The South Bend School Board Elections - analysis

Don Wheeler

In the background installment of this series, we explored local issues leading up to where we are now.  In part two, outside influences were explored.  Now I’ll attempt to tie these factors into the current race for school board trustee seats.

Three seats are contested this year:  The Adams High School District (District 1), the Riley High School District (District 2) and the Clay High School District (District 5).

As previously alluded to, this race features a slate of candidates sponsored by local Democratic Party regulars.  Since I hail from the Chicago area originally, I’ll use the term “machine” for convenience.  The machine candidates have been provided significant resources – both in terms of money and organization.  Should we worry about this?  Maybe.

If we think (and are given evidence) that the sponsoring organization has identified candidates who are clearly superior to their opponents and are beholden to no one, then this looks pretty good.  But one needs to consider the merits of both the sponsors and the candidates.  Clearly caveat emptor should apply.

The machine sponsored candidates are Jay Caponigro (Adams), John Stancati (Riley) and Michele Engle (Clay).  Caponigro has been endorsed by the Chamber of Commerce, Mayor Leucke has sponsored at least one fund-raiser for Engle, and my wife and I recently received a letter from Roger Parent strongly endorsing Stancati.

It’s interesting that the Chamber only endorsed in one race.  (It was explained that endorsements must be unanimous.)  Even more interesting is the local NEA (our teachers’ union) has been silent.  The South Bend Tribune endorsed the machine slate recently – without offering much reason to agree with them.

There is certainly room for discussion about how much influence a city Mayor should have on a School Board and/or Superintendent.  Though it’s fashionable these days, the actual results are highly mixed.  Further complicating things, because the borders are different, many school corporation constituents aren’t eligible to vote in South Bend mayoral races – thus, the Mayor cannot be held to account by these folks.

Last July, Trustee Roger Parent had a Viewpoint article published in the Tribune entitled School trustee hopes to build on lessons of first 18 months which had to be viewed as a campaign piece.  That seemed curious, since he’s not up for election until 2012.  He indicated his purpose was to the outline the difficulties he’d encountered, identify what he felt he’d accomplished, and …?  Mostly he stated things nobody would disagree with while gently criticizing many oft heard points of view.  Political strategists would refer to this as “building value”.  If you view this July 2 piece, note the use of “I”, “I’ve”, etc., about a dozen and a half times - then do a word search for “we”.  Good luck on the latter.  In retrospect, it appears Parent wants to make this election about him and his allies.

So let’s do that.  As mentioned in an earlier installment, Parent raised and spent an unheard of amount of money for a non-paying Trustee position.  (Indications are machine candidate spending are at similar levels this time around).  Parent often made it clear that his campaign was a typical political race when it came to money – and seemed to exclude other considerations.  For example, when I complained that a local radio station was insisting on a $100 fee for attendance to what was being advertised as a candidates forum (a clear violation of equal time requirements), Parent’s take was that one had to spend money in campaigns.

Also mentioned previously, Parent was one of the few candidates to oppose the strategy of a deliberate search for a new Superintendent.  Robert Zimmerman had been dismissed – which had much of the citizenry in an uproar – but the naming of James Kapsa as Interim Superintendent had mollified many of these folks.  Now having the gift of some time, the School Board voted narrowly to do a conventional, nationwide search for a permanent Superintendent.   Outside funding was offered and under consideration.  At the time, no one knew whether Mr. Kapsa was interested in the permanent post – but I don’t think anyone thought he should not be eligible.

Parent was adamant that Kapsa should be named, which didn’t make any sense.  If Kapsa turned out to be the best choice after completing the search -and wanted the post - then fine.  But to not consider any candidates with actual track records before naming a permanent Superintendent seemed irresponsible at best.  A cynical person might wonder if Mr. Parent calculated Kapsa would feel beholden to him, if Parent engineered the appointment.  That’s not something any of us can know, obviously.

