Ferndale School District
Notes for a Conversation Among Members of the School Board About Working Together as a Team
School Board Study Session Tuesday, February 11, 2014
Introductory Comments (to the board as a whole)
•
•
•
A school board operates most effectively when members understand their relationship with one another and with the superintendent, and when they make and follow certain agreements about how they will operate as a team. Our school board has engaged in several lengthy conversations, both in formal meetings and in informal one-‐on-‐one settings, about how we will work together. We have used the WSSDA standards to guide these conversations. We have also developed our own Social Contract to outline our working relationships. As leaders of a learning organization, we realize this work is never done. We need to revisit our agreements on a regular basis. In light of recent events, we have decided we need to devote a portion of our meeting tonight to such a review.
Transitional Comments (to the board as a whole)
•
• •
• •
• •
Specifically, the recent events to which we are referring are Hugh’s door-‐to-‐door survey regarding the bond and the comments he made about the bond on KGMI radio on Saturday morning, February 1. Since we believe we have previously made agreements that we would not work in isolation, and we would not surprise one another with our actions, and since Hugh did not tell the superintendent or any of his fellow board members he was conducting the survey or doing the radio show, his actions feel like a violation of teamwork and trust. Hugh’s comments on the radio were not only derogatory about the school district and the other members of the board, but they also contained considerable misinformation. Another one of the agreements we have made with one another is to assume positive intent when assessing one another’s actions. In the spirit of this agreement, we have chosen to believe Hugh forgot or misunderstood the commitments we have made, not that he is blatantly working to undermine the school district and the rest of the board. In the spirit of open and honest communication, and a sincere desire to help one another provide accurate information, we have chosen to review and discuss the comments Hugh made on KGMI radio. This discussion is intended for Hugh’s benefit, since he missed several critical meetings when he was in Europe this past fall. We also realize it is difficult for him to use his computer to access all of the background material provided to him by the school district. Although Hugh’s remarks were the impetus for this discussion, we can all benefit from the review. We invite Executive Committee members to take part in the conversation as well. NOTE: This discussion has NOTHING to do with the fact that Hugh has expressed a dissenting view about the bond. As our Social Contract clearly states, we value dissenting opinions and want to make sure we allow such opinions to be aired fully in our public meetings.
Response to Hugh’s Comments on KGMI (to Hugh)
•
As we have already indicated, your being on the KGMI program without letting anyone know in advance seems to be a direct violation of our agreements. At our Study Session on January 7, we learned you had met on January 4 with a group of Custer parents concerned about the lack of
1
•
•
Christmas celebration in their school. After the January 7 meeting, Linda reminded you of our agreement that school board members would let her know before they met with and/or made promises to a group of stakeholders. We thought you understood and agreed at that time you would keep Linda informed. Did you forget the conversation on January 7? Or did you remember it and make a conscious decision not to follow this norm? We are going to play the comments you made on the radio on February 1, stopping at intervals to discuss what you have said. We want to take the opportunity to correct the misinformation you shared in this public forum where a public record is being taken. We also want to provide you with information you could have used to address misleading or derogatory comments made by the moderator. Linda has gone through the program and marked logical places to stop it for discussion. Tammy will do her best to stop at the times Linda has indicated.
The Radio Program
11:40 •
The place where Hugh is first introduced on the show.
•
Hugh makes a disclaimer about not representing the whole school board. This is a step in the right direction, an improvement over the way you represented yourself in public when talking about the Gateway Pacific Project or the recommendation to close Mt. View. However, you still present yourself as a board member and therefore an authority figure. As such, you are representing the school district and you have an obligation to present accurate information. The moderator talks about Lynden’s bond and makes the point that it is much smaller. You had the opportunity here to state that, while Lynden’s bond is smaller, its impact on taxes is nearly the same as Ferndale’s bond. While Ferndale residents will pay an additional $430 on a $250,000 house if our bond passes, Lynden residents will pay about an additional $440 on a house of the same value. Our tax increase will be $1.72 per thousand; Lynden’s will be $1.76. Hugh says, “It is not the right thing to do.” He says he cannot support the bond as “a matter of conscience.” Your words suggest the school administration and other four board members do not have consciences and that they are intentionally doing the wrong thing. These are very damning accusations. They are also contrary to what you said in November when the vote to run the bond was taken and you chose to abstain. Hugh refers to the “bond levy.” We are talking about a bond, not a levy. As someone presenting himself as a district authority, it seems important to use basic terminology correctly. Hugh says, “It is my job to represent the community.” He suggests he is speaking for the general public. We had a conversation in November that the election would be an opportunity for the general public to speak for themselves. Your comments during this radio broadcast seemed to preclude the public’s opportunity to express their opinions. Rather than speaking for them, it felt like you were campaigning for your personal position. Isn’t this a direct violation of what you told the rest of the board in November? Didn’t you say you were abstaining from voting for the bond, but you would not campaign against it?
