Realignment, Representation, and Responsibility:Decision-Making '08-'09

Our first interview of 2009 on Ted Baker’s morning show began with a question about improvements in governing under the Einstein administration. Augustine pointed out that more public business was transacted in public, as it should be, instead of in executive sessions as it used to be. Baker agreed that this was an important development, as the public is always wary of decisions made “behind closed doors.” Capraro highlighted the meaningful participation of the public in giving feedback and providing information at meetings and work sessions. That’s an indication that not only is city government poised to make decisions according to a better process, but the process is likely to yield better decisions. It also predicts greater participation when people feel heard.

While things may be improving in city government, that does not mean that all governing in the city is running smoothly; for instance, the Geneva City School District, which was the focus of Baker’s next series of questions. Our first post about the proposed ‘realignment’ demonstrated that what might had made itself known as a mere rumor, upon finding the facts, turned out to be true.

The local paper eventually reported, as an afterthought at a meeting for a different purpose, that the Superintendent was forming a ‘citizens committee’ to “study” the issue and issue findings by mid-February. The paper didn’t bother to ask any follow up questions or see fit to gather information about the membership, mission, or schedule of that group.

Our second post on the topic gave, in our view, several compelling reasons to question the realignment and certainly raised red flags that might not be able to be fully addressed in a few short weeks. In the days that followed our posts, we received a great deal of feedback from people concerned about the changes, and additional evidence was provided that raises doubts about the academic merits of such a changed. Stay tuned for another post that will give those matters more consideration.

In the course of the discussion with Ted Baker, we honed in on the issues of representation, accountability, and transparency. Baker posed a question that strikes at the heart of the issue: Are elected representatives simply there to vote the ‘will of the majority’ or are they expected to ‘know better’ than their constituents and exercise their own judgment?

In answering this question, which took the balance of the show, we previewed our most recent posts on trust. Elected officials must always remember that they answer to the community. This doesn’t mean that they are supposed to ask a few people what they think about a random issue and then vote accordingly. No, that would be taking the easy way out. Instead, the job of an elected official is to gather, review, and share information about complex issues; to formulate and articulate their reasons for supporting a particular position on each issue; to solicit, consider, and evaluate opinions from a variety of people, those that agree and especially those that disagree. Only then can a person be said to truly be engaged in representation. Trust is built and maintained when representatives take a position after careful consideration and explain the basis of that position to their constituents.

Take a listen by clicking here, or visiting the NoStrings Radio Archive.

Trust, but Verify! (Part II)Trust, Risk, and Einstein

In our previous post on this topic, we looked at the broad issue of trust in government and the feelings of trust in Obama that have been widely reported in the run up to his inauguration.

Locally, the issue of trust has come to the surface as Mayor Einstein, in a interview with the local paper reflecting on his first year in office, lamented the questioning he and his administration have received, particularly related to the lakefront plan. For a more thorough understanding of these concerns, we refer to the comment that he submitted in response to one of our posts about the lakefront plan.

The Mayor’s comment posted to our blog, which you can read here, was in response to another comment from the highly engaged community leader Cynthia Hsu. Essentially, Hsu states that City Council must pass a zoning change on the lakefront--restricting residential and commercial development altogether--in order to prove to the public that they mean it when they say they do not want Building 12.

As Hsu put it, “It would go a long way to building public trust.” But, apparently, Mayor Einstein interpreted her to be saying “I won't trust you until and unless you make it absolutely impossible for anyone, at any time, to do anything that I disagree with” and he rejected that way of thinking.

Although we don’t agree with Ms. Hsu’s rationale for the zoning proposal, we also don’t agree with the Mayor's response to her position. After all, the history of the lakefront plan is not all sunshine and roses. Even the local paper, in its end-of-year recap of supposed ‘top stories,’ highlighted the irregularities in the planning process. On May 29, 2008 the headline read “Lakefront Committee: No Housing.”

