Board of Education won’t enforce the rules – they refuse to challenge the power and authority of those who break them and they are too lazy besides. The federal Department of Education won’t enforce the rules – that would create paperwork for them. The Courts won’t even enforce the rules on these people – they also have too much respect for the power and authority of these petty bureaucrats. They have all of these rules – rules that are supposed to protect the students, the teachers, and the public – but they freely violate any and all of them. And no one, none of the people who are supposed to enforce these rules, none of the people who are supposed to provide accountability, none of the people who have a duty to protect the students, the teachers, or the public, ever steps up to their responsibility, does their job, and enforces the rules.
And that really, really lights a fire in me. This fire burns hot, it burns bright, and it quickly burns out. So how do I keep going? I keep going because they keep throwing new fuel on the fire. They are constantly breaking faith with students, teachers, and the community. Time and time again. This week it was the program placement policy, the transportation plan, the transportation task force, the Lake City real estate investment, the BEX IV plan, investments in buildings that they intend to tear down, and a handful of other issues that people tell me about by email that I keep confidential in accordance with their wishes. And that’s all just this week.
But why do these little betrayals upset me so? What is it about my character that makes me so susceptible to these abuses of authority? I don’t know. But I want folks to understand that I’m not bothered very much by the fact that the district didn’t follow the rules when forming the Transportation Task Force. Yeah, it’s irksome, but easy to brush off. What really puts a burr under my saddle is their response when you call them on it. They scoff. That, that hubris, that sneering smugness, that presumption of privilege, I cannot tolerate.
Director Carr talks about creating a culture of compliance as she refuses to enforce the rules. The other board directors don’t want to enforce policies because they don’t want to damage their working relationship with the staff. What working relationship? The one in which the Board makes rules and the staff violates them? Is that the working relationship that the Board wants to preserve? In truth, the Board doesn’t want to constrain the staff to following the rules for fear that they, too, will be expected to work within the rules, and they don’t want to be constrained by them either.
It’s an old problem. Who will watch the watchmen? The community depends on the moral strength and the integrity of the watchmen. The watchmen lay claim to that integrity. The watchmen pledge integrity to the community. And when the watchmen violate that pledge, it is a deep betrayal. The local media is definitely included among the watchmen.
All of these rules – superintendent procedures, board policies, the WAC, the RCW, and federal law – they are all there to protect students, teachers, and the community. Each one of them is a commitment from the District and school officials. The people who pledge to follow and uphold those rules are also supposed to protect students, teachers, and the community. Each time one of these rules is broken, it a broken commitment. Each time one of these rules is broken it is the students, the teachers, and the community who are hurt. And each time one of the people who are supposed to enforce the rules refuses to do so, they are adding injury to injury. They are reminding us that we depend on them for protection but they will not protect us. Instead, they laugh at us, at our vulnerability, and at the thrill of their power. It’s freakin’
I’m not one who is quick to acknowledge
Comments
Yes, I'd call that evil.
--enough already
I believe the board is led by the nose by the staff (even when some on the board think THEY are giving the direction). Unfortunately the saying "a lack of planning on your part does not constitute an emergency on my part" does not apply here. Our board seems to reel from emergency to emergency.
I hope our new superintendent will stay ahead of these crises (many self-inflicted), anticipated the damage it will do to students, families, and teachers, and proceed in a thoughtful, considerate fashion. I'm sure some on the board will be grateful NOT having a pile of doo-doo dropped in their laps.
You may like Director Martin-Morris. You may think he is doing his best. Be sure that he knows - without question or doubt - that policies are violated. Yet he takes no action - NONE - to enforce those policies or to assure that they are followed. So what's that about?
Does he not care about compliance?
Does he not care about transparency?
Does he not care about keeping commitments to students, teachers, and the community?
Does he not care about preventing the harm that the policy - if followed - would prevent?
Or does he care about all of these things, just not as much as he cares about something else? And what is that other thing which is more important than trust, more important than doing his sworn duty? It's something that serves him personally at our cost.
And it's not just Director Martin-Morris. The exact same thing can be said for all of them.
"Fed Up"
I like your new profile picture Charlie. You look so different when I see you on tv at the school board meetings.
keep on keepin on
I would, however, focus on five or six critical policies where flagrant non-compliance leads to intolerable negative consequences. That would be easier to argue, easier to demand, and easier to monitor.
In other words, there's a problem, and it ain't gonna get fixed except someone come up with a strategic approach to solve it. I'm open to other suggestions, but it seems to me the best approach is take things one by one in size order and solve them.
So what five or six policies would those be? What are the negative consequences of their not being complied with? In other words we can't make a very robust argument for compliance until it's clear to everybody why they should care enough to organize around demanding compliance.