13: 35 Stop #1
•
•
•
•
14:49 Stop #2 •
Hugh talks about the survey he is conducting. v The survey is similar to the one you did regarding the closure of Mt. View, which caused major problems at the time by contradicting certain assurances the board had made to the public. Lee
2
Anne and Linda met with you in a private session to explain the negative ramifications of your “independent” survey? Did you forget that discussion? v Your survey about the bond comes either violates or comes dangerously close to violating PDC rules. We have had to spend money consulting with our attorney. We have had to self report to the Public Disclosure Commission. An advance conversation with the superintendent or other board members would have prevented you from making these mistakes. v We have a district vehicle for conducting surveys through K12 Insight, and we have an annual plan for doing so. As part of our plan, we have agreed that all surveys will come through a central clearing process, mainly so we aren’t undermining one another’s efforts by over surveying our constituents. As part of the team, you can always have input into our K12 surveys. (We will have sample surveys.) v If you sincerely wanted to conduct a survey to help the school district, it would seem logical to (1) find out what other survey work had been done, and (2) work with the rest of the board and superintendent to develop questions?
16:07 Stop #3 •
•
•
•
The moderator asks a question about what promises have been made to the students of Ferndale if the bond passes. Hugh does not answer the question. We have spent considerable time talking about the things students and community members will gain if the bond passes. This would have been the perfect opportunity to re-‐iterate some of those promises. Hugh says (for the first of three times during the broadcast), “Facilities don’t teach. Teachers teach.” The research is clear that facilities do make a difference in students learning. (Scott and Cynthia have some of that research.) The school board’s beliefs about facilities also assert this. Hugh suggests this bond will pose a danger to future M&O levies. If this is something you are sincerely worried about, we wonder why you did not bring it up to the rest of the board and the administration at a board meeting. Delivered in this context, one could misinterpret your comment as a veiled threat: “If the bond passes, future levies will be in jeopardy.” Hugh says he hopes the bond will provide spaces for more vocational education programs. At this point, you are talking as if you are an outsider rather than an integral part of the district governance structure. We have talked at length about using the bond to enhance our CTE programs because such programs represent one of the best strategies for keeping more students in school and getting more of them college and/or career ready. We aren’t sure why you join the moderator in talking about the district in the third person “they.” Shouldn’t you be using the first person “we,” explaining on behalf of the district the plan to enhance “voc ed”?
17:24 Stop #4 •
•
The moderator asks a question about what is being proposed in the bond as far as the buildings go. She asks whether there will be one high school or two. She says it’s “not clear.” You had a perfect opportunity to make it clear at this point that our plan in Ferndale is to develop and maintain two high quality but very different high school options for students. We have been talking a lot about the benefits of a large school and a small school versus two middle sized schools. In fact, this is a very important part of our strategy to ensure more students have successful high school careers and earn their diplomas. Rather than speaking up on behalf of the district, you came across as not very knowledgeable. This, in turn, reflected poorly on the district. We will provide you with some written information again so that in the future you are better equipped to articulate the district’s vision. Hugh says FHS will be built on the same footprint “so to speak.” This is not true. In the plan, a new FHS will be built adjacent to the existing FHS.
3
•
Hugh says the facility for Windward will either be a renovated North Bellingham or a renovated Mt. View. While your information is correct, we wish you had provided more. Instead of using a vague passive voice, we wish you had explained that: (1) we are delaying the decision because we want to get more community input; (2) we believe we can build an appropriate facility on either site for the same amount of money; and (3) whichever site is chosen, we will still have space to put an elementary school on the same campus at some future date, should one be needed.