From the Parent Viewpoint:  “With the help of many people I was able to ‘encourage’ trustees to establish a New Tech high school.”  I like the use of quotations on 'encourage'.  It shows honesty.

The Trustees had been considering a New Tech program for years.  Current and prior Board members had visited operating programs, worked on many proposals and locations for a SBCSC program – but securing funding AND a solid concept simultaneously had eluded them.  Still, the general sentiment was to keep trying.

As agreement by a narrow majority of Board members seemed imminent, word has it Mr. Parent lost patience.  It was at that point he revealed his intention to “go it alone” (with backers) on a charter school based on the program.  This was enough, reportedly, to turn one Trustee’s vote from yes to no.  By this account at least, New Tech was delayed by Mr. Parent’s actions – rather than achieved.  Many would argue it was implemented in spite of him.

I want to stress that I believe Mr. Parent has good intentions.  But I have concerns, obviously.

The next installment will address the current races, and the folks in them.

Some thoughts on the South Bend School Board elections - part 2

Don Wheeler

In the background piece, I tried to set the local stage to where we are now.  Complicating matters, lurking on the periphery is one Tony (or is it toney) Bennett.

This Tony Bennett is not the renowned singer; rather, the Superintendent of Public Instruction for the state of Indiana.  His conduct would seem to indicate he aspires to higher office than the one he holds, however.

Mr. Bennett is full of righteous indignation about the state of public education.  He blames local school boards and teachers unions for gross dereliction of duty and characterizes their decision making as being self-serving.  He claims he can swoop in and make all things as they should be.  His forums are characterized with catch phrases and zingy one-liners.  They are just for show.

The State of Indiana has many policies which make things very difficult when it comes to educating our young.  I’ve written a lot about this in the past.  As evidence, compare Indiana’s student outcomes with those of other states and it is pretty clear that our local challenges are not unique in the state.  But Mr. Bennett never discusses anything the state legislature can do correct this situation. Instead (as far as state policy goes), he’d prefer to distract us by screwing around with teacher licensing and things of that nature.

Mr. Bennett would have us believe that if his department takes over management of our High Schools on Probation, dramatic improvement will occur as a result.  He doesn’t explain how this magic will occur, but since he’s not a particularly imaginative fellow and pretty representative of the Daniels administration, he’ll likely pick an approach which is considered fashionable.  The most likely:  He will retain a for-profit management company to run the schools.  (This would be consistent with the Daniels strategy of privatizing seemingly everything).   Less likely, but possible, he’ll appoint some Hotshot who reports directly to him.

There’s a lot that could be discussed about these types of approaches – they’ve been attempted many times in recent years.  For an exhaustive analysis, I’d refer you to The Death and Life of the Great American School System, by former United States Assistant Secretary of Education, Diane Ravitch.  Anyone who cares about public education - what works and what doesn’t - should read this book.   Spoiler alert:  The approaches described above have (up to now) not benefited children’s overall education.

There are two aspects shared by imposing these outside management strategies I think people need to consider carefully.  The first is that both are top-down concepts which, for the most part, leave the people actually working in the buildings out of any role in policy making.  Secondly, these typically make operations nearly opaque to citizens and the people in charge don’t have to answer to anyone locally.

I think it very likely Mr. Bennett will intervene.  My guess it’s in his political interest to do so.  So it becomes important to consider who sits on our school board in this context.

More to come…

Some thoughts on the South Bend School Board race - background

Don Wheeler

It’s pretty well known that I was one of fifteen candidates for two at-large School Board seats in 2008.  I was also seriously considering a run for a district seat in 2010.  That turned out to be too difficult with my other responsibilities.  But before I came to that conclusion I prepared myself for a run by watching local events, and reading about what other communities have attempted, and how those attempts worked out.

It’s easy to understand citizen frustration with our public school system, but in some ways this frustration lags behind events.  Test scores have generally improved and last years High School graduation rate was around ten points better than the year prior. 

