Daily Pantagraph: Olympia wants to spend money on new grade school
STANFORD -- Olympia school district residents want to spend referendum
money on a new Olympia North Elementary School and upgrading electrical
and security systems at all the schools.
That was the consensus of five groups of residents reporting this week to the district’s Citizens Facilities Planning Committee.
That was the consensus of five groups of residents reporting this week to the district’s Citizens Facilities Planning Committee . . .
The planning committee was organized to collect public opinion on how
to spend money from the April 2007 referendum. The five groups that
report to committee were formed as part of a series of public meetings
last month at Olympia’s five schools . . .
The April 2007 referendum will have two questions asking for a total
tax rate increase of $1 per $100 equalized assessed valuation . . .
One referendum will ask voters to let the district issue $12.5 million in
bonds for construction. That would carry a rate increase of 50 cents
per $100 EAV.
The other referendum would seek an increase of 50
cents per $100 EAV for the education fund, which pays for most
operating expenses. The education rate would increase from $2.40 per
$100 EAV to $2.90 per $100 EAV . . .
“They [the committees] have now been able to see the common needs throughout the district and definitely have developed a district view and perspective,” [District Superintendent Hahn] said. “(District architect Sam) Johnson (of BLDD Architects) told them to put their board member hat on, and they did just that.”
Too bad the architect didn't tell them to put on their "tax payer hat" instead of their "Board hat".
In response to that Pantagraph article, the following was posted anonymously on their website in the way of a reply:
"Just so you all know. I was part of one of the "Community Groups". Yeah, we
were told to put our "board member hats" on, BUT we were also given constraints surrounding how we spent our money. The "BOARD" had already decided that we would build a new school for North. The only thing we got to "recommend" was how big the replacement school would be and how we should spend the rest of the $$ from the bond. We had to make sure we were "fair" with how we split the rest out in order to try and sell the idea to the rest of the district. What a total joke!"
The Illinois Loop has an excellent piece on School Committees and the administration strategies involved. It's nine pages for those of you interested in the whole thing. Here are some excerpts:
At best, many "consensus" committees whittle away personal goals in favor of lukewarm
conclusions that make no one happy. Emerson said, "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of
little minds."These techniques (sometimes labeled as "Delphi" methods), were developed early in the 20th
century, where they were heavily used by trade unionists and by progressive social organizers
such as Saul Alinsky. These techniques are heavily in use today by corporations, churches,
human resource organizations, trade organizations and social groups in forming a "consensus"
supporting pre-constructed goals. It use of the "committee" along these lines has been a powerful tool used by schools in building support for changes in school policies or curriculum.
The key to such committees using these techniques is that the desired outcome is planned in
advance. The purpose of the committee is not to design or plan or come up with a new course of
action. Rather, the purpose is to "achieve consensus" on a desired course of action that is already known (by the organizers).
Many people are well-familiar with these techniques from their use in business, though they don't usually recognize them as such unless it is pointed out. Corporations might use such committees to enlist employee support for a new program or reorganization.
The same techniques are also often used by trade organizations and professional associations to
solidify support for the most commonly-held agenda items, and to winnow out more marginal
concerns.
A key element of these committees is the "small workgroup". Members of the whole committee
are assigned into smaller groups to "work" on some subset of the "task" assigned. This has a
number of effects.1. First and foremost, it breaks up cohorts so that like-minded people each find themselves as
the odd man out in their small workgroups.
One strategy that is extremely common in school presentations and committee meetings is
"random assignment": As participants enter the meeting room, they are handed a card with
a number, which is the number of the groups that have been assigned to. This technique is
extremely effective in breaking up sets of people that arrive together. If three people feel
strongly about an issue and arrange to go to the meeting together, they could exert
influence if they were allowed to be in the same group. This technique prevents that.2. Beyond that, these small workgroups keep people from challenging the big picture, from
questioning the limitations of overall structure or the material provided, and from limiting
concerns to one's own group and not disturbing or questioning the progress of another
workgroup.
In schools, these committees are used to get teachers, parents and others to "buy into" a proposed initiative. There is nothing resembling Robert's Rules of Order or any informal procedure even vaguely related. There is no open debate, no discussion of what the goals of the committee should be, and certainly no voting. It goes without saying that there is no process to select a leader for the group -- the leader is already a given, typically a school administrator who has been trained in the techniques of being a group "facilitator".
Any of this sounding familiar, folks?
For another take on this problem, see this post from C.J. Summers:
No comments:
Post a Comment