18:52 Stop #5 •
•
The moderator asks if a case has a case been made for a new school. She uses a derogatory reference to the Taj Mahal. She talks about the drop out rate. Hugh says that facilities don’t have to do with the most important issue in the FSD. v You do not answer the question about whether a case has been made. Once again, we would be happy to go over with you the case that has been made…at the November School Board meeting, which you missed because you were in Europe; at two community forums, only one of which you attended; in various publications, which we hope you have read. You missed another important opportunity to represent the district by failing to answer the moderator’s question. v You also failed to address the insult against the district delivered in the Taj Mahal comment. Hugh gives a speech about our main problem being the drop out rate. He says that it is the district’s main concern. Then he switches focus to the middle schools. He says the problem is in the middle school. “Somewhere in the order of 40-‐50% are coming out of middle school with D’s and F’s.” v You present your main concern as the district’s main concern. While we are all focusing on the graduation rate, we believe your over-‐simplification of district goals, which are in fact Hugh Foulke’s goal, is problematic. One board member should not assert publicly the district’s “main problem” without first processing it with the rest of the board. v Your information about D’s and F’s and the performance of middle school students is wrong. (Scott will provide accurate data.) Besides being inaccurate, your statement feels like you have judged and convicted the middle school staffs without providing any of the analysis in which we have been engaged. As such, it is damning to the school district, serving to erode rather than engender public confidence. v Your suggestion of an either/or paradigm – either facilities or improved graduation rates – represents faulty logic. It is a classic apples and oranges scenario. We do not intend to stop working on instructional issues while we are replacing facilities. Linda writes to you every week about the district’s comprehensive instructional efforts. We are not sure you read what she writes. We know you have trouble operating your computer, and it is difficult for you to keep up with the amount of information a board member needs to study to be well-‐informed. But we believe these are exactly the reasons you should choose to refrain from setting yourself up as an expert on the workings of the district. Or at least a reason for seeking assistance from other board members or district staff before you talk in public. You don’t seem to have a good handle on the work going on in the district, and your lack of understanding hurts all of us. (If you need information provided to you in an alternative format, please let us know and we will accommodate your needs.)
20:02 Stop #6 •
Hugh brings up concerns about math and science achievement. The moderator asks about the problem. She also asks when things “went off the rails” with regard to math and science. v Your representation of the situation related to math and science was incomplete and therefore very misleading. You didn’t mention the fact that standards have increased dramatically since you were in the classroom or that all students are now expected to meet them, not just a select few, as was the case when you were teaching. You didn’t mention that the tests have continued to change. You
4
•
didn’t mention the incredible work with math going on in our early grades. Because you couldn’t discuss the situation with any degree of understanding, you provided tacit agreement to the moderator’s statement about “things going off the rails.” This was very damaging to the district. v Ferndale students have made significant gains in math and science achievement. (Scott has data.) Hugh says we need to devote more time at the middle school to math and science? v How will we do that at our middle schools, Hugh? Where will the time come from? Instead of what? Electives? PE? Music? What research suggests more time is the answer?
Skip BREAK; move ahead to 22:28 to resume Hugh’s discussion. 24.56 Stop #7 •
•
•
•
•
A caller (Linda from Ferndale) talks about the poor education in Ferndale. She finds it amazing that no one is talking about a stadium and athletic complex. She says putting one dime into athletics would be wrong. She then spins out some cause and effect chain that is hard to follow but goes something like: If we get new fields, teachers will say they are overworked and ask for more pay: then they will go on strike. Hugh responds by saying the case for the bond has not been made and it is all very sudden. v The case has been made (see above). You might say you don’t agree with the case that has been made, but it is untrue to say no case has been made. v The bond is not sudden. If it feels sudden to you, that may be because you have missed meetings or failed to read materials or forgotten some of our earlier conversations. v It would have been responsible to let the caller know, on behalf of the board, that lots of people have been talking about the athletic fields. Hugh says he would support the bond if he felt a groundswell of community support on a broad scale. v Perhaps your perception is limited. None of us can talk to everyone. Last spring’s K12 Insight survey told us over 60% of respondents thought this was a good time to run the bond. We have a great deal of dialogue in the newspaper. (See Tammy’s summary.) v Once again, the purpose of this election is to gauge community support. Hugh says to the caller that the district/board needs more public input to address concerns like hers. You don’t mention two public forums, 30+ afternoons in room 503 at the high school, a website and Facebook page, and a number of letters to the editor and op eds. Hugh says again that teachers teach, not buildings; and he returns to his focus on the middle school. Reference research noted above.
21:41 Stop #8 •
Hugh talks about athletics. v Your reference to the Locker family seemed inappropriate. The implication is that the district and community only care about athletics for super stars. v You suggest that low income students don’t participate in athletics. This is not accurate. (Vic has research.) v You suggest low income kids are dropping out of school rather than turning out for sports. Such broad generalizations and stereotypes are harmful and work in direct opposition to the values the board is trying to engender.
28:48 Stop #9 •
The moderator asks, “What are the building needs at Ferndale High School?” She once again references the Taj Mahal, suggesting a student can get an equally good education in a trailer. She says the purpose of school is to educate students to lead independent lives, and then asks if “they” have made a case for a $125 million bond. Hugh says we don’t need to spend an eighth of a billion dollars to take care of the needs at FHS. He says that much can be done to make the individual
5
buildings more secure, but it doesn’t take $125 million. He says the vocational building needs better wiring and might need to be renovated to improve vocational education. v Hugh, how do you propose “taking care of the issues” without spending the money? Are you an engineer? On what authority do you dismiss out of hand the expert opinion the district has sought and received? v The use of “eighth of a billion dollars” seems unneccesarily sensations and inflammatory.
