A report indicates a lack of public trust with the Bridgewater-Park View school review process.
Alphonse MacNeil says the decision to send students from Bridgewater to Park View was pre-meditated from a 2013 business case by the school board.
MacNeil also says there was no discussion of cost or cost savings and a feeling that the process was scripted.
Other indications that are considered factors and put trust into question were Facilitator Gary Walker, who guided the process as a friend and former colleague of the superintendent.The process also asks to make a decision on a high school without knowing the impact on elementary and junior highs.
Despite the findings, MacNeil says the process and administrative fairness was adhered to.
Dr. Paul W. Bennett of Schoolhouse Consulting is calling on the education minister to intervene.
“I think the minister has to take a serious a look at whether this process should continue and is she satisfied that simply, procedural fairness, is good enough.”
Bennett says a higher standard is needed and board members should maintain the public trust.
The full report can be read here. The following is an excerpt from Alphonse MacNeil.
Studies have shown that school communities express a lack of trust in the information
compiled by school boards and feel that community opinions and interests are not given
priority when decisions are made about schools. The issue of trust runs through the
entire process and emotions surrounding the potential of school closures can galvanize a
community against a school board decision regardless of the effort put into that
decision.
Once trust is breached then the perception of fairness comes into question. This school
review was no exception and began with the fact that in 2013 a business case for a 12.5
million dollar mid-life renovation to PVEC clearly stated that the long-range plan would
be to have the Bridgewater High School move to PVEC. Objective #1 of the school
review related to optimizing high school programing options. Some members of the SOC
felt the merger was something that had already been decided by the SSRSB and the
committee’s work in this regard was simply an effort to use the committee as a way of
claiming the community had been consulted on a decision that was already made. Those
who opposed the merger felt extremely frustrated and this led to a feeling that their
“voices were not being heard”. They were also concerned that the community would be
upset with them if they were not successful in resisting the merger of the two schools.
When one understands this context it is easy to see why the majority of the time utilized
by the committee went to discussions around the high school programming issue.
Once trust is breached for an individual or a group of individuals it is understandable
that they would be suspicious of activity that supports their position or belief. The
following are just some examples of factors that would add to their existing lack of trust
in the school board and the process:
– the recording secretary works for senior staff at SSRSB.
– the facilitator who guided the process was a friend and former colleague of the
Superintendent.
– the perceived inequality in the committee voting process (15-5).
– the facilitator refused to have the principals of the high schools present.
– the feeling the process was very scripted and did not consider innovative thinking.
– no real discussion of cost or cost savings.
– being asked to make a decision on the high school without knowing the impact on
the elementary and junior high schools.
– perceived desire to not accept the commentary from town officials.
– two schools being reviewed together by one SOC.
Each school review process must start with considering the factors that make that
particular review unique. Those factors must be accounted for and addressed up front
with the SOC. The Parkview Business Case in this instance is an example. Every possible
effort must be made to display complete impartiality throughout the process from the
setting of the objectives to the choice of people who will occupy key roles in the process.
The Department of Education and Early Childhood Development School Review Policy is
a huge improvement from the process once utilized to conduct school reviews, however,
gaining the trust of the committee and community through transparency regarding all
issues is the key to success regardless of how strong the policy document is.
The new policy was developed as a need was recognized to engage and consult the
community in some of the difficult decisions that a governing school board must make.
It is very important to follow the process and comply with policy but equally as
important to have community members feel engaged, consulted and confident in the
process. The following recommendations are offered for consideration in improving the
process and to assist in building confidence with the community.