That article detailed a meeting of the Quality Communities Planning Committee during which Bergmann Associates’ initial recommendations were reviewed and the committee clearly indicated that housing on the lakefront should be definitively ruled out as a lakefront development option.

Then, in August, the rest of Council, along with the public, got their first glimpse of the Bergmann plan that included-- front and center-- lakefront housing. Did anyone-- the QCPC, the Mayor, or the Council-- immediately and publicly question the inconsistency? No. Instead, it was given equal footing with the other plan components, those that the community and QCPC did find to be consistent with public values. Luckily, it seems that the idea was ultimately abandoned, but the point is that the process, even at the end stages, lacked predictability. Predictability is what you get when expectations match reality.

Predictability is also what a lot of people mean by trust, or want from government, and which might be the basis of trust. We refer, again, to the ideals of the Founding Fathers. They didn’t believe in blind trust for public officials, but they didn’t harbor a total suspicion of government processes. The keys to their system of checks and balances are: Accountability, transparency, and predictability. In other words, the public needs to know what decisions are being made, by whom, and according to what guidelines in order to either support or challenge the process. The Founding Fathers knew best of all that the ends don’t justify the means, and their focus was on producing a system of means that would yield appropriate and productive ends.

Accountability, transparency, and predictability require two additional characteristics: honesty and publicity. This is the commitment public officials must make to tell the public the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. If any piece of the decision-making puzzle is missing, you have an environment that breeds distrust.

If, for example, someone tells you that they are going to make a decision on Tuesday, but when you show up Tuesday, you find that the decision was made the previous weekend and the change in plans was never announced, you’re not going to trust that decision-making process, and rightfully so, even if you agree with the decision that was made. For public officials to engender the public trust, they must develop and clearly communicate reasonable expectations, stay committed to meeting those expectations to the best of their ability, and be willing to be forthcoming and candid about any changes.

So, much of this hinges on public communication. And that’s where, as we have discussed in previous posts, the press enters the picture. The public must have access to information and public officials must have a means of accurately communicating with their constituents. A recent statement from the Democrat and Chronicle’s editorial board details their commitment to being ‘watchdogs.’ This is a necessary component of public trust in government. Everyone must know, public officials and residents alike, that information is available and verifiable.

We, at NoStrings, were distrustful of the previous administration (on both the National and the local levels)--with what we believe was good reason. After all, there was example upon example of back room dealing and misrepresentation, which leads us to conclude that these were not stray occurrences, but rather the standard operating procedure. The local paper was noticeably absent, or when present, unable or unwilling to do any meaningful follow up to verify that ‘official statements’ were truthful (or not). Our goal in starting this website was to bring accountability back. We know what happens when people--the media, the governing body, the public, trusts but does not bother to verify.

It’s not the case that the public should be openly suspicious of its elected leaders, nor should those officials require that the public simply ‘take their word(s) for it.’ Instead, it is a balancing act in which both parties operate in good faith, knowing that there is a predictable, accountable, transparent process by which decisions can be made, successes celebrated, and mistakes corrected. NoStringsGeneva is not part of the problem but part of the solution to trust in government.

Community Events Monday and Tuesday

Join the Geneva Community in commemorating the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. with a march at 9:30am (beginning at the Public Safety Building) to the Methodist Church on Main Street where the ceremony and community luncheon will follow at 11am.

On Tuesday night, your family, friends, and neighbors can join in watching a rebroadcast of the Obama Inauguration in the Scandling Center on Pulteney Street. The event begins at 5:30pm and includes live call-in reports from Genevans in DC for the celebration. It is free, and refreshments will be provided.

Lessons From Our Fathers

The convergence of three events calls on each of us to reflect on our moral obligation, individually and as members of a community, to work actively to make the world a better place.

We begin, first, with the words of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. who would have celebrated his 80th birthday on January 15th, though it is today that we are given “A Day On, Not a Day Off” to reflect on his moral, political, social, and spiritual teachings. From his Letter from a Birmingham Jail:

“I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.”

