Candor about consequences
We need a candid discussion about Mayer’s future in order to meet the challenges ahead. The current LSC has been transparent. But there is a difference between transparency and candor. A public body is transparent when it allows its constituents to observe what it does. But being candid politically involves more. It means going forth and telling constituents what challenges we face, what choices we have, and what the consequences will be. I pledge to do so as your representative.
Transparency has its limits. Not every parent can attend a crucial LSC meeting or its committee meetings. Learning about what how CPS works is a steep curve. Making information readily available about educational governance is hard for administrators when their primary duty is to run the school, not prepare reports that make arcane district policies intelligible to the parents with plenty on their plates already. But as a parent representative, I can and will do this.
I will ask you what you value and why you value it. My role is to represent you. My duty is to make sure I know what you believe. I can tell you what I think should be done, and what ideas I have heard from others. Finally, you can tell me what you think should be done, and I can represent your views to the LSC. Even when I personally disagree, I believe the role of a representative is to present all positions for public discussion. If I can persuade you that one decision is better than the other, OK. But even if I cannot, I pledge to make sure your argument gets the most favorable hearing it can. Whenever you want to know my position, I will tell you. After the LSC decides–after all, my vote will be one of eleven–I will explain why it was made, especially if you do not agree with it.
Planning for Mayer’s future
Mayer needs a plan for its academic goals and budget priorities for the next several years. The law that created LSCs calls for them to approve a “school improvement plan” that CPS currently calls the “Continuous Improvement Work Plan” (CIWP). The CIWP is a two-year plan that sets out academic aims for the school. It is supposed to guide setting budget priorities. However, CPS administration has steadily reduced schools’ control over the plan. CPS creates a template that principals must use and that effectively constrains the plan. So while the CIWP is a necessary document, it is limited to a two-year timeframe and does not cover many topics that concern parents. (It is a great deal of work Mayer faculty, however; I was a parent-member of the 2014 CIWP team, and I can attest to the work that the school must do.) CPS’s has not even bothered to put the 2014-16 CIWPs on its website; schools have to post it themselves (Mayer’s is here). CPS has not made the 2016-2018 CIWP planning documents publicly available. While the CIWP will set goals in core academic subjects, it does not create an effective plan for attaining them. Therefore, the Mayer needs a real plan.
A four-year or five-year plan should set our priorities, identify what our capabilities are, and set out the actions required to match priorities to capabilities. A plan would enable parents to understand where Mayer is heading. A plan would assure parents on whom we rely to fund Mayer operations that their donations have more than an annual impact. A plan would provided Friends of Mayer (FoM) with direction to target its fundraising. (I have served on the FoM board for three years, and its role is best understood “FoM raises the money; the LSC decides how to spend it.”)
Planning also requires candor and outreach by the LSC. The most meticulous plan will fail if only a few support it or understand it. A poorly designed or badly executed plan is a series of things that don’t happen, leaving everyone involved frustrated. Creating such a plan requires a public discussion about what parents value, what state and district policies require, and what Mayer’s faculty judge to be educationally sound.
This type of planning requires genuine deliberation. As a political scientist, I use deliberation as a specialized term. In debates, we often think of a winner and a loser. In legislatures, we think of horse-trading and log-rolling. But deliberation means something else. It calls for the participants to approach a public question with an open mind. One is willing to be persuaded by another person that one’s own view is mistaken, and the other person is willing to do the same. People offer mutually acceptable reasons to take one position or another. (In genuine deliberation, “it’s too complicated to explain, so just trust me that I’m right” is not a reason, it’s a disrespectful evasion.) A good plan comes from genuine deliberation. The LSC can create a forum at which these discussions take place.
Limits of an LSC’s authority
An LSC is not a full legislative body. It cannot levy taxes. CPS decides what funds a school receives, not the LSC. First, an LSC decides whether to accept or reject a principal’s budget proposal, but many elements of the budget are beyond LSC control. For example, most salaries and benefits are determined by collective bargaining between the board of education and the teachers’ union. The LSC cannot choose to raise or lower them. Second, an LSC also approves the school improvement plan, known as the CIWP; however, as I explained above, CPS has crimped LSCs’ role here. It can recommend curriculum developments but its role is advisory. Third, it selects a principal and decides whether to retain the principal at four-year intervals. This process is also governed by CPS rules; the LSC cannot arbitrarily dismiss or retain a principal (CPS can also remove principals unilaterally).
There are other things an LSC cannot do. The LSC does not decide the curriculum or pedagogical approach. At the school, this is handled by the principal and the faculty, under CPS’s authority (CPS can change many of these policies unilaterally). The LSC can recommended and advise, but, even when its parent and community members have expert knowledge, they do not direct or supervise faculty. The principal and her staff do that. LSC parent and community representatives need to respect the professional expertise and autonomy of the faculty.