Charlie cares, and I respect his long-term commitment and passion regarding this problem, and I understand his frustration, but, come on, it doesn't help him with people who would be his allies to call them, in effect, the devil.
Two and quarter years to go
I know Charlie long slog - I've had a similar one.
Most of the Board members I've met and worked with are well-meaning people, both as candidates and as Directors.
But something happens to people who get on the Board. The main issue is they listen to staff and believe nearly everything they say.
This is not to say staff members are evil. But there is a culture that has not allowed more transparency without a lot of pushback and we STILL don't have it the way it should be (or as it is talked about, over and over, by the Board).
I am with Jack; I would 5 or 6 things to focus on and pressure the Board on those.
But we will never get better as a district if some things don't change. When people shake their heads and wonder why we can't get a grip on finances and management, you'd think it would cross their minds to wonder if it isn't systemic. It's not just the superintendent (whoever that is); it's the tone set by all the department heads.
Maureen, that's an interesting idea to talk to Erinn Bennett but considering she is directed more by Holly Ferguson than the Board, that gives me pause.
So I acknowledge what Melissa, Jack and others say -- but at some point, what they are doing -- what they are CONSCIOUSLY doing in terms of ignoring policies -- will destroy the District. You simply cannot rely upon the consent of the governed (to pay taxes, vote for levies, follow the rules you lay down for them, etc.) if your own actions indicate contempt for the law. The Board may (although I question how they could) "intend" to have things work out well somehow, but how is that enough -- if they also actively, blatantly "intend" to ignore the laws(rules) they themselves created and agreed to govern the District by (which is what the policies are).
Never mind Michael, Harium, and Sherry. But does not Kay have to look in the mirror, at some point, and say -- "I am systematically killing this District by undermining and destroying the legitimate confidence and expectations that parents, children, teachers, and District voters need to have -- that my actions on the Board will be in accordance with law (including the policies that the board itself has established)? Doesn't Betty have to have this conversation with herself? Marty? Sharon?
cont'd
As Charlie points out, it would be one thing to make a mistake, or to just not be able to (time, other pressing business, whatever) -- but to at least acknowledge that the policies matter to people, that you wish you had done better, and next time you will -- or that in hindsight, there is no way that policy can work, so you will work to repeal it so the Board operates in compliance with something more reasonable --isn't that the minimum that is required to retain any air of legitimacy?
I agree with Jack that since they are so far out of compliance with so much stuff -- it would be great if they would just acknowledge that it's really bad now, and then triage -- pick the 5 or 6 policies that are the most critical, and start there. But I think they need to then suspend the other policies -- the ones they concede they aren't even going to take a whack at -- until such time as they either revise those policies, or follow them. But Jack -- I think part of what Charlie is saying is -- even that would require a modicum of fidelity to the idea that they govern by policy, an admission that they are supposed to care about following the policies they formulate (and asking the Superintendent to care about them). How can they make the start you suggest -- if they are positioned where Charlie says they are -- and frankly, isn't all the evidence on his side?
At some point, if you have a duty to act, you knowingly fail to act, the results of your actions are destructive -- and you know that too, and your response is -- "I don't care; you can't make me;" --do you not end up where Charlie is -- concluding that it is a manifestation of evil? To be the ONLY people who can do something (enforce compliance with board policy); to have a duty to do it (state auditor is pretty clear on that); to knowingly refuse to do it; and to not care? If all the clauses in the preceding sentence are true, what other adjective works here? Because I am grasping for one, and none comes to mind.
I WISH you were on the Board!
Pease don't give up, and please consider running again.
Evil is a Somali warlord. Evil is genocide. Evil is profiteering from humanitarian aid. Evil is a great many, terrible things. But evil is not disregarding policies surrounding the management and operations of a school district - even if done willfully.
-Get a grip.
I don't think the Board is evil. I don't agree with them on many issues. But I think that all of them are well-meaning people who, for whatever reason, are making what I think are unfortunate choices.
I'm with Get a Grip--evil is a strong word. I wouldn't dilute it by throwing it at the School Board.
In no way do these people in the picture constitute evil, to me (although DeBell has been committing some public sins, like bearing false witness against his colleagues). Betty Patu, for one, is the opposite of evil in my book.
However, there is some truly evil
behavior going on in this school district, like I stated above.
Dysfuction like Charlie has outlined creates a system that allows the evil that does exist in this district to manifest and go unpunished. Perhaps, he is not being so hyperbolic after all.
--enough already
Or, could it be that what you are saying is -- yeah, would be evil if it was about something that really mattered -- but this is too trivial (evil being reserved for things like Somalia, etc.). So that what we are disagreeing about is not the label for the actions -- but whether ANY actions on this playing field (school board governance of its district) would ever qualify as "evil?" Because that is a different debate, I think. I wouldn't necessarily agree -- but different issues would be involved.