30:14 Stop #10 •
The moderator asks if there are there older buildings in the school district. She specifically asks how Custer is doing. Hugh says, “Over time Custer needs to be improved. There are too many doors and a doubtful septic system. Clearly, this is a case where a new facility or major major major renovation is needed.” Hugh goes on to say it is a shame we don’t have a school at the North Bellingham site, where the roof failed. He says the building there should be improved so we can once again run it as a neighborhood school. v Upon what authority are you deciding which buildings need to be rebuilt and which need renovation? I don’t recall that you ever attended one of the 40 FAC meetings. v Why didn’t you mention the school board’s beliefs regarding school facilities, which state that facilities do enhance and/or detract from teaching and learning, and also proclaims the board’s desire to have new elementary schools at both the Custer and North Bellingham sites. v Why didn’t you reference FAC’s 30-‐year plan, which includes the rebuild of both Custer and North Bellingham. v Your failure to talk about what the district is doing in these arenas is tantamount to saying we are doing nothing. It paints us in a very bad light.
31:06 Stop #11 •
The moderator asks why the two elementary schools are being bypassed in favor of addressing needs at the high school. Hugh talks about declining enrollment at the elementary level. The moderator asks additional questions about enrollment, including one about homeschooling which Hugh does not answer very well. She assumes a scolding tone as she asserts every district should know its enrollment trends and projections. v Once again, your lack of information reflects badly on all of us. We have studied our enrollment trends, as well as those of the region and state. On several occasions, we have discussed statewide enrollment decline in open board meetings. v We can provide you with information on home schooling. (Tammy has that.) v You failed to repeat the case FAC initially made, and we have repeatedly made, about why the high school should be addressed next. (The facility assessment illuminated great needs at our high schools. The high schools serve all students. We are limited in our ability to ensure students are college and career ready in our current facilities. Technology coming with the middle school students cannot be supported. It makes sense to do the biggest project while interest rates are still favorable. And so on.) By failing to share the case, whether or not you agree with it, you gave the impression there is no case.
35:35 Stop #12 •
The moderator asks what it is going to take to get this levy passed? Hugh says it won’t pass because there hasn’t been a groundswell. Not enough people have come to board meetings. Then he changes the topic to complaints about lack of enough Christmas celebration at Custer. v Both you and the moderator have switched from calling the measure at hand a “bond levy” to calling it just a “levy.” This is wrong and confusing. v What research do you have to suggest the number of people who speak at a board meeting has any relationship to the number who support any district measure? We rarely get people who support what we do coming to our board meetings.
6
v As a board member, you declare the bond will not pass. This seems inappropriate. Shouldn’t we allow the community to have its say at the polls? v In your comments about the Custer controversy, it feels like you threw the principal under the bus. v Your use of adjectives like “well-‐organized” and “well thought out” and “just plain sensible” to describe the case made by the Custer folks rings in direct contrast to your adjectives about the case made for the bond (“against good conscience,” “just wrong,” etc.). In both cases, you asserted your personal judgment in a public forum while representing the school district. You described those people with whom you agree as “sensible” and those with whom you don’t agree as “wrong” and immoral. We wonder if these are the kinds of value judgments we should be role modeling, especially in an organization where we claim to make data-‐driven decisions.
36:12 Stop #13 •
Hugh talks about the M&O Levy again. He makes an assurance to listeners that, if the bond fails, something else will pass to address issues at FHS like security and wiring and athletics. v How can you make such promises? What do you think will pass? What is your plan? Don’t you think you should have consulted with the rest of the board before issuing such assurances?
37:32 Stop #14 •
The moderator asks a long question that covers lots of topics. One topic has to do with consulting staff members about the needs of the building. Hugh tells an old story about how things were when he was a teacher and everyone was asked his/her opinion. He says he doesn’t sense that happened this time. v Are you aware of who has been consulted so far about the bond? Do you know whether the conversations about the renovation that occurred in the 1960’s took place before or after the money for the project was secured? Once again, this seems like a reckless comparison. v The district has a plan for involving staff once the bond is passed and the ed specs writer and architects have been hired. To be accurate in your characterization of the situation, you needed to say this.
38:59 Stop #15 •
The moderator asks about the amount of property tax people will pay if the bond passes. Hugh talks about his own taxes as an example. v You don’t mention tax relief for qualifying senior citizens. v You don’t mention income tax deductions for property taxes. v (Mark can make other comments about tax rates.)
7