Next, we offer some words from President Abraham Lincoln, whose Bicentennial Celebration (in commemoration of his birth on February 12, 1809) began this month:

“If I were to try to read, much less answer, all the attacks made on me, this shop might as well be closed for any business. I do the very best I know how--the very best I can; and I mean to keep doing so until the end. If the end brings me out all right, what is said against me won’t amount to anything. If the end brings me out wrong, ten thousand angels swearing I was right would make no difference.”

Tomorrow, we begin a new era, with the Inauguration of President Barack Obama. Perhaps he said it best, when announcing his intent to run for the highest office in the land, he stated:

“The genius of our founders is that they designed a system of government that can be changed. And we should take heart, because we've changed this country before. In the face of tyranny, a band of patriots brought an Empire to its knees. In the face of secession, we unified a nation and set the captives free. In the face of Depression, we put people back to work and lifted millions out of poverty. We welcomed immigrants to our shores, we opened railroads to the west, we landed a man on the moon, and we heard a King's call to let justice roll down like water, and righteousness like a mighty stream.

Each and every time, a new generation has risen up and done what's needed to be done. Today we are called once more - and it is time for our generation to answer that call. For that is our unyielding faith - that in the face of impossible odds, people who love their country can change it.”

Now, let’s get to work!

Has the Geneva School District Veered Off Course?Part II: When Lost, It's Okay to Ask Directions

In Part 1 of this series on the Geneva City School District’s proposed elementary school ‘realignment’, we focused on the decision-making process, whereby it appeared that district leaders were going forward with a major policy shift without signaling the change of direction to the public. In Part 2, we’d like to look at another aspect of school board decision-making: research-based solutions.

As we said in Part 1, the Geneva City Council and the Geneva School Board are very similar entities with regard to their governance structure and oversight. And both school boards and local governments are subject to the same laws of process, such as the Open Meetings Law and the Freedom of Information Act. However, it seems that, at least locally, residents don’t have the same standards of accountability for school board members as they do for the City Council. The recently revealed ‘realignment’ proposal is one case that might help to illustrate why people should have higher expectations for their elected officials across the board.

One of the primary functions of a school board is to seek improved methods of student achievement. They, as policy makers, must set performance standards and review student outcomes to ensure progress towards those goals. We wonder, then, how this realignment proposal fits in with these objectives. As with City Council proposals, we find it important to look for some indication of success from other communities. A local resident, Charles Achilles, who frequently submits letters to the local paper, has been urging district leaders to use ‘research-based’ decisions for some time now. Achilles, himself an education professional, suggests that any changes implemented by the district be supported by at least two independent research studies that indicate improved student performance.

We agree that his suggested approach is sound and that it ought to be applied to the current proposal. However, it appears that the ‘Achilles test’ might turn out to be an ‘Achilles heel’ for the district when it comes to elementary school realignment. A brief search of education journals and case studies did not turn up any research to support the K-2/3-5 school model as a way to improve academic performance.

Worse yet, the only materials we found suggested that moves of this sort jeopardize academics, for a variety of reasons. For one, more transitions for young children mean more time spent transitioning (seems like common sense). That means less time learning. Fewer years in a particular building mean less attachment to that school in particular and less attachment to schooling in general; changing buildings lessens students’ self-identity in that they are introduced to a new group of faculty and staff and begin ‘anonymously.’

In one study, “Alspaugh (1999) found a significant achievement loss during each transition year. He also found that some students regain what is lost in the following year, but it would seem that students who make fewer transitions need fewer years to make up for achievement losses caused by transitions.” You can read more about it yourself here.

In our last post on this topic we discussed the process undertaken by Hasbrouck Heights, New Jersey. That school had considered a similar realignment proposal, but with the input of staff, residents, and students, ultimately rejected it. Their elementary schools are very successful, even award-winning. Looking at the operational practices of successful schools seems useful and the 2008 U.S. Department of Education's "Blue Ribbon Schools" were just announced in September. The list of New York State schools receiving the award is available online here. In our review of the websites of each school, we did not find schools using a K-2/3-5 split to be in the mix. In fact, some of the award-winning elementary schools used multiple K-6 buildings, based on research that shows sixth grade to be a key year both educationally and emotionally for student success (and not a year for transitioning).