His other point, suggesting Machiavellian power-lust, is valid and compelling, say, in the case of DeBell and Burgess. Here I wouldn't include the whole board, but what do I know. Give them time....
With that, methoughts, a legion of foul fiends
Environ'd me about, and howled in mine ears
Such hideous cries, that with the very noise
I trembling waked, and for a season after
Could not believe but that I was in hell,
Such terrible impression made the dream.
NOTCharlieNOTSusan
They are not incompetent. And, even if they were incompetent, incompetence can no longer be an explanation or excuse after they have been told what to do.
They are not short on time. Director Martin-Morris writes 90-page reports about his trips and the other board members read them. Enforcing a policy takes ten seconds: "Dr. Enfield, we are in violation of the X policy. Please take the necessary steps to comply with the policy. Thank you."
Even these failures I could excuse, if it were not for their attitude. The one in which they stand right next to you, look you right in the eye, smile, and explain that they know that they are in violation of the policy and that they are going to continue to violate the policy because it pleases them to do so and there's not a damn thing you can do about it, mwahhahahaha. That's what I object to.
They aren't apologetic about failing to follow the policy; they are excited about failing to follow the policy. If they were apologetic about it they would take action. There's a lot of action that they could easily take - but they don't.
Also, I will acknowledge that my work experience colors this attitude. I work in financial services. In my business, if you don't follow the policies, you will probably get fired. If you break a law, you not only will definitely get fired, but you may not be able to work in that field again ever. It could end your career. I take rules very seriously.
It includes all of the people who have a sworn duty to enforce the rules yet refuse to do so.
These people are not stupid....
Even if they were, most of us here have identified the problems - legal, managerial, logistical, economic - over and over again and come up with multiple solutions to be considered, over and over again... and our knowledge, experience, ideas have been ignored...
and it doesn't even need to go to that level...
The ONLY question they ever have to ask in any of their decision making is:
"does this make it better for the children we are charged with doing our best by - ALL the children?"
a second useful question would be:
"do I think this is OK/would I want this for my child and my family?"...
and if they cant answer yes to those questions in light of the solution they are considering, then they need to look at other alternatives...
not once, not once in the four years I've been watching what's going on, has the District made a decision that is sane and logical and in the best interests of our children...
maybe all we can do is bear witness....
Bearing Witness
It took less time that I thought for the newest board members to be vilified. I guess anyone who steps up is "one of THEM". No wonder so many don't take Charlie, or this blog, seriously.
I agree with the commenter who reserved evil for things like the Holocaust. Screwed up? Sure. In need of change? Lots of it, absolutely. Evil, no, I don't think so. I've seen evil, face-to-face when I worked with abused women and children. THAT is evil. This is politics and semantics.
Can't think of a name
if you dont think that what's happening in the district isnt abuse of children, you're missing something in the critical thinking capacity department...
what's good for children is not the primary factor pushing decision making...
if it was, the district and public education within it would look completely different....
One or two board members can't do that alone and hope to get significant results. Neither is Charlie going to be effective if he is the only one consistently calling the board and staff out on this. It takes more than that, and the question is whether there's enough of a constituency that cares enough and is willing to do the hard work of changing bad habits into good ones. With the coming of the new superintendent, there is a significant opportunity to do that.
So does it begin with admitting you have a problem?Of course it does, but what matters is changing the bad habit. It's one thing to recognize you have a bad habit; it's another thing to change it. And unless you want to ascribe malicious intent rather than, as I see it, just the banality of human and institutional inertia, are we really talking about evil?
[I'm willing to concede it bears a family resemblance to the banal evil that Hannah Arendt talks about in reference to Adolf Eichman, but surely Charlie cannot be making some moral equation between the two here, can he?]
But this discussion of metaphysics is a non-starter; I'd rather look at the problem as more the humdrum of the human and institutional inertia that makes bad habits so difficult to change.
So, how to change them? You do it by an organized, concerted effort: first, identify the problem, then motivate action by dramatizing the negative consequences of doing nothing, and then develop a solution and a step-by-step plan to implement it that can be monitored.
Is there a constituency with the will to do this? I don't know, but I'm willing to pitch in to do what I can.
SPS chooses to refuse to follow RCWs....
its called on that and does nothing
Parents take SPS to court to try to get RCWs enforced
SPS doesnt actually defend itself in court but argues over whether or not people have standing...
Court focuses on "standing' issue but doesnt address non-compliance with RCWs - lets it go as though it doesnt matter
What is really going on?
Is there a constituency with the will to do this? I don't know, but I'm willing to pitch in to do what I can.
Um... where have you been for the past four years?
Thats how long I've been watching the District and I've seen nothing BUT this...
and its made no real difference....
so, what is really going on?
not once, not once in the four years I've been watching what's going on, has the District made a decision that is sane and logical and in the best interests of our children...
