Just weeks before Rochester schools Superintendent Bolgen Vargas and the school board have to go into serious budget talks for the coming school year, both Vargas and school board President Van White face a difficult test. White initiated a far-reaching search for ideas from the community on improving student performance in city schools. Four committees made up of parents, teachers, local college professors, and community leaders tackled topics ranging from improving student and community safety to increasing parental involvement.Â
The committees came up with an interesting palette of potential strategies. And most were enthusiastically received in a presentation to students several weeks ago.
But now comes the hard part. White has to convince at least four school board members to support some of the community’s ideas, or the committee members will surely view their effort as a waste of time. White’s credibility as the board’s new leader would take a hit, but so would the entire school board.
Even worse, inaction will certainly crystallize one of the central criticisms many parents and community leaders have about board members: they don’t listen to their constituents.
In a meeting earlier this week, board members barely delved into a quarter of the ideas the committees developed. And there were plenty of questions. Does the district already do some of the work that’s being suggested? What happens when some of the recommendations conflict with state education requirements?
For example, board member Willa Powell asked how it is possible to encourage an inquiry-based curriculum when the district is expected to implement what many educators believe is a fairly scripted curriculum under the Common Core?
Even the terminology used raised questions. Board Vice President Cynthia Elliott wanted to know what committee members mean when they talk about things like social justice? And she said that the board needs time to vet the recommendations before agreeing to anything.
Once, and if, the board unites on some of the ideas, board members will have to convince Vargas to adopt them. That means Vargas may have to rearrange some of his budget priorities. Not all of the community’s ideas require funding to implement, but some do.Â
Everyone involved is walking a tightrope here. White and the school board’s main responsibility is supervision of the superintendent, not doing his job or co-managing the district. And Vargas has rightly observed that the board and past administrations haven’t been able to stay focused, instead grabbing for shiny new solutions to the district’s problems at every turn.
And community members have a right to be frustrated. Often it’s been their children, grandchildren, and nieces and nephews who have gotten lost in the district’s low-performing schools. But they also shouldn’t expect all of their ideas to be adopted without any deliberation, and they say they understand this.
If the school board, Vargas, and the community are able to work together on implementing at least some of the community’s recommendations, a major milestone will have been reached. If not, it will encourage mistrust between the board, Vargas, and the community.
This article appears in Mar 19-25, 2014.
The committees gave good ideas that made common sense. The district does have the resources and money to make many of the suggestions happen but they won’t. Board members at the meeting made it clear that they have essentially directed the superintendent to implement other recommendations and central office has ignored those directives. The situation is ugly. It is obvious the new board chair wants action but boards normally govern and provide oversight. They do not direct operations or tell the CEO or in this case the superintendent what do do, but this situation is not normal.
Vargas comes across like a deer looking into the headlights and the board needs to either come right out and tell the public what they want him to do or they need to let him go. The disconnect is palpable and although the board members feel an allegiance to him because they hired him, the schools and the community can’t be left in the dark any longer. The ships are sinking and someone needs to take control. In this case the seven board members, three of whom are city school parents seem much more in touch with reality than the superintendent.
“Gotta Say It,” IT CAN’T POSSIBLY BE SAID ANY BETTER THAN THIS (BELOW):
“…this situation is not normal. Vargas comes across like a deer looking into the headlights and the board needs to either come right out and tell the public what they want him to do or they need to let him go. The disconnect is palpable and although the board members feel an allegiance to him because they hired him, the schools and the community can’t be left in the dark any longer.” AMEN!!!
HERE’S WHAT HAS HAPPENED SO FAR:
On the afternoon of 3/17/14, a notice was sent out announcing that Board President Van White was convening a special meeting of the full Board, the next day, (3/18/14) — to discuss recommendations for change and improvement in the RCSD.
The Recommendations (see the following link:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/210683191/Recomm… ) had been developed by four Committees, which Commissioner White had convened at the end of January 2014. Some parents who had served on the Committees complained about the short notice regarding the 3/18 meeting. In response to the complaints — after the meeting ended (the same night) — Commissioner White sent out the explanation below. Also, see below — my response to his explanation:
from: Van White van.white@thelegalbrief.com
All:
Tonight’s meeting was scheduled so that the Board could have an opportunity to discuss (for the first time as a group) the recommendations of the special committees in the context of our discussions regarding the 2014-2015 budget. (This of course followed two town meetings and numerous special committee meetings.)
