The Tribune editors are right -- the education of our children in the South Bend Community School Corp. should become a critical concern for all people living in South Bend, as well as the entire county.
Public education affects all aspects of our community -- business, government and families.
Thus begins former School Board Trustee Jo Blacketor's OpEd piece in today's South Bend Tribune. She and I can agree on this part, but little else in her analysis seems on target.
I have no reason to believe that Superintendent Robert L. Zimmerman was not a good and honorable man, but I do believe the challenges of the South Bend school system exceeded both his expectations and abilities. This same observation holds true for interim Superintendent James Kapsa. We need leaders with great courage, fortitude and the disposition of an alley cat because renewing hope requires breaking ineffective habits and dismantling entrenched positional policymakers.
If one claims lack of ability, particularly on the part of the current administrator, some evidence would be nice. Or at least her reasoning. And what in the world does that last sentence even mean?
She then provides us with her suggestion of a revised Board make-up.
The board makeup could be: four elected at-large representatives and three appointed. This would take care of the fact that =presently none of the "district" boundaries are aligned with the so-called district elected members. Two elected members could be chosen during presidential election and two elected during the mayoral election cycle. The appointees could be: one from the mayor's office, one from the Parent Teacher Association and one from the Chamber of Commerce. These appointments could be staggered every two years so that at any time the board would have a blend of new ideas with veteran wisdom and discernment.Everyone's entitled to his/her view, but these kinds of suggestions often come from people who think we should elect judges. In a way, they must think setting policy for a school system is more complicated than making studied decisions of law. I'm not sure that's true. I do think the idea of dumping the district concept has some merit (since most kids' families have some choice in where their children go).
This particular setup is vaguely reminiscent of how Hong Kong used to be administered.
I've been pretty fond of the Representative Democracy model, myself. And in most local governmental units and most businesses (with Boards), it's fairly standard practice to elect the policy makers, who then appoint the administrator.
The problem isn't the one she describes. The task is to get the community more involved in the election process. The recent actions of the South Bend School Board have probably gone a long way in furthering that.
As far as this next part - I find many problems with her conclusion(s).
But, what plan does South Bend have for academic improvement? The recent accountability process reveals that among 1,896 schools statewide, 40 are marked as failing for the fourth year. All four of South Bend's high schools are among those 40. With all the good works happening in the K-5th grade (i.e., Wilson LiPS reading program), if we lose our kids at middle or high school level, can we claim success?
As far as I know, the only real Primary Center success stories are Kennedy and Tarkington (magnet programs) and Hay (the only neighborhood school to have used Wilson LiPS for more than a year). I'd point out as well, that most Primary Centers have yet to see Wilson LiPS in their schools. The struggling Freshman in our High School was in Kindergarten nine years ago. The school that child went to is very different than the one that exists today.
It's just crazy to think everything works great for kids until they leave their neighborhood primary center. What seems more likely is that kids leave the Primary Centers unprepared for the next step. That's what needs to be addressed. Improving the Intermediate level and High schools is certainly important, but getting children started on the right path early in their lives will always need to be the top priority of any school board.
There are some fairly obvious first steps. Kindergarten should be mandatory, and it should be full day. For kids like our daughter with two years of great pre-school - its not that important. But some of the children who give up in high school may well have been planted in front of a TV in some relative's home until they were dropped off for the First Grade. We can sympathize with that family's challenges, we can scorn them, but what we can't do is pretend that sort of thing never happens. We, as a society, can't afford to take that chance. It's both a matter of morality and self-interest.
And the answers are not going to come by ceding our authority and responsibilities as citizens. There is a lot of energy for success in this city, and I saw plenty of it at the infamous School Board meeting of early June.
It is up to those of us who are energized to infect others with the urgency this task will require.
Democracy is not a spectator sport.