Not a single one? How about firing Marie Goodloe-Johnson? How about reversing the decision to fire Floe?
It's as important to recognize the District when it does the right thing as it is to call attention to it when it does the wrong thing.
firing MGJ???? AFTER FIRST RENEWING HER CONTRACT TWICE AND GIVING HER BONUSES FOR NOT MEETING HER PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVES....
Reversing Floe firing decision? You are very forgiving.... the stupid, insane part WAS CHOOSING/DECIDING TO FIRE HIM IN THE FIRST PLACE...
I dont count damage control decisions/actions the district was forced into as things the district has done right/should be proud of...
But I am inclined to go with Jack and others, that equating what's happening at SPS with "evil" is a step too far. Manipulative, stupid, frustrating, childish - yes. Evil? No. Not now, not in my definition of the word.
Read M Scott Peck's book "People of the Lie"...
from Wikipedia:
Evil
Peck discusses evil in his book People of the Lie: The Hope For Healing Human Evil[7] and also in a chapter of The Road Less Traveled.[6] Peck characterizes evil as a malignant type of self-righteousness in which there is an active rather than passive refusal to tolerate imperfection (sin) and its consequent guilt.[6][7] This syndrome results in a projection of evil onto selected specific innocent victims (often children), which is the paradoxical mechanism by which the People of the Lie commit their evil.[7] Peck argues that these people are the most difficult of all to deal with and extremely hard to identify.[7] He describes in some detail several individual cases involving his patients. In one case which Peck considers as the most typical because of its subtlety, he describes Roger, a depressed teenage son of respected well off parents.[7] In a series of parental decisions justified by often subtle distortions of the truth they exhibit a consistent disregard for their son’s feelings and a consistent willingness to destroy his growth. With false rationality and normality they aggressively refuse to consider that they are in any way responsible for his resultant depression, eventually suggesting his condition must be incurable and genetic.
Some of his conclusions about the psychiatric condition he designates "evil" are derived from his close study of one patient he names Charlene.[7] Although Charlene is not dangerous, she is ultimately unable to have empathy for others in any way. According to Peck, people like her see others as play things or tools to be manipulated for their uses or entertainment. Peck states that these people are rarely seen by psychiatrists and have never been treated successfully.
Evil is described by Peck as "militant ignorance". The original Judeo-Christian concept of "sin" is as a process that leads us to "miss the mark" and fall short of perfection.[7] Peck argues that while most people are conscious of this at least on some level, those that are evil actively and militantly refuse this consciousness. Peck considers those he calls evil to be attempting to escape and hide from their own conscience (through self deception) and views this as being quite distinct from the apparent absence of conscience evident in sociopathy.[7]
According to Peck an evil person:[6][7]
Is consistently self deceiving, with the intent of avoiding guilt and maintaining a self image of perfection
Deceives others as a consequence of their own self deception
Projects his or her evils and sins onto very specific targets (scapegoats) while being apparently normal with everyone else ("their insensitivity toward him was selective" (Peck, 1983/1988, p 105[7]))
Commonly hates with the pretense of love, for the purposes of self deception as much as deception of others
Abuses political (emotional) power ("the imposition of one's will upon others by overt or covert coercion" (Peck, 1978/1992, p298[6]))
Maintains a high level of respectability, and lies incessantly in order to do so
Is consistent in his or her sins. Evil persons are characterized not so much by the magnitude of their sins, but by their consistency (of destructiveness)
Is unable to think from the viewpoint of their victim (scapegoat)
Has a covert intolerance to criticism and other forms of narcissistic injury
Most evil people realize the evil deep within themselves but are unable to tolerate the pain of introspection or admit to themselves that they are evil. Thus, they constantly run away from their evil by putting themselves in a position of moral superiority and putting the focus of evil on others. Evil is an extreme form of what Scott Peck, in The Road Less Traveled, calls a character disorder.[6][7]
Using the My Lai Massacre as a case study Peck also examines group evil, discussing how human group morality is strikingly less than individual morality.[7] Partly he considers this to be a result of specialization, which allows people to avoid individual responsibility and pass the buck, resulting in a reduction of group conscience.
Though the topic of evil has historically been the domain of religion,[7] Peck makes great efforts to keep much of his discussion on a scientific basis, explaining the specific psychological mechanisms by which evil operates. He was also particularly conscious of the danger of a psychology of evil being misused for personal or political ends.[7] Peck considered that such a psychology should be used with great care, as falsely labeling people as evil is one of the very characteristics of evil. He argued that a diagnosis of evil should come from the standpoint of healing and safety for its victims, but also with the possibility even if remote, that the evil themselves may be cured.
