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.