Making the Best of It
By Frank Gruber
The Santa Monica Malibu Unified School
Board did the smart thing and the right
thing at its meeting July 12, when the
four members present all voted to accept
the conditions the Santa Monica City Council
placed on a discretionary increase of
$530,000 in the amount the City Council
pays to the School District under the
City/District facilities agreement.
The Board also showed some initiative.
The school administration's recommendation
to the Board for what to do in response
to the Council's conditions was positive
(see
story), but the only action the staff
requested from the Board was to authorize
staff to send a letter to the City "expressing
a desire" to accept the money and
the conditions, but asking for certain
clarifications.
This is the kind of hair-splitting and
impolitic thinking that has got the Board
and the District in trouble in the past
with both constituents and the City. As
an example, here's the staff's first request
for a clarification:
"It is stated in the language
of section 2.a. of the document provided
by the City Council to the District that
the review 'will specifically explore
viable alternatives to the District's
recent practice of prohibiting parents
from speaking to others about the special
education services their children receive.'
Given that Section 2.b. of the same document
requests a moratorium on adding a confidentiality
clause to any agreement made between the
District and parents, staff wants to clarify
that there is no other 'recent practice'
where parents would be prohibited from
speaking to others about the services
received by their children. Further, the
current use of confidentiality clauses
within a Dispute Resolution Agreement
would only relate to any service/s specific
to the Agreement entered into by and between
the Parent/s and the District."
Can you figure this out? If you can't,
don't feel bad. I've been practicing law
for 29 years and I'm still puzzling over
that last sentence.
But in any case, what needs to be clarified
about "explore viable alternatives
to the District's recent practice of prohibiting
parents from speaking to others about
the special education services their children
receive?" Who didn't understand what
City Council meant by that?
I.e., figure out another way than telling
parents not to talk about their settlements
over their kids' education plans to protect
your bargaining position vis-à-vis
other parents.
And how would a letter to the City "clarify"
if there are other "recent practices"
that prohibit parents from speaking to
others about their children's services;
isn't that knowledge -- "clarity"
-- the District staff is more likely to
have than the City?
It's too bad; overall, the staff was
recommending acceptance of the City's
conditions, which have a lot of public
support, but instead of making the District
look "transparent," the new
mantra, this paragraph and two others
like it made the District staff look more
querulous than gracious. As John Petz,
a parent active in District affairs, told
the Board, it all seemed "lawyered
up."
But the staff did give the Board an opportunity
to assert itself, and the Board did so.
Maybe the Education God works in mysterious
ways. After hearing from five members
of the public, all of whom to one degree
or another questioned the need for the
clarifications, the four members of the
Board who were present (Jose Escarce and
Kelly Pye were absent and with the departure
of Emily Bloomfield one seat is now vacant)
all spoke of the need for the District
to accept the City's conditions and get
on with the independent review of the
entire special education program.
Instead of authorizing the letter, the
Board instructed the administration to
return at the next meeting with a resolution
implementing an immediate moratorium on
confidentiality clauses, and took other
actions to improve cooperation with the
City.
Much of discussion at the meeting, from
both the members of the public who spoke
and among the Board members, concerned
not the confidentiality clauses that provoked
so much outrage at City Council meetings,
but rather the process for choosing the
"independent" experts who will
review the District's special education
program.
This is a topic that probably would not
have consumed so much of the Board's time,
and raised so many questions that now
have to be answered, except that one of
staff's "clarification" items
sought a narrow interpretation of the
word "independent," as if "independent"
was a word that needs clarification.
As one of its conditions, the City Council
had insisted that the consultants the
District hired to conduct the review be
"genuinely independent" of District
officials. The meaning of this seems plain
enough: the Council doesn't want the District
to cook the results of the review by choosing
reviewers who have the same views about
special education as the Board or District
staff. (A strategy, by the way, which
many have accused the City Council of
employing in the past.)
Suspicions were aroused when one of the
clarifications staff requested was an
"interpretation" that someone
would be independent provided that he
or she had neither been employed by the
District nor had a personal relationship
with a District official. Members of the
public who spoke wanted to know how the
Board would ensure that the reviewers
themselves would be open-minded.
Tricia Crane, head of the Special Education
District Advisory Committee and the most
outspoken advocate for the rights of special
ed children and their families, told the
Board that she favored the convening of
a committee, that would include the Superintendent
as well as representatives of the P.T.A.,
the Special Education District Advisory
Committee, Community for Excellent Public
Schools and other interested parties,
to choose the consultants.
Ultimately the Board asked the staff
to return with an analysis of whether
the District should issue a formal request
for proposals or a request for qualifications
to choose the consultants.
In other words, it now appears that we
are going to have to have a process to
determine the process.
I'll chime in on what I think "independent"
means. This review will require consultants
who have never heard of the Santa Monica
Malibu School District, but who know everything
else about special education.
I say that because while whoever conducts
the review will have to immerse themselves
in the facts and the history of the debacle
known as our special education program,
when it comes to making recommendations,
they must avoid listening to the opinions
of anyone who has been involved -- whether
administrator or parent -- in it.
The atmosphere surrounding special education
in our district is toxic. For years the
District has been spending much more than
other districts, yet there are many unhappy
families, and much bitterness. Somewhere
along the line, the District apparently
thought that money would buy love, but
it didn't work, and when facing enormous
financial pressures, the District tried
to control costs, it alienated affections
wholesale.
Having talked to and heard from well
meaning people on both sides, I can't
blame anyone in particular, but then that
means I blame them all by default. Is
there someone out there who can tell us
how to start over? |
