|
|
|
|
FROM MY CORNER
There’s trouble in River City! |
|
|
By Dalia
Díaz
daliadiaz@rumbonews.com
As I was
reading the report issued by the Massachusetts Department of
Elementary and Secondary Education on the Lawrence Public
Schools, the movie “The Music Man” came to mind for its lead
song about the trouble in River City. The more I read, the
more I kept shaking my head because I could identify the
culprits even though the report omitted the names. Yes, I
may be a junkie of bad TV but in order to criticize, I must
watch what most people don’t.
Do you have three hours or more to watch the school
committee meeting every other Thursday night? Many of the
members are most likely hoping you don’t! Well, I do when I
am working in the office on the paper! These meetings are
conducted only in English which means many residents do not
have access to the conversations that take place within this
elected body.
The Department of Education is required by Massachusetts
General Laws to conduct district reviews every five years on
“districts whose students achieve at low levels either in
absolute terms or relative to districts that educate similar
populations.”
The State Review on the Lawrence Public Schools was scathing
and the section on its leadership was the area that received
the most attention. While, of course, the test scores and
student success data should be the most important section of
the report, the state indicates that not even the school
committee members makes data a priority during meetings.
Please keep in mind that everything in quotation marks was
taken directly from the report and they are not my words but
the Review Team’s observations.
The school committee attended a meeting on student
achievement data and instead of asking relevant questions,
“Members attention to the topic was distracted by a
committee member discussion of how many teachers go to
Dunkin Donuts during break period.” Can you guess who that
was? Jim Vittorioso, of course.
Part of the review process for the state was to review
previous meetings in which they determined, “A review of the
minutes shows that the school committee engages too little
in discussion about the data to be able to make informed
decisions…” The state was referring to data on attendance,
special education referrals, suspensions, test scores,
education plans, finances and more.
Mayor Lantigua, as the Chairman of the school committee
holds much of the accountability for the way he leads this
board as the state has pointed out when it reported, “It is
suggested that the chair of the committee consult with the
Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (ESE) to
find training and assistance for himself and for the
committee. It is suggested that the chair work individually
with a coach.” “The chair does not consistently use tools at
his disposal, such as parliamentary procedures or rules of
order. This sets up an adversarial relationship between the
school committee and the staff that is a hindrance to moving
the student learning agenda forward.”
With that said, the elected district officials were also
pointed out for their lack of motivation to be trained as a
body citing that only 3 of the 7 members attended school
committee training and they were the three that are not
coming back next year: Greg Morris, Mark Gray and Sammy
Reyes. Maybe had they been trained properly, committee
members would have avoided being pointed out individually in
this report for “unproductive conduct” and pushing ahead
personal agendas. “Instead of being used as much as possible
to focus on the most important district needs, school
committee time has been used to address issues other than
the committee priorities.”
The school committee has three main responsibilities: hiring
and evaluating the superintendent, policy making, and
oversight of the budget. These are the only areas in which
the school committee should be focused. Of course this has
not been the case.
“Some school committee members have used meeting time to act
in the role of a member of the public rather than a member
of the governing body.” Jim Vittorioso makes it a point at
almost every meeting to sign in as a member of the public to
speak during public participation. When his name is called
by the chairman, Mr. Vittorioso leaves his seat, stands
behind the podium and speaks on issues that are unrelated to
the agenda and consistently goes over the 2 minute time
limit. He has placed blame on the administrators for failing
their students and thereby failing Dr. Bergeron.
“Some school committee members publicly disparage school
employees…,” noted the review. I was happy to see this on
the report because I have complained that the City Council
is equally at fault on this; they believe that city or
school employees are slaves that should be berated on
television instead of going to executive session if there is
a personnel issue to clarify. Meeting after meeting, Mr.
Vittorioso verbalizes his frustration with Dr. Bergeron not
pushing forward his career ten years ago and uses this
person vendetta as a reason to not give her a job. His vote
could have made a difference in the stability of the school
system. Should a vote of anger have been allowed to count in
a decision that impacts thousands of students?
Member Pavel Payano was appointed to the position vacated by
City Personnel Director, Frank Bonet in March 2011. While he
may not have been there for the training opportunity others
were afforded it was still his responsibility to learn the
rules of the position. The privacy of students is paramount
to parents and this solemn responsibility lies in the hands
of the administrators on a day to day basis.
There are rules around anyone approaching children, which is
why the state had to point out, “One school committee member
held a meeting with high school students, unknown to
administration.” Mr. Payano garnered from that meeting with
students, “I think that we should have Pep Rallies. So, for
the next meeting I am going to put up a motion to have that
happen.”
School spirit is important, but this is an internal school
issue, not one of the priorities of the school committee as
stated above. Mr. Payano deserved credit for stepping into
this role and should be allowed a learning curve. However,
when he took it upon himself to vote for a superintendent
search that was a statement he was confident in all aspects
of the role and should be held to the same standards as
other members.
The role of the school committee should be one of
“stewardship,” yet the state reports: “One administrator
described one member of the school committee as ‘scary and
threatening’ because of his behavior toward school personnel
and others at public meetings.” For instance, when the
teachers were making a stand for the current superintendent
to be contracted, committeemen Mark Gray walked through a
crowd and said to the husband of a school staffer, ‘How does
your wife like her job?’
When the state had a parent meeting the parents sat together
in a section of the room having a one on one discussion
about their opinions of the schools, Mr. Gray sat away from
other parents and when the state invited him to sit with the
group he stated that although he was a parent, he was also a
school committee member. He did not partake in the
discussion and after the meeting he ran up to the state and
told them to discard the opinion of the parents, he knows
more than them because he has more “data.” The state issues
a clear warning, “Disrespectful and intimidating behavior
demonstrates insufficient process and decorum on the part of
the committee and its leadership.”
At the September 22 meeting, I was appalled watching Yasmin
García discussing her own health problems as well as the
reasons for her firing from the school department and no one
told her to stop. Discussing private student or personnel
issues are the role of the administration, yet at public
meetings the chairman allows individual situations to be
addressed. “For the protection and privacy of children in
the schools, this kind of interaction should not be allowed
in a public meeting, especially one televised throughout the
city. The school committee has no mandate or authority to be
hearing about specific issues.”
The school committee was scolded by the state, “A culture
has been established on the committee that hinders its
effective functioning and is seen by others as
dysfunctional.” And cautioned, “The school committee’s
failure to fulfill its role as steward of the system has had
a negative impact on school district focus on the
improvement of student achievement and has eroded public
confidence… Insufficient action and attention to critical
district needs has threatened to undermine the stability of
the district.”
In the end, this Review blames the members of present and
past school committees of the failures of Lawrence children.
The 75-page report ends with a series of recommendations on
Leadership and Governance; Curriculum and Instruction;
Assessment; Human Resources and Professional Development;
Student Support; and Financial and Asset Management. Unless
these recommendations are implemented immediately and the
incoming new members of the school committee are properly
trained, do not expect any changes in our children’s
education.
|
|
|
|
ADVERTISEMENT |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
ADVERTISEMENT |
|
|
|