But according to sources within the district leadership, the problem to be solved locally is not one of academic performance, but one of finances. The realignment proposal might mean that the K-2 building would need only a principal, and class sizes in a combined facility would allow one teacher at each grade level to be cut. So, five teachers and an assistant principal's salary would be 'saved.' Well, not only do we believe that significant cost savings could be realized in areas of the district's budget other than classroom teachers, we also question the assumptions behind this argument. First, given the number of students in the district that have special needs classifications, we are not confident that proper student/staff and traditional/non-traditional learner ratios could be maintained with those proposed reductions, unless class sizes were significantly increased. But class size increases themselves carry negative consequences for student learning, as seen in this study: click here.

Second, while the staff salary line might decrease a bit, what happens to the transportation line items? Given the current location of the schools, many students are ineligible for bussing. That doesn't necessarily mean that they walk to school, but it means that the school isn't obligated to incorporate them into a bus run. But, if students start criss-crossing the city for school, we do not see a way that the school would avoid increased costs. That is still assuming a single bus run for elementary students, but is that possible? That would require both buildings to dismiss at the same time. A recent early dismissal due to a snow storm showed us the logistical nightmare of releasing multiple buildings at the same time. Under the realignment proposal, a family with a 2nd grader and a 3rd grader would need a parent at each of the two schools, or would need to let the child closer to home walk alone while picking up the other child, or some such arrangement. So we'd like to see the transportation numbers.

As a corollary to this last point, we’d also like district officials to consider the ‘collateral impacts’ of such a change. As we have discussed the City of Geneva’s strengths and areas of increased opportunity, and even in talk about the lakefront, concerns about attracting new residents, including young families, have been in the mix. With the current arrangement, there are several viable neighborhoods within walking distance to one of the two elementary schools. Parents can feel confident that their child (or children, in the case of siblings) will share classes with other children living nearby, and this promotes a strong sense of connection with that school, be it North Street or West Street. Strong neighborhood affiliation leads to strong parent participation, PTAs, and childhood “connectedness” that contribute to student success (read about Children’s Connectedness in this fact sheet from Child Trends). Studies also show that neighborhood-based schools discourage sprawl and promote neighborhood pride, two issues that the City has been working on. Read more about this here.

But if the likelihood of your child crisscrossing the city for school increases and the likelihood of any siblings attending the same school at the same time decreases, then the attractiveness of city living for young families decreases proportional to the increase in transitions! In short, studies and our own local take on revitalizing neighborhood and rebuilding community, the educational arguments against what amounts to consolidation and those that favor of de-centralized, neighborhood schools, are stronger.

Another thing that the District seems loathe to consider, is something we'd like to call 'administrative realignment.' While we agree that some positions within the district could be cut with minimal impact to student learning outcomes, we don't believe that cutting positions is always the answer. It's not our goal here (and as President-elect Obama might say it's "above the pay grade" of our blog) to solve the district's financial problems. But we would like to point out that creative solutions, meaningful and sustainable improvements to operations are not usually achieved by a handful of men sitting in a back room discussing where to cut back.

Bringing the teachers, staff, residents, and students into the fold, and making the discussions public will bring more ideas to the table. Once the community has determined the destination it’s trying to reach, there’s nothing wrong with seeking out directions to get there.

Trust, but Verify! (Part 1)Trust, Risk, and Obama

If you’re playing a game of word association and someone says ‘politician’, the word ‘trust’ isn’t likely to be the first thing that comes to mind. Yet, in statements at the December council meeting, in the newspaper, and in a comment on this blog, more trust in government, presumably on the part of the citizens of Geneva, is exactly what Mayor Einstein is calling for. Additionally, our recent post on President-elect Obama’s cabinet appointments generated some feedback that we wanted to consider on a broader level. We were asked by readers, “Why don’t you guys, or why can’t you guys trust Obama?”