Unfortunately, this frustration seems to have offered challengers the strategy of being “change agents’, without offering any serious proposals likely to create improvements.  The chorus seems to be “things are bad, but I’ll do better”.  They’d have us believe that they are inherently better, more capable people than those they would replace.   But they don’t offer much evidence they’re right about that.

In my view the operating problems of the South Bend School Board are unlikely to be mitigated by the results of the upcoming election.  But the possibility exists they may be exacerbated.

Despite the calls for a “vision” or similar expressions, the fundamental problem the School Board faces on an operational level is that they have no functional decision making model.  Instead, complicated, important, (generally) expensive proposals are rolled out piecemeal and in isolation.  In roughly a year’s time the School Board pondered the questions of The Early College program, the New Tech High School Program, shifting school scheduling from semesters to trimesters, and funding full day Kindergarten.  Again, all these were discussed independently- and outside the context of the already passed budget.

I don’t see how coherent policy can be made this way.  The Board needs to adopt a mechanism - which parallels their budget process – for policy.  There are organizations that specialize in helping governing boards do this sort of thing, and one should be retained for this purpose.

As to the issue of who sits on the Board, one member has consistently served as an agent provocateur.  Bill “Common Sense” Sniadeki has engaged in a stunning level of bad behavior – and he’s not up for re-election.  Unfamiliar with conventionally accepted civil discourse, disdainful of parliamentary procedure, Mr. Sniadeki was particularly disruptive when Sheila Bergeron chaired the meetings as President.  I was in attendance at two meetings where there seemed to be some choreography in the audience.  The group was appreciative when Bill S spoke and vocally disdainful when other members spoke in opposition.  These were like no business meetings I’d ever witnessed.

Mr. Sniadeki has voted in opposition to state law – he won’t vote in favor of low bids when the company bidding is not local.  (State law requires School Boards to accept low bids).  Mr. Sniadeki is known to leak information from Board Executive Sessions, (which is illegal), and security personnel are always just outside the door of these sessions, because at least some fellow Board members fear his temper.

The case of Roger Parent is far more complicated.  Former South Bend Mayor Parent raised and spent around $37,000 to win his seat on the Board.  The darling of the local Democratic Party machine, many people fear he intends to put together a cabal for which he is the leader.

Two-plus years ago the South Bend Community School Corporation Board narrowly decided to conduct a nationwide search for a permanent replacement for Dr. Robert Zimmerman – having already named James Kapsa as Interim Superintendent.  The reasoning was that the SBCSC had some seemingly intractable problems, and it made sense to many of us we should seek someone with experience dealing with similar situations.  Funding for such a search was offered from an outside source.

Mr. Parent, however, campaigned against such a search – insisting Mr. Kapsa was what we needed.  Though Mr. Kapsa had Superintendent Credentials, he’d never been one.  Also, as an insider, he seemed unlikely to shake things up in a way that most folks thought needed to be done.  To be clear:  No one suggested he was not a good administrator.

The other eventual winner of an at-large seat, Stephanie Spivey, campaigned advocating for the hiring of what she called a “turnaround specialist”.  She was adamant about it.

There had always been strong sentiment by some Board members to name Mr. Kapsa to the post permanently, and since the decision to search had been a narrow one, the sitting Board consulted the incoming Board members about the issue.  Obviously I was not in on these private discussions, but Ms. Spivey assured me her position had not changed – up to and including the day of the Board meeting.

She and I walked into the building together.  We parted company in the lobby – she to huddle with the Board members and I to find a seat in the gallery.  Imagine my surprise when the motion to name Mr. Kapsa (permanent) Superintendent came up, to hear Ms. Spivey speak in support of it.

So there’s a case to be made that the public should be somewhat wary when it appears that a highly influential person is attempting to “stack the deck” on a governing board, while arguably having the Chief Administrator in a position of at least some obligation.

This continues.