Ultimately Peck says that evil arises out of free choice. He describes it thus: Every person stands at a crossroads, with one path leading to God, and the other path leading to the devil. The path of God is the right path, and accepting this path is akin to submission to a higher power. However, if a person wants to convince himself and others that he has free choice, he would rather take a path which cannot be attributed to its being the right path. Thus, he chooses the path of evil.
Peck also discussed the question of the devil.[7] Initially he believed as with ‘99% of psychiatrists and the majority of clergy’ (Peck, 1983/1988,[7] p182) that the devil did not exist but after starting to believe in the reality of human evil, he then began to contemplate the reality of spiritual evil. Eventually after having been referred several possible cases of possession and being involved in two exorcisms, he was converted to a belief in the existence of Satan. Peck considered people who are possessed as being victims of evil, not evil themselves. Peck however considered possession to be rare, and human evil common.
If you don't like the word "evil", which I think is strange focal point for response to this post, then you give me another word for it. What do you call it when someone pledges to protect the vulnerable, competes for the job of protecting the vulnerable, then, when the duty calls, refuses to make even the least effort to actually provide that protection? What do you call it when they are confronted with their failure to undertake their sworn duty, and they sneer at that duty as trivial and contemptible as the vulnerable are harmed because they were not protected as promised?
What's the word for that?
What would you call the Tuskegee syphilis experiment? Is it a matter of degree? Is there some spectrum and identical actions don't rate the "evil" label until the consequences are sufficiently dire?
Is it not a lie until someone gets hurt? Is it not a lie until someone gets hurt enough to be hospitalized? Is it not a lie until someone suffers lifelong impacts? Is it not a lie until someone dies? It's the same action, but we don't call it out unless the consequences are life-threatening?
While I don't agree with Charlie calling the Board "evil", using that word does not make the situation worse.
The situation is bad because of the inaction of our Board and the cultural dysfunction of our district.
I absolutely say good things when they happen - of course that is important and necessary. But that the balance is on the bad side, consistently, is troubling.
I deign to disagree. Does that make me evil. Oh well....
Let's work to continue to improve things (not just make things less evil).
I work in an environment where people who take policy-following as their number one mandate spend all their time jumping through hoops that bureaucrats create. People who get things done don't necessarily ignore or violate policies, but they don't operate with the belief that following the rules is a goal in and of itself.
I work at a tech company. Anyone remember Dilbert's strips on trying to get expenses approved? Those accounting people are great rule-followers.
It is easy for rules and policies to detach from whatever urgent problem led to their creation, and grow in scope as rule-enforcers see the rule as a path to influence.
In the absence of rules and policies, how does one decide what to do? Easy. USE YOUR BRAIN. Does the action help students? Does it help the financial integrity of the district? Does it support future decision making? There is no policy book which replaces human judgment and leadership. If there were, I'd just hire the author of that book to run the district, watch the results, and forget about the rules.
I'd be interested if Charlie, with his passionate interest in the details of board business, can cite any cases where strict rule-following by the board led to bad or ineffective decisions. In my world that's (almost) the only result.
So is the district more like an accounting office or more like a tech startup? No idea. Pretty sure it's not exactly like either one.
- RollerCoasterFabio
I absolutely agree.
Does anyone think that the Program Placement Policy is a bad rule? It requires the superintendent to disclose her procedure and to make an annual report. Is that a bad rule?
The Board just got done re-writing nearly all of the policies. Surely they fixed the bad ones.
Is anyone - anyone - making the argument that the rampant non-compliance in the District is because the rules are inappropriately constraining and actually prevent people from doing their jobs as well as they could?
I haven't heard that argument, but I'm open to it.
Is the procedure for establishing an advisory committee a bad procedure? Then the superintendent is free to revise it. She has unilateral authority to re-write it any way she likes.
Let’s start with areas of agreement.
1. Policies and procedures matter.
I certainly think that policy and procedure matters, and I know that the Board thinks that policy and procedure matters. They spend a lot of time writing policies, revising policies, and wordsmithing policies. If they didn’t think that policy and procedure matters, they wouldn’t do any of that. The board is clearly unanimous in their agreement that policy and procedure matters.
2. Compliance matters.
Again, what would be the point of policies and procedures if they were not followed? We don’t mess around with policy because we don’t care if anyone follows them or not. This must also be an area of agreement. If there is anyone from the Board or the District management who wants to make the argument that policy compliance doesn’t matter, I’m ready to hear it. I just don’t think anyone will step forward to assert that position.
3. The Board has a duty to enforce policy.
There are a lot of policies and procedures that only the Board can enforce. These include the policies and procedures that govern the actions of the superintendent and the board. No one else can enforce these policies, so that is the board’s work. I have never heard any of the current board members deny their duty to enforce policy. Far from it. I have heard a number of them confirm that duty. Even if they did not, the State Auditor certainly believes that the Board has a duty to enforce policy.