So the Mayor and other readers got us thinking about trust, and its role in what scholar Mark Warren refers to as a deliberative democracy. (Check out Miller’s thinking here).This part of the post will deal with issues of trust on the national level, while Part II brings it back to the local scene.

Did our Founding Fathers believe that an active trust in our government was necessary for its proper functioning? Well, yes and no. In drafting the Constitution, they sought to create a system of governance which the people could trust to pursue their best interests, with our collective benefit the result. But, they also recognized that power is inherent in government, and that power can be corrupting, and not conducive to good government.

That’s why they included a system of checks, balances, separation of powers, and other remedies to protect against concentrations and abuses of that power. In addition to the three branches of government, the Constitution, by virtue of the First Amendment, guaranteeing freedom of speech, ensures a 'fourth estate,' that publicizes and reflects upon the acts of government. As James Madison declared, “To the press alone...the world is indebted for all the triumphs which have been gained by reason and humanity over error and oppression”. So, while the Founding Fathers wanted us to trust the system and probably hoped that we could trust our public officials, they provided a mechanism of verifying and correcting the actions of public officials who had gone astray.

They put their ultimate faith in the people. So, while the Federalist papers state “if angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary,” they go on to support the Constitution, which articulated a system of government by the people, and mechanisms for public information and communication, as the institution that can be trusted to correct any misdeeds.

More recently, political scientists have explored the role of trust in contemporary political life, particularly as it relates to relations between the people and their representatives. In his book, Trust (1994), William Bianco assumed “constituents look for ways to increase the chances that their representatives will act in their [the constituents] interests.” He found two main ways: (1) “retrospective evaluations,” which judge outcomes and for which there is a reckoning at the next election; (2) “trust,” which assumes their representative is better informed than they, and ought to be entrusted. The basis of trust is either the representative’s “presentation of self,” making the case that he/she is to be trusted on the basis of personal qualities (integrity, etc.), or “traceablity,” the idea that constituents can eventually get to the bottom of decisions. This, of course, assumes that elected representatives come to meetings prepared and do the appropriate research and deliberation so that their knowledge base can be reasonably assumed to exceed, or at minimum match, that of their constituents.

In “Democratic Theory and Trust,” Mark Warren emphasizes the relationship between trust and risk. He defines trust generally as “a judgment to accept vulnerability to the potential ill will of others by granting them discretionary power over some good.” What’s strange about trust in the specific realm of politics is that once you’ve entered the political realm (as opposed to familial, social, or community relations) trust is already on shaky ground. That’s just the nature of politics.

However, there are good reasons for wanting trust. For instance, you might accept the risk of trust in exchange for the benefits of cooperation that could follow. Paradoxically, though, the greater the need for trust, the greater the risk involved. Or, expressed another way, the conditions which are best for trust, are the conditions where trust is least needed. For Warren, then, you want to become involved in trust, because of its benefits, but yet, you want to limit the risks entailed by trust.

So, for Warren, how is trust created? For him, it is through open and honest government with good communication. Here’s what he says:

“A stable background of trust is unlikely if there are consistent and pervasive conflicts of interest in the society…what maintains a background of trust, rather, is my knowledge that I could monitor and challenge authorities or trusted others, as well as the other’s knowledge that I can do so. One of the ironies of modern forms of trust is that they are more robust when they can be challenged.”

We think the sentiment is best captured in President Reagan’s phrase “Trust, but Verify.” Of course, the whole thing gushes with irony, for to trust, is never needing to verify.

Warren concludes that “trust thrives when institutions are structured so as to respond to communication." This requires access to information and deliberations so as to ensure transparency, and also an "institutional means for challenging" authorities and 'trusted' individuals.