I instructed staff to notify special committee members because I thought you might want to be at that meeting to hear the board’s initial thoughts to your recommendations and presentations which you all made last week.
Please remember my goal all along was integrate the ideas of the special committees into the budget talks. Tonight was just the beginning of that process.
You all will have at least two opportunities, in the context of our budget process, to articulate your support for the ideas of the special committees. There are Public forums on the budget scheduled to take place on April 1 and 3 at 6:00 pm.
I would encourage you all to attend those public speaking forums to communicate your support for the recommendations of the special committees or any other budgetary concerns or ideas you may have.
For those of you who attended tonight’s meeting, some of those conversations have already begun. For example, during a break in tonight’s agenda, I witnessed members of the special committees already engaging a board member in conversation regarding the ideas which they supported.
What was also clear tonight was that Board members, understandably, have questions regarding some of the proposals which must be answered before they could be expected to support some of these ideas. I hope you all reach out to board members directly and at the take advantage of the two public budget forums and share your insights and views.
Indeed your work on behalf of this community is far from over. On this I hope we can agree. Thanks again!!!!!
Van
———————————————-
MY RESPONSE:
Howard Eagle howard.eagle90@gmail.com
Dear Commissioner White,
With regard to your latter correspondence, thank you for the explanation, but I believe all who are included, understood (prior to your explanation) what the purpose of last night’s meeting was. A major point regarding my initial correspondence was / is, as noted by Ms. Quick Coleman — objection to “the infamous last minute invites and notices set forth by this district.”
As you know, our “recommendations and presentations [were] made” on March 4, 2014, as opposed to “last week.” At the time of our March 4th presentations, you announced that a “meeting [would be] scheduled so that the Board could have an opportunity to discuss (for the first time as a group) the recommendations of the special committees in the context of [your] discussions regarding the 2014-2015 budget.” However, on March 4th, you did not know the date that the meeting, which took place last night, would occur. THE MAJOR POINT WAS / IS THAT, PRIOR TO THE AFTERNOON OF MARCH 17TH (THE DAY BEFORE LAST NIGHT’S MEETING, AND 12 DAYS AFTER OUR MARCH 4TH PRESENTATIONS) WE HAD NOT RECEIVED ANY COMMUNICATION CONCERNING LAST NIGHT’S MEETING. As you also know, Ms. Quick Coleman and I, along with others listed here, served on the Special Committee On Parent Engagement. I believe all would agree that the situation outlined above represents a classic example of that which Ms. Quick Coleman accurately described as “the infamous last minute invites and notices set forth by this district.” IT REPRESENTS A SERIOUS, BASIC, FUNDAMENTAL, ISSUE AND PROBLEM, WHICH NEEDS TO BE REMEDIED. It also represents an issue, which has helped convince many RCSD parents that the Board and Administration are not really serious and / or sincere about desiring and welcoming widespread, ongoing, consistent, parent engagement. From my perspective, it is nearly impossible to believe that, if a basic, fundamental issue, such as timely notification can’t be resolved — that the Board would give serious consideration to Recommendations, which the Parent Engagement Committee and other Special Committees generated, especially those of a SYSTEMIC nature.
I am in total agreement that: “What was also clear was that Board members, understandably, have questions regarding some of the proposals, which must be answered before they could be expected to support some of these ideas.” However, your suggested “solution” regarding this critically important issue is not realistic, nor logical, i.e., INDIVIDUALS who served on the Special Committees “reaching out to board members directly.” The truth of the matter is that, especially as it relates to particular Recommendations, which are SYSTEMIC in nature, Committee members have not had adequate time, nor opportunities to fully deliberate and come to clear, consensus relative to details. Remember, this work was done over a one-month time period, which only included three or four meetings. So the recommendations, again, especially those that are SYSTEMIC in nature, ONLY represent broad agreements among Committee members. A prime example of this was clear last night (even in the initial Board discussion) regarding the Recommendation to develop an Office of Social Justice. Clearly the Committee, which advanced that particular Recommendation has not had adequate time and / or opportunity to spell out details of the purpose, nature, and / or functioning of such an Office. One Board member raised the critically important issue that part of the general content within the Office of Social Justice Recommendation, might not even be possible (due to Contractual Agreements between the RCSD and employee Bargaining Units). This is also true in the cases of other Recommendations, such as, for example, Recommendations to develop a Youth Council On Instruction; to “consolidate” Parent Liaisons and Home School Assistants (under a single job title and common job-duties), and to change the structure of the Office of Parent Engagement.