So we can all agree that policies and procedures matter, that they should be followed, and that the board has a duty to enforce them when they are not followed. Is there anyone – anyone – who wants to come forward and dispute these contentions? I will happily entertain that discussion.
First it matters because there is a reason for each policy and procedure. The policies, in general, exist to protect vulnerable populations, usually students, teachers, or the community, from harm. We definitely want to protect these folks, guard their rights, and take good care of them, which means that we need to not only have the policies and procedures, but follow them.
Second, we care about compliance because each policy and procedure represents a commitment to the community. Each is a promise about how the District will act in practice. If we do not adhere to the policies and procedures, we break faith with the community. This erodes the community’s trust in the District because it demonstrates that the District is not trustworthy.
Third, we care about compliance because it colors the culture of the District as an institution. The failure to enforce policies and procedures contributes to a culture of lawlessness, a culture that thinks little of the rules, if it doesn’t have outright contempt for them. This lawless culture spreads beyond the District’s own policies and procedures to state rules and even federal laws. It spreads to all areas were accountability is desired and drains the value placed on that accountability. It leads to chaos, to political infighting, to dysfunction. Some see the dysfunction of the district as the cause of the non-compliance, but it is, in fact, the result of the non-compliance.
So there can be little doubt that the District has strong reasons to enforce compliance with policies, procedures, rules, and laws.
Yet they do not. The enforcement, at all levels and in all areas, is so lapse as to be absent. If we all agree that policies and compliance are important, then there must be something even more important that is taking precedence over compliance. What is it?
Indolence. Are people just too damn lazy to do their job or to do their job properly? Is sloth not a mortal sin?
Time constraints. Does it just take too much time to follow or enforce the policies? Really? How long would it take? Why don’t they make that argument and work to get the policy changed so that it is less time consuming to follow?
Ignorance. Do people just not know about the policies and procedures? But they have been told. And isn’t it their job to know?
Apathy. Do people just not care? They are just so disaffected that they have no sympathy for those who are harmed by their failure to do their job properly. What are they, psychopaths?
How are any of these valid excuses for failing to do the work that we all agree is important? How do any of these justify breaking faith with the people you have sworn to protect and leaving them vulnerable? How do any of these excuses justify the corruption of the District’s institutional culture?
Hey, you don’t want to call it “evil”. Fine. Don’t call it evil. Call it something else. I don’t care if you call it “Holiday on Ice”. The name doesn’t matter. What does matter is that we stop it. What matters is that we fix it.
I think using the word "evil" here is unnecessarily provocative. I lean more towards Jack's perspective. Board members are enmeshed in a system that requires that stuff gets done. It's often hard work (insert whiney tone) to do things properly, to push back on staff when they don't follow policy, to even keep straight what the policies are. These guys are volunteers and (if they really are writing and reading 90 page reports on that time) they probably do very little prep for each new issue. That is the Board Manager's job. The Board should be the voice enforcing policies and procedures, their staff should be making sure they are up to speed on which policies and procedures apply and whether or not they are being followed. This has to happen before they are sitting in front of the television cameras. If not, it all becomes about saving face.
What words would I use instead of "evil?" Disdainful? Vain/Face Saving? Self Important? Part of the problem is that we are either talking about seven individuals or about an entity that cannot be described in human terms (what does it mean for a nonhuman entity to be 'evil?')
-reader
Frankly, if the board made a good decision that was against the rules, I'd be happy with that decision. If the board made a bad decision that was against the rules, I'd be unhappy with the decision. For me to focus only the rule violation, and not the actual decision, in the latter case would make me a hypocrite.
You said "Policies and Procedures Matter". I posit a different #1, which is "Performance Matters". And I question whether good performance is a natural outcome of compliance with good policy.
You raise a good point though---why spend time on unenforced policy? I can imagine some perverse incentives to do so (federal/state statutes, etc.) but honestly I don't know what's really driving that behavior.
- RollerCoasterFabio
The Board, however, is NOT making that claim. They are not saying that good performance required the violation of the policies. Instead, they are saying... nothing. They refuse to address the situation.
What is it about the Program Placement policy that is contrary to good performance? Why shouldn't the superintendent be transparent about her process?
What is it about the Advisory Committee procedure that interferes with high performance? Did the violation of the policy lead to improved outcomes? Let's remember that the Transportation Task Force was formed on February 16 and will not have its first meeting until May 16 - three months later.
I, too, would be perfectly sanguine with performance over procedure, but we're not getting either.
I assure you that Erin Bennett is perfectly aware of policies and procedures that have been violated.
I'm pretty sure that she is copied on everything that is sent to the schoolboard email.
We don't need an elephant gun to deal with a moles in the garden problem. (And no Eichman, either, Jack, in my opinion, for the same reason).