When it comes to Obama, so far, we trust his judgment, in part because of what we know about him as a person (though we also trusted Spitzer, but who could have known what he was really like?). But does that mean our role ought to be merely that of a ‘cheerleader’? Our basis of trust in Obama is both Bianco’s notion of “presentation of self,” i.e., his character, and Warren’s concept of transparency, i.e., the potential verifiability of all his claims. Part of trusting someone’s judgment is trusting that s/he makes decisions based on sound reasons and that s/he is open to information and deliberates thoroughly.

In short, trusting the government is actually trusting the political process that we all participate in. By vigorously participating, which includes open and responsible debate, you are demonstrating that trust. Think of it this way: If we didn’t trust our politicians (be they local or national), what would be the point of writing this blog or of voting or of even paying attention at all? If they are sinister and corrupt, then nothing we say or do would matter, would it?

And, more importantly, the blog itself is ultimately an instrument of trust, in so far as it demonstrates, in its fact-based point of view, that what government says and does is ultimately verifiable

Political Appointments, Qualifications, and the American DreamPart II: Citizenship Against the Machine

City Council and the City Democratic and Republican Committees recently convened to discuss appointments to City boards, commissions, and offices. It has long been the custom in the City that the party on Council with the majority of seats would name citizens who were members of that party to fill various posts.

The classic case, because it was both lucrative and power laden, was City Attorney. The position would go to an attorney long loyal to the ruling party. Loyalty, simple faithfulness, would be measured by overall support for the party and its candidates, professional service to the party, such as pro bono legal work, financial contributions and fund raising, and so on.
Political appointments are a variation on the theme, “To the victors belong the spoils,” a phrase dating to the early 1800s and attributed to Andrew Jackson and U.S. Senator William March (D-NY, 1831).

According to the City Charter, Council has the power to appoint the City Manager, the City Clerk, the City Attorney, five members of the Board of Assessment Review, three members of the Fire Commission, nine members of the Recreation Advisory Board, nine members of the Planning Board, seven members of the Zoning Board of Appeals, seven members of the Historic District Commission, and other appointive officers as required. Council also appoints Councilors to seats vacated before the expiration of a term. The City Manger is also empowered to make several appointments.

When it came to filling vacancies on the various boards, if the appointment was supposed to be a Democrat, the City Democratic Committee would meet and bring forward to Council the name and resume of a qualified Democrat; likewise, for a Republican appointment. While most of these posts are considered non-political, the Charter takes precautions to insure that no board be dominated by one party, that a board “shall not consist of not more than a bare majority at any time of adherents of the same political party.”

About five years ago, things began to change. Council was having difficulty filling positions on boards and felt searching for a nominee narrowly, among members of one party, unnecessarily limited the field. There was also the question of Independents or unaffiliated voters. While the majority party could appoint an Independent or unaffiliated person, there was not an organization for those candidates like the two city committees. Then some Councilors who had been snubbed in one way or another by a committee retaliated by voting against nominees brought forward by the City Committees. 

Mayor Einstein has virtually disregarded party politics, case in point being the appointments of the City Judge and the City Attorney, citing qualifications as paramount. Party leaders felt blindsided, embarrassed, and disrespected.  After all, they said, he accepted and benefitted from a party committed to his stated values and dedicated to his election.  But should party, i.e., loyalty, be the first requisite, the first qualification, of an appointment in Geneva City government? 

We don’t think so, if there is a concomitant reform of ‘machine politics’ generally. Machines do bring order to the political process and help to organize our political life. They also do a great deal of the work of vetting nominees. Think of the difficulties independents have running for office. We’d still like to see an open and honest nominating process, where openings are described and publicized, interested citizens may submit qualifications and sit for interviews, and Council makes appointments based on appropriate criteria. But such a process requires a commitment from the parties to be involved in such an effort, for people to be forthcoming with their time and talents, and for Council to commit to appointments based on qualifications that do not include issues of personality and partisanship.

Has the Geneva School District Veered Off Course?Check Out "North" and "West" on Your Compass

At NoStrings, we have a ‘no leaks, no gossip’ policy. We resist posting on aspects of topics we’ve only heard about, and which are not traceable to a source the public can access. That said, and as our anonymous comments post indicates, we are willing to consider information provided by credible sources if they identify themselves to us and give a compelling reason for their name not to used. While that may be an even higher threshold of anonymous citation than most journalists use, we still use it sparingly.

