Was There An 'Information Blackout' on School District Realignment?

We previously discussed the Geneva School District Superintendent’s proposal to ‘realign’ elementary schools from two angles: First and foremost, we highlighted flaws in the process by which a decision was reached; and second, we explored flaws in the arguments advanced in support of the change. At the time that we wrote, the proposal was—from our perspective—in its infant stages. We had only just heard about from faculty and staff who themselves had only just heard about it. We never expected the discussion was as far along as we now know it to be.

So, in keeping with our initial framework, we are devoting two additional posts to the topic. This one deals, again, with the process. An upcoming post again takes a close look at the merits, or lack thereof, of the plan, using the information circulated by district officials.

There’s also the question of how all this is being communicated—or not-- to District residents. We are baffled by the ‘information blackout’ that seems to be surrounding this issue. Less than a year ago, the school district hired a public relations firm (at the cost of $150/hour) to improve communications. We were unable to get a copy of any proposal submitted for those services, but we were unsuccessful because there was none. You can read more about that issue here.

You might think that an issue as critical as the total restructuring of the elementary schools, eliminating the ‘neighborhood school’ concept, and adopting a K-2, 3-5 model would be the kind of thing the District would go out its way to publicize. But, apparently not. The most recent Panther Pride newsletter focused on the successes in the existing elementary buildings, and contained only two sentences about the realignment, tucked into a letter from the Superintendent. He said, "Our administrative staff is leading discussions about reorganization of the elementary schools, from the current arrangement of two Kindergarten to 5th grade schools to a Pre-K to 2nd grade primary school and a 3rd grade to 5th grade intermediate school. More on this review, including opportunities to comment, during the coming weeks."

Just a week after that newsletter came out, the Finger Lakes Times ran an article on the realignment, announcing boldly in a headline: “Nothing Decided” (February 9, 2009). The article featured interviews with parents who were concerned about the proposal and who asserted that the move was much farther along than District officials were letting on, that it was more than just an 'administrative review'. As the title of the article indicated, the Superintendent attempted to reassure the public that nothing had actually been decided.

We’ve already commented on this “He Said/She Said” journalism, and how it is not an adequate substitute for true journalistic fact-finding and follow up. The local paper did, at least, announce a public meeting on the issue. It was to be held the following evening (February 10th) at the High School auditorium.

What the paper failed to report is that the very night the article ran, the Geneva City School Board was meeting (in a session open to the public) to receive a report from Assistant Superintendent Darnall about the merits of the realignment proposal. The Board also heard that night from several community members about advantages and disadvantages of the proposal. No story ever appeared about information presented at the Board meeting, or even that it had taken place. Likewise with the public meeting held the following night. That meeting was well-attended, much information was shared and many questions were asked, but no coverage of the meeting has ever appeared in the paper.

While the Superintendent stated several times at the February 10th meeting that went unreported that the realignment was not a “done deal,” there was every indication that it was a very-close-to-being-done deal. It’s worth noting that the meeting was scheduled for 7pm on a Tuesday night and the audience was repeatedly prompted to share its concerns and reservations that would, it was promised, be considered by the advisory committee before a recommendation was made. It's also worth noting that he stated several times that the committee would be voting on its recommendation at its next meeting—THE VERY NEXT MORNING.

We never heard, and it was never reported in the local paper, whether the advisory committee made a recommendation or not. ZERO reporting in the newspaper and NO “Splash” made by the District’s public relations firm. Taxpayers, district residents, parent—all left in the dark, by the local paper and the school district..

Assume for a moment that this realignment proposal is the best thing since sliced bread. Assume that it is the best academic arrangement for our children, the best financial reform for our taxpayers, and the best social arrangement for our community. Wouldn’t that be all the more reason to be open, honest, and transparent in the decision-making?

If it’s a great idea, why not simply say, “We, the administration, are charged with making recommendations in the best interest of the district. This realignment is the best thing to do because of X,Y and Z, and, therefore, here’s how we’re going to move forward with it and we welcome your help with the transition.”

Or if you’re not sure it’s a good idea and you really want public opinion, why not say, “We are interested in this proposal and we are interested in your fact-based point of view about whether it is a good fit for our children and our District’s resources.”

Instead, the District and the local paper seem to be holding fast to the doctrine of “don’t ask, don’t tell” -- leaving the facts by the wayside and letting rumor, innuendo, and untested opinion carry the day. This sacrifices the key element of good decision making: ACCOUNTABILITY. There’s a reason that newspapers are supposed to be asking “Who? What? Where? When? Why? and How?” It’s because the alternative is a universe in which no one knows how we got where we are or where we’re headed next.