I agree with RollerCoasterFabio that "following procedures" is not the holy grail of great governance or management. All of us can think of times when mindless adherence to some stupid "letter of the law" was extremely harmful. But that is not the same as saying people should ignore them at will. All that is saying is that when working WITHIN a legal system, people need to bring their brains, and actually make sure that the work they do is advancing the ball. Ordinarily, that can get done within the prescribed rules. Most rules need escape valves that permit variation where needed to accomplish good stuff. But arguing that "following procedures" doesn't guarantee great results is not the correct pushback for a lawless administration that neither follows its own laws and rules NOT seeks and gets great results. Most of us (I can) can think of instances where an administrator, a judge, a boss (whoever) reviewed the "procedures" and -- after giving them due weight, crafted a solution outside of them to achieve a better goal. Would that that were our problem.
Instead, we have this really toxic brew where those in power ignore the rules and policies that are designed to give their actions a sense of due process, community engagement, and fairness -- while at the same time, clobbering their underlings (and the students) with adverse consequences for allegedly failing to follow OTHER rules (see the Lowell investigation as one example. King and Geoghan were happy to call the rules down on SP1 and SP2s heads -- while at the same time breaking them themselves (and while the District at the same time broke the rules with respect to SP1's retraction of her resignation and the confidentiality wall with respect to ethics violations complaints). So it isn't that you don't have a valid point. But I don't think it is useful here in trying to drain this particular swamp. If we ever get to the point where this District is obsessively hyperfocused on following all of its rules to the detriment of common sense -- I will be glad to join you then.
And while we can all say "call it what you will," I think Charlie's post was useful in pointing out that what we call it DOES matter. Because if this is just simple incompetence -- one does the "things" that incompetence requires -- you point out the errors, you ask (politely) for better service in the future, you worry about whether more resources are needed, or whether there are logical excuses for the slip up. None of that is useful or relevant here (and all of it has been tried -- for years!). So however we want to think of it -- don't just think of it as "incompetence" or we will continue to go along, applying pressures that no one feels, and remedies that do not work -- because we are not being honest about the nature and extent of the problem. So, no, Charlie -- no "Holiday on Ice," either. Picking up my skirts and tiptoeing around the "evil" word (while Sahila snorts at me), maybe I will go, for now, with "Persistent, Willful, Disregard for Policies." So -- were the post mine, I would say "meet the face of persistent, willful disregard for policies."
And I am with Jack and others who want to see what we can do to change this culture -- because continuing in the current vein is undermining the legitimacy of District leadership, and harming our kids and their schools.
Nope. But I'd bet it's not sufficient either, most of the time. Would adherence to policies lead to better results than we are getting now? Probably, in most cases. But that's because the board is failing to deal with the problems in front of them, or dealing with them poorly, and specific policies on the books appear to provide better directions than the board is taking. The board could make policy compliance a non-issue merely by making better decisions (about program placement, capacity, APP, etc).
The point I'm trying to make is that the goal we REALLY all want is a board+district leadership that makes good decisions, keeps promises that it makes, engages the community, behaves in a stable and predictable fashion, plans for the future, learns from the past, etc. Well-written and adhered-to policies are a tool to accomplish some of those goals. They are not a goal in themselves. Are policies the only tool we have? Really? Are they even the best tool?
As I understand it, when the board passes a policy, they are not acting in a legislative capacity---not legally, not formally, not anything. The board has an executive/administrative function, not a legislative function. For a legislator, the creation of good law is their primary purpose. And good thing the board isn't a law-making body, because (as you say) they can just change any policies they don't like.
- RollerCoasterFabio
Charlie, Jack makes a good point. From the point of view of your fire, non-compliance is the point. But to improve, practically, it may make sense to pick a few most important and put our weight behind them. One at a time, then it becomes a habit, right?
Spot on! I totally agree. Which is why policy making entities need to be constantly reviewing whether they have the right policies in place, whether the ones they have are working, need to be amended of chucked, etc. And out of all that hopefully comes refinement of what goals they are hoping to achieve, what assets they can bring to the effort, whether their managers are up to the task, etc. (None of which, by the way, has much hope of happening if you just ignore the policies). But I agree. In the end, the goal is good decisions that help kids learn and keep the district running smoothly and in a cost effective manner to that end.
FabRC also asked: Are policies the only tool we have? Really? Are they even the best tool?
No, I think they are "necessary but not sufficient." They are necessary because they are (in a system where the board governs and the Supe manages) the only way (other than the Superintendent's annual contract review) to "govern" the one employee whom they hire -- to require that that person follow certain procedures, take certain information into account, provide certain information and reporting BACK so that the board can assess its governance role effectively.
