(Originally shared in March 2013, but highly relevant today)
How our current system of governance came to be in Horry County Schools sheds much light on my current concerns with how our district governs itself and operates. A brief, factual synopsis follows. I have much more detail and information, if anyone is interested in knowing the whole story.
Why anyone would not be interested is very difficult for me to understand, for this matter has serious implications for every citizen of Horry County. It has tremendous significance for students, teachers, parents, and the community at large, in terms of how much their voices matter and to what extent and in what ways they can be involved in developing decisions that should be voted on by their representative board members.
As of this moment, no citizen of Horry County has a vote on most matters related to students’ welfare, instruction, curriculum, personnel, financial matters, and district operations. There is only one exception– the superintendent of education. She can decree policy and remove policy, at will, with no board approval. This is law-making authority, and no citizen has any viable input, only advisory input. These are referred to as District Policies, distinct from Board Policies. (See Horry County Schools’ website. Together they comprise what we call Coherent Governance Policies.)
This serious error was made in 2000 and has been perpetuated for over thirteen years. This is a tragedy for “government of the people, by the people, and for the people,” and the concept of the “consent of the governed.”
The story really begins before 1999, but for the sake of brevity, I will start in the spring of 1999. (For evidence prior to 1999, you may want to ask, inquire, or otherwise probe, for it is extensive. I am available, for any inquiries.)
As early as May 1999, a committee of the Horry County Board of Education was looking at shifting to what was then termed “board governance.” Board minutes on actions taken on July 19, 1999, detail a process supposedly begun because “participants” of the 1998-2000 Reconnecting Communities and Schools project in Horry County “recommended that the Board establish a more efficient and effective means of defining school board governance.” However, nowhere in the final agreement produced by the representative sample of citizens chosen was governance mentioned at all. See Horry County’s “Our Agreement,” the product compiled for future directions of our district.
Some members of the community might have discussed the issue of governance in light of the fact that some prominent national groups and authors were promoting the policy board concept. However, it seems that the board of education was only looking at the Policy Governance model of Dr. John Carver. The consultants referred to in the July 1999 minutes, although not by name, were Linda and Randy Quinn (the Aspen Group). The only model they marketed at the time was Carver’s trademarked Policy Governance. Now, they market a user-friendly version – Coherent Governance, their creation (c. 2006), the model we moved to in June 2007 and under which we currently operate.
If the Horry County Board of Education was seriously looking at a radical shift in governance, why were other models not explored? The community as a whole was not notified and involved through the dissemination of detailed information, discourse, and debate. A series of board meetings and board trainings took place over the next year, before final adoption in June 2000.
Why were all citizens of Horry County not given a reasonable opportunity to be involved in the development of this radical shift in governance? Why were special attempts not made to inform and involve every citizen of Horry County about the radical change which was being planned? Did the superintendent and the board believe this was simply business as usual? I know that someone knew it was not and did not want the public to fully understand what was happening. I believe this is still the same today, only there are several “someones.”
This was not a typical vote. The public cannot always be involved in in-depth discussions prior to all board votes. The logistics of this would be impractical. However, changing a form of governance is like the creation of a constitution. This is fundamental change, for roles shift, and practices become much different. Much time and study should be offered to all citizens, not representative samples of the people and/or the board of education, before a change of this magnitude occurs.
The Reconnecting Communities and Schools project was a wonderful opportunity for hundreds of people to be involved in discussing many matters related to school and community involvement. However, if the recommendation about governance from some participants was used as the springboard to the radical change in our governance, this is not democracy at work. This is not democratic practice at all. It is, as is strategic planning, a manipulative tool, designed, in many cases, to bring about prearranged outcomes.
This would be more like the tactics of Mao Tse-Tung and the psychological technique of what he called the “mass line” in bringing large numbers of people together, listening to them, making them think their contributions are quite helpful, and then proceeding to implement a predetermined change. Then, using the masses, justification for change is broadcast on the basis of what the people want and democracy in action, psychological manipulation of the highest order.
Let’s remember that Mao’s China was called, and still is, the People’s Republic of China, what Mao also termed the “People’s Democratic Dictatorship.” There is not much that is democratic about China, yet there is a recent tendency to admire many aspects of the Chinese education system. That is a topic for another day.
To continue with historical context, you can read the response I made to “rhoward” in the comments section of last week’s Horry Independent article (http://www.myhorrynews.com/news/education/article_616f7544-8cb9-11e2-ad52-0019bb30f31a.html). It details what happened starting in late 1999 with the involvement of former superintendent Gerrita Postlewait and her role on the Study Team on Local Leadership Quality and Engagement that was appointed by the South Carolina Education Oversight Committee. The study team produced recommendations that supported our district’s move to the Policy Governance model.
No, real democratic practice involves all of the people having a reasonable opportunity to know about the details of large scale change and participate in in-depth discourse and debate before votes are taken by representatives of the people. It is quite shameful how the board of education dispensed with traditional governance, without widespread public knowledge. It is also shameful that nothing has changed after thirteen years.