Over the holidays, we were approached by any number of people who wonder why, given our commitment to accountability and open, transparent decision-making in all arenas of government, we haven’t weighed in on the proposed ‘realignment’ of the City’s elementary schools. The answer is simple: we hadn’t heard about it. But, now that we have, and had it verified, at least as a move under consideration, we feel it’s an issue that we should take up. In part one of this two part post, we explore the process issues related to the proposed realignment, in part two we will delve a bit deeper into the content of the proposal.

“Realignment” refers to housing all district K-2 students at one school, and the 3-5 students at the other. Let us say at the outset that we are both advocates of public education, in general, and Geneva schools in particular, as detailed in a previous post. However, we have serious concerns about the governance structure within the district. If it is true that district leaders have already decided—without any further discussion allowed-- to realign the West Street and North Street elementary schools, then the move would be a case study in bad policy-making.

First, the concerns about process. On the macro-level, school board members are elected representatives of the people of the district, and the school board--as a whole--is the policy-making body for the district. The school board is analogous to the City Council in so far as each body sets the policy course, hires the chief executive to carry out policy and oversee departments, approves all taxing and spending, and monitors progress toward achieving the goals it has set.

The National School Board Association (NSBA) lists the eight key roles of any School Board: to set the vision and mission of the district; to establish performance standards; to engage in assessment of performance; to be accountable for that performance (or lack thereof); organizational alignment to achieve goals; to create a climate and culture of support for students; teachers, and parental involvement; to encourage collaborative relationships across levels of decision-making; and to strive for continuous improvement.

The NSBA provides links to school board initiatives across the country that exemplify these qualities. Community engagement is key to school district success and that, as it is with City Council, requires to things: (1) That leaders share accurate and timely information with district residents; (2) That leaders create opportunities for meaningful feedback from students, faculty, staff, and residents. 


A good example of this can be found in the Hillsboro School District (Oregon) which features “Community Listening Sessions.” Residents are given their due as participants in the decision-making process, and are encouraged to both share their own views and to help disseminate information back into the community in their roles as ‘key communicators.’ Nothing we’ve heard about the proposed ‘realignment’ of the schools indicates that parents, students, or even staff have been meaningfully engaged in the discussions leading up to the decision.

The city of Hasbrouck Heights, New Jersey, considered a similar change in 2005. They involved staff and parents from the start and it looked as if everyone was open to the idea of moving from two K-5 elementary schools to one K-2 school and one 3-5 school. But after several questions were raised (some of which we will discuss in Part 2) it was determined that the change was not in the district’s best interest. Both schools, Lincoln and Euclid, retained their K-5 configuration, and Lincoln was named a Governor’s School of Excellence.

What prompted the Hasbrouck Heights initiative, and what we can only assume is prompting Geneva's look at realignment, is an attempt to cut costs. Again, when a public body is considering a major change, we find that it’s usually better to ‘prime the pump’ by communicating with the public, early on in the process, the need that is prompting the review. In this case, Geneva taxpayers are left to wonder, is the ‘need’ one of student performance, of fiscal crisis, of facility inadequacy, or some combination therein? We’ll make a medical analogy to illustrate our point: Would you, as a patient, undergo a radical therapy, with potentially harmful side effects, if your doctor hadn’t first told you what condition he was treating and why this particular course of treatment was the preferred option? We are pretty confident that NoStrings readers would want a diagnosis first, treatment options second, and then the recommendation!

As Ken Camera likes to say about City Council, what’s needed in the discussion is a complete and accurate ‘data set’ and an infusion of some ‘public intelligence.’ So, if it is true that the Geneva School Board is about to spring a major change on the students and families of our school district, we need to hear something more than, “Talk to the Superintendent, it was his recommendation,” which is the answer we often hear. Where’s the accountability? Check your compass.