They are also a way (maybe the only one) for the Board to capture and effectuate community values. Does the community want the ability to provide input, and to know about and be considered for things like task forces and committees? Yes? Then develop a policy to ensure that it happens. Does the community care that program placement decisions include something OTHER than "how to fill up schools that no one wants by moving some of the most successful programs there?" In fact, do they maybe want to ensure that this is NOT included as a decision criteria? Yes? Well, then, put a policy in place, so that the governed have tangible evidence that their concerns, values, needs, and desires are reflected in District decision-making.
Does the public care that District management does not ask the Board to enter into contracts where the district decision-makers have personal financial or political interests in the "deal" that may run counter to whether the contract is an otherwise good deal -- at least without prior disclosure of those conflicts? Yes? Well, then, draft a policy that accomplishes it.
Obviously, board members can, and do, talk to and consult with the superintendent one-on-one (frankly, I am not sure if they have the ability to talk to anyone else, without going through the Superintendent). But if they are not going to actively "manage" the District (horrors! -- that has the Seattle Times, LEV, A4E, STAND, etc. folks up all night these days, evidently, even though there is no evidence it is happening), then they mostly have to take a hands off approach to much of the District's decision-making, as long as the Superintendent is complying with laws and District policies.
If a new superintendent decides to ban Catcher in the Rye, Huckleberry Finn, and Brave New World from being taught in, or read "for credit" in any high school class, and so instructs the principals -- well, then, so be it, unless there is a clear policy that dictates how curriculum/book choices are to be made, and that that policy is followed.
In the end, the Board should get "its way" on a fair number of things, but only to the extent that it can reflect its desires in broad governance policies -- they shouldn't be making, or second-guessing, specific management decisions.
the good is oft interred with their bones,
So far, the good is more by accident than
ByDesign
The policies, procedures, rules, and laws are not capricious. They are well-considered and necessary to protect students, teachers, and communities that would be vulnerable without those protections. When the district management, the board, the OSPI, the state Board of Education, the federal government, the media, and the Courts allow the violation of those rules, they are breaking faith with the community and denying them the protections that they were promised. And the students, teachers, and communities are harmed.
The problem is the harm. The harm should have been prevented by the people who have the charge to provide that protection, but those are the very people who are looking directly at the non-compliance and looking directly at the harm and doing nothing. That's the problem with these people.
They are not incompetent.
They are not busy with more urgent duties.
They are not incapable.
They are not unaware.
They are making a conscious choice to fail in their duty. That's what has me so agitated.
I am not sure that I get it all now. But I "get it" a whole lot better than I used to, and I am not sure I would have, without your tenacity and persistence on this issue. Because you have steadfastly refused to allow people to call a "spade" a "club" (or a heart or a diamond), or to deny that they are even playing with a deck of cards (and cheating -- while smiling broadly at you) -- it has helped me clarify my thinking about the nature and extent of mismanagement and mis-governance at the top of the District, as well as the harm (direct and indirect) that refusal to manage/govern has caused.
Annie
There really shouldn't be any doubt about that. I mean, really, what kind of self-respecting 50-year-old cosplays? What kind of self-respecting 50-year-old even watches anime, rides a scooter, bowls, has a pretty big collection of bowling shirts and Hawaiian print shirts, or would even bother with any of this sort of stuff in the first place? Honestly.
It is very easy to dismiss every person who testifies before the Board as a crank once you have determined that only a crank would testify before the Board. By that reasoning, the Board should ignore everything they hear from the public. Maybe that's why they do.
I have a variety of silly interests. I am a thoroughly ridiculous person. I freely acknowledge that as a fact. Of course, that doesn't make me any less right.
Two and a quarter years to go.
I'm in the evil-isn't-quite-the-right-word camp, but just barely. There are indeed shades of grey, and even if SPS is full of charcoal-grey it's still dishonest to called grey, black. I think JK Rowling was onto something ringing of pure truth when she named her bad-but-not-evil School Admin character, "Umbrage".
I hereby suggest the more agreeable no-bones-about-it term for this 'evil' might be
Malice.
Spiteful and malevolent are a close seconds.
There's plenty of malicious mollycoddling of the public and of policy - and vainglorious hubris about so-called 'accomplishments' - by board, supe and admin staff alike. The rancorous attitude, beyond apathetic, actually requires some effort and planning, and it's correctly identifyied as not being ignorance.
Thus, MALICE.
It infects the teachers. Infects parents, and be damned sure it affects if not infects our kids too.
IMHO, What we, us lowly parents/teachers in the public, might actually prefer as virtues in our leaders and managers may be deeply-learned academics with gravitas, pro-active -rather than reactive- management of education as an institution (not as a business -as there's no product nor profit- ergo no reason to run it like a biz), and imagination-fueled rocketing-to-the-top-without-burning-out local leadership.