How our current system of governance came to be in Horry County Schools sheds much light on my current concerns with how our district governs itself and operates. A brief, factual synopsis follows. I have much more detail and information, if anyone is interested in knowing the whole story.
Why anyone would not be interested is very difficult for me to understand, for this matter has serious implications for every citizen of Horry County. It has tremendous significance for students, teachers, parents, and the community at large, in terms of how much their voices matter and to what extent and in what ways they can be involved in developing decisions that should be voted on by their representative board members.
As of this moment, no citizen of Horry County has a vote on most matters related to students’ welfare, instruction, curriculum, personnel, financial matters, and district operations. There is only one exception– the superintendent of education. She can decree policy and remove policy, at will, with no board approval. This is law-making authority, and no citizen has any viable input, only advisory input. These are referred to as District Policies, distinct from Board Policies. (See Horry County Schools’ website. Together they comprise what we call Coherent Governance Policies.)
This serious error was made in 2000 and has been perpetuated for over thirteen years. This is a tragedy for “government of the people, by the people, and for the people,” and the concept of the “consent of the governed.”
The story really begins before 1999, but for the sake of brevity, I will start in the spring of 1999. (For evidence prior to 1999, you may want to ask, inquire, or otherwise probe, for it is extensive. I am available, for any inquiries.)
As early as May 1999, a committee of the Horry County Board of Education was looking at shifting to what was then termed “board governance.” Board minutes on actions taken on July 19, 1999, detail a process supposedly begun because “participants” of the 1998-2000 Reconnecting Communities and Schools project in Horry County “recommended that the Board establish a more efficient and effective means of defining school board governance.” However, nowhere in the final agreement produced by the representative sample of citizens chosen was governance mentioned at all. See Horry County’s “Our Agreement,” the product compiled for future directions of our district.
Some members of the community might have discussed the issue of governance in light of the fact that some prominent national groups and authors were promoting the policy board concept. However, it seems that the board of education was only looking at the Policy Governance model of Dr. John Carver. The consultants referred to in the July 1999 minutes, although not by name, were Linda and Randy Quinn (the Aspen Group). The only model they marketed at the time was Carver’s trademarked Policy Governance. Now, they market a user-friendly version – Coherent Governance, their creation (c. 2006), the model we moved to in June 2007 and under which we currently operate.
If the Horry County Board of Education was seriously looking at a radical shift in governance, why were other models not explored? The community as a whole was not notified and involved through the dissemination of detailed information, discourse, and debate. A series of board meetings and board trainings took place over the next year, before final adoption in June 2000.
Why were all citizens of Horry County not given a reasonable opportunity to be involved in the development of this radical shift in governance? Why were special attempts not made to inform and involve every citizen of Horry County about the radical change which was being planned? Did the superintendent and the board believe this was simply business as usual? I know that someone knew it was not and did not want the public to fully understand what was happening. I believe this is still the same today, only there are several “someones.”
This was not a typical vote. The public cannot always be involved in in-depth discussions prior to all board votes. The logistics of this would be impractical. However, changing a form of governance is like the creation of a constitution. This is fundamental change, for roles shift, and practices become much different. Much time and study should be offered to all citizens, not representative samples of the people and/or the board of education, before a change of this magnitude occurs.
The Reconnecting Communities and Schools project was a wonderful opportunity for hundreds of people to be involved in discussing many matters related to school and community involvement. However, if the recommendation about governance from some participants was used as the springboard to the radical change in our governance, this is not democracy at work. This is not democratic practice at all. It is, as is strategic planning, a manipulative tool, designed, in many cases, to bring about prearranged outcomes.
This would be more like the tactics of Mao Tse-Tung and the psychological technique of what he called the “mass line” in bringing large numbers of people together, listening to them, making them think their contributions are quite helpful, and then proceeding to implement a predetermined change. Then, using the masses, justification for change is broadcast on the basis of what the people want and democracy in action, psychological manipulation of the highest order.
Let’s remember that Mao’s China was called, and still is, the People’s Republic of China, what Mao also termed the “People’s Democratic Dictatorship.” There is not much that is democratic about China, yet there is a recent tendency to admire many aspects of the Chinese education system. That is a topic for another day.
To continue with historical context, you can read the response I made to “rhoward” in the comments section of last week’s Horry Independent article (http://www.myhorrynews.com/news/education/article_616f7544-8cb9-11e2-ad52-0019bb30f31a.html). It details what happened starting in late 1999 with the involvement of former superintendent Gerrita Postlewait and her role on the Study Team on Local Leadership Quality and Engagement that was appointed by the South Carolina Education Oversight Committee. The study team produced recommendations that supported our district’s move to the Policy Governance model.
No, real democratic practice involves all of the people having a reasonable opportunity to know about the details of large scale change and participate in in-depth discourse and debate before votes are taken by representatives of the people. It is quite shameful how the board of education dispensed with traditional governance, without widespread public knowledge. It is also shameful that nothing has changed after thirteen years.
No comments:
Post a Comment