Clearly Committee members did not have adequate time to COLLECTIVELY think these Recommendations out in detail. So, what would be the purpose of INDIVIDUAL Committee members “reaching out to board members directly” — exactly what would they say; what could they legitimately say — other than the fact that they support the GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS? Of course individuals could offer their own perspectives regarding details, but that could easily turn into a chaotic catastrophe, and really would defeat the whole purpose of COLLECTIVE-COLLABORATION. So, as I have mentioned to you previously, the ideas outlined in this paragraph represent fundamentally-problematic flaws within the design of your process. This is in fact the reason why I had suggested to you, my belief that you should NOT have restricted the Special Ad-Hoc Committees’ work exclusively to a :”45-day” period of time. I had expressed to you that it was virtually impossible to generate quality, detailed, Recommendations within 45 (actually 30) days. By empowering the Special Committees to continue working throughout the Budgetary Process, and probably beyond, would have (still could), not only ensured (ensure) opportunities to work out agreed-upon, details, but also would (could) have helped (help) with the necessary process of increasing awareness, and soliciting additional support from thousands of other RCSD parents and community members, many of whom are not even aware that your process is occurring — much less being aware of specific Recommendations. It is not realistic or logical to expect that people will support ideas, which they know little or nothing about. In a sense, you seem to be acknowledging this need via your statement that: “Indeed your work on behalf of this community is far from over.” If this is in fact the case, then, why are you not continuing to help facilitate an ongoing process relative to Committee members? Based on your latter quote vis-a-vis the manner in which you are operating, the clear dichotomy could easily be interpreted as a matter of sending a dual or mixed message, i.e., what some refer to as “talking-out-of-both-sides-of-your-mouth.” I’m just saying.
So again, the manner in which you have chosen to proceed raises the reasonable question and concern (at least in my mind), and I believe in the minds of many others — as to whether or not this whole process really boils down to more, status-quo-supporting-politics, in which tinkering-around-the-edges-type Recommendations, such as: “Re-examination of the K-8 grade configuration (model); Market research survey of businesses to determine employment needs (i.e. types of skills needed); County-wide survey of parents to determine what kinds of academic programs currently not available would be of interest to them,” etc… will prevail, and will then be paraded as representing “proof” that “legitimate” efforts are being made toward much-needed, much-deserved, and way overdue change and improvement for our students and families. In my humble, but staunch view, as you should know from first-hand experience, moving in this direction will no-doubt amount to a disastrous, non-productive outcome — with the most outstanding example being the outcome and reality of the RCSD’s paper-tiger, Department of African And African American Studies.
As I mentioned during my “testimony” at last night’s meeting, I believe that your potentially, ground-breaking, change-initiative, will hinge largely on whether or not you (as President of the Board, and catalyst behind the initiative) have the intestinal fortitude to “take-on” Superintendent Vargas and his numerous, powerful, allies — whom absolutely, clearly, stand in opposition to the direction that you say you want to move in, which is largely reflected and embodied within the Recommendations put forth by the Special Committees, especially those that are SYSTEMIC in nature.
I am unequivocally convinced that, unless you secure widespread, broad-based, concrete, visible, parent and community support for your initiative, the Superintendent and his allies will succeed in continuing to bamboozle and hood-wink the community regarding their ongoing, empty promises that change and improvement is right around the corner; huge numbers of our students and families will continue to suffer, and slick, non-vested, status-quo-supporting, economic blood-suckers’ bank accounts will continue to grow.
The bottom line is, in my view, that your leadership ability, skills, and resolve is being tested (perhaps as never before).
If you decide, and of course you don’t have much time, to move in a direction that is clearly anti-status-quo — you have my full support. Otherwise, you do not.
Howard J. Eagle
http://www.scribd.com/doc/210683191/Recomm…