School Board issues analyzed
Two competing narratives have emerged regarding the current state of the Sonoma Valley Unified School District. Narrative number one centers on personalities and interpersonal intrigue; narrative number two is about substantive quality-of-education issues. Also at play is an undercurrent of status quo power brokering vs. grass roots action and opinion as to how to go about “change”, and these each have different values constellations associated with them.
As long as the debate remains centered on personalities, as inextricably connected to merits and issues, failure to reconcile and put on the table these entangled personal-political issues are going to impact how policy will move forward. This exact same pattern has recently unfolded at IOLERO (Independent Office of Law Enforcement Review and Outreach) concerning advisory board personnel decisions there, and likely could affect the new GSA (Groundwater Sustainability Agency) process as well. This pattern is also seen with the city’s Planning Director always being a lightning rod for interests that seem to be getting the short end of the stick. When people get conflated with policy, which may be unavoidable, it becomes harder to stay focused on issues because the emotional gravity always seems to lead to blaming the person and the policy they are advocating.
If the primary issue here seems to have become a value judgement on how great or bad Louann Carlomagno or John Kelly is, this makes it all into a popularity contest, or a cult of personality, and detracts from shining a light on substantive issues at stake. How great or how bad somebody is, has nothing to do with the policies at stake. But, policies cannot help but stem from people.
Everyone is saying they want to deal with issues that bear upon the success of the educational system here. Narrative number one postulates that getting rid of Carlomagno or Kelly is a necessary first step to moving on to substantive issues. If the personality thing is really central, the obvious way to finesse it is for each pole in the debate to come clean, admit the faults and mistakes they have brought to the table and move on to addressing the issues. For example, “I did mess up by saying or doing such and such, and I apologize, now I would like to move on to addressing how we can agree on what the issues are.” In this way of looking at things, it is highly unusual for one party to be the complete angel and the other to the total bad guy. But, people are expert at blaming everything elsewhere than on themselves or on their allies.
Part of the overall issue here is the wielding of power. Those is charge, administratively and in classrooms, get to define policy. Tenure, and adherence to local custom and educational philosophy appears to be a stumbling block which prevents new blood and ideas from gaining traction. Thus, power and personality are connected. And, when you are in charge, you own it, good and bad.
It may not be possible to reconcile these two school system narratives and arrive at an objective call. Most heated public issues have a similar pattern: a passionate struggle to define just what is at stake. And an inevitable diversion into the quicksand of issues and personalities. This struggle frequently ends up as an all or nothing proposition. The public may end up with the perception, unrealistically, that there is no middle ground. Black and white purity dynamics sucks people right in, and is more emotionally satisfying than shades of grey.
And so, how public issues get framed and dealt with are many times going to hinge on the rational and emotional capabilities of the people involved as much as the merits of the issues. This dynamic also hinges on keeping up a certain level of decorum so that bridges are not burned and relationships can be maintained when addressing future issues.
Each side in the school system here is made up of intelligent people of good will, who have or have had kids, and who are heavily invested in seeing the school system succeed. And, while people may have good will and noble goals, none are immune from sour grapes, petty human trifles and personality quirks that maybe hamstring their essential good will. This is to say, not many get up in the morning and say to themselves, I am going to be super jerk today! No, they think they are doing good, when making or calling for perceived necessary changes.
For the school system, how educational success is measured, is therefore critical to define. Is success a well-rounded person, someone congruent with their capacities and nature, or someone who can pass a test?
What are the substantive issues at stake for why the SVUSD has performance numbers close to failing? The performance numbers pale in comparison the Petaluma School District. Why does the local Charter School rate so much higher than the public schools? Do the wealthy and better off simply withdraw and pay for alternate schooling while the poor flounder in public school? How is public money allocated? To what extent are expenditures mandated or discretionary? How much flex is in the budget and where? Is the apparent failure rate a manifestation of funding anomalies related to zoning and suburban segregation nationwide? Why is higher failure rate seemingly located in schools with a high Latino population?
The school system appears to be a mirror image of the demographic segregation of Sonoma Valley. The striking contrast between valley rich and poor is also manifested in a spectrum of educational success, or lack of it. This contrast has clear class, cultural and racial lines. The numbers and patterns here are clearly stated in the Sonoma Valley Fund’s Hidden in Plain Sight study. The rich are getting richer and better educated, the poor are getting poorer and worse educated.
The demographics show a conflict between a growing elderly, white, wealthy, lower-birth-rate population, and young, Latino, working class families with a higher-birth-rate. This overall aging population demographic profile is made worse by the effects of a luxury tourism economy that concentrates wealth at the top and does not distribute benefits equitably. An aging population profile typically votes down school bonds. The aging white population may have antipathy for schools that serve other ethnicities. The combined Valley demographic and unsustainable tourism economy effects minimize public education and support for it.
Also in play are various state and federal educational standards, edicts and testing thresholds. Over the years, efforts to improve education nationally have only seemed to result in more dysfunction and disconnect. These factors bely a widespread failure of the US educational systems in general; all the while the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. This is a reflection of the unwinding of the US as a top-quality entity in general, and an indication of the US fall into partisan, ideological dysfunction. Yet if California is such a great liberal place, why isn’t the state getting it right? What is the role of the county here? What are the most salient systemic factors in play that affect local educational success? How can those be worked with to address critical local issues?
Like housing and wages, school system problems are bigger and more complex than can be sourced to causes controlled only in Sonoma Valley. Yet if the valley has philanthropy kicking in many millions of dollars towards education, where’s the beef? Why can’t the powers that be make more of a difference locally? What is stopping creative solutions? All those millions should be showing a result. A local elementary public school teacher told me they can’t afford supplies for their class. And then stadiums and pools and such are priorities?
This all circles back to narrative numbers one and two. It’s unfortunate that systemic issues appear to be collapsed into personality issues. A clear-eyed view will be hard to gain with such apparent passion to vilify others rather than to agree on just what the issues are. If people make the system, it is people who can be adaptive and make it functional or not. Those in charge own it.
If the overall situation here stems from a systemically dysfunctional Sonoma Valley status quo as a whole, then the school system is one more example of a pattern that privileges the wealthy and leaves the rest in the dust. Status quo values cannot be expected to result in any meaningful change because the assumptions involved are central to why the Valley has the problems it does. Change worked from the position of power will be a weak brew that stumbles from trying not to alienate existing power brokers. As the Hidden in Plain Sight study noted, a certain recalibration is called for, as those who own it are not getting it done.
Now there is an interim superintendent who is on record as having weighed in on one side of the above-mentioned school board narratives, and who has threatened a recall election for John Kelly, criticized another board member, and who has been head of local philanthropy that has ineffectively trickled wealth back to the Latino working class. Local actors have so far seemed to be locked into the black and white narrative landscape. One forecast could be for more bomb throwing and disruption before the substantive issues of what’s best for the kids gets on the table.
However, also with the new interim superintendent, some of the key actors have now apologized and also agreed to move on from past statements. Let’s hope a new spirit coming clean can prevail. Issues get heated, people care, now it’s time for ownership and making it all work the way all actors profess to want.
No comments:
Post a Comment