RCS is mandating the Anti-Defamation League’s latest social justice program, No Place for Hate, in schools. Concerns about the parent organization and politics behind No Place for Hate aside, let’s look at the process of how this organization was allowed in our schools.
Important district-wide initiatives that affect all students and cost money are supposed to result from strategic planning. Strategic planning is a process where multiple stakeholders, including parents, teachers, community members, and school leaders, engage in well-defined, transparent, and purposeful planning. Traditionally, districts take one year to allow multiple perspectives and layers of thinking and decision-making to reach a decision. The process and decisions being made are clearly communicated to the community. We see examples of this purposeful planning in successful neighboring districts. In fact, when Superintendent Shaner first came to RCS, he hired someone to lead strategic planning as it is supposed to be done: once.
However, now that he and other district central office leaders operate in a vacuum where parent and teacher voices are not valued, RCS instead mandates district-wide initiatives. I have to ask our educated parents and teachers: What problem are we trying to solve? What data was examined that made it necessary to mandate No Place for Hate? Surely, if there is a district-wide committee made up of parents, teachers, and school leadership examining student data, they would come up with other priorities than this. The district spends money and invests time and professional learning across 13 elementary schools for a system to monitor reading and math performance. We just saw record-low SAT scores posted. Doesn’t it make more sense to focus on the data coming from systems like what exists to monitor academics and focus on student academic performance?
Another troubling area of thinking is mandating this new initiative makes it seem like we have nothing in place in our schools to address hate and bullying. As I talk to community members, I hear about already-in-place systems teachers have spent countless hours developing. One former elementary educator described the school-wide systems of Positive Behavior Intervention System (PBIS) that took years to develop and is still in place. She said what is in place works: teachers and families understand the system, common language, and expectations, and they are effective. She also described how teachers at individual schools develop in-house programs to support peer-to-peer inclusion in K-12. Why, if we already have systems in place, would we need a mandated new, not teacher-developed, controversial program?
Finally, I’m worried for the teachers and building principals, who will ultimately be the foot soldiers who carry this mandate forward and will be casualties when and if they disagree or misstep as they implement the program. I’ve heard stories from the field of how those who dare question or offer divergent thinking are swiftly found targets of central office leadership ire when initiatives like this are implemented. Teachers’ and principals’ personal Facebook will be regularly scrutinized for any mention of dissent. When “dissent” is found, a call goes from the central office to the principal of the school where the dissenter works, and that principal is directed to get the teacher to remove the post. If the post is from a principal, then Executive Director of Secondary Education DeLuca or Assistant Superintendent of Early Childhood and Elementary Education Heitsch receives the call to deal with the principal. Suppose a principal is courageous enough to offer dissenting views directly to Deputy Superintendent of Teaching and Learning Fragomenii or Superintendent Shaner. In that case, they will also direct DeLuca and Heitsch to silence and remove the principal. I worry that this top-down, national organization that wasn’t designed by RCS teachers and is being implemented in an environment where dissenting comments cannot be shared is a setup for teachers. I worry that they have not had extensive professional development on implementing this in their classrooms and explaining it to their students and parents (who will have concerns). I worry that if teachers make mistakes along the implementation path, they will be abandoned to deal with the fallout in isolation.
Can we start seeing district-wide initiatives that focus on student learning? Can we start seeing Facebook posts from RCS that tout robust and transparent decision-making processes that lead to implementing educationally sound initiatives? We can’t, and we won’t, because they do not exist. Superintendent Shaner did it once, and clearly, he is done with strategic planning or other transparent community-wide decision-makers.
I am running for school board so that we can make these types of decisions as a community again. Parents and teachers should be involved in these decisions. Transparent decision-making will be put back in place once I am elected.
