Electing School Board Members is Part of the Tainted Process

To develop an understanding of how our schools have become so corrupt, one must look into our school boards. Like every other aspect of this process, there are some honorable boards. There are honorable businesses also. NAPTA would venture a guess that the businesses and boards are in stiff competition for lack of ethics. However, given that the boards have a responsibility to uphold the public trust, when they behave unscrupulously, it rises to a higher offense.

In 1997, when Horwitz discovered that the current board at Avoca School District in Wilmette, Illinois, was behaving as mere puppets for their power hungry superintendent, she phoned the State Board of Education asking if they served as a watchdog to school boards that were betraying the public trust. She described their lack of responsiveness to teacher abuse as well as decisions that were harming children. She reported how they took a $70,000 a year librarian and made her into a floating substitute to try to force her out utilizing humiliation. They informed Horwitz that they could do nothing, since they do not serve as watchdogs for boards. They urged her to: use due process for her personal issues, and try to make an impact on the elections to substitute board members with integrity. When she asked who supervises boards, they told her that the legislature does. (Later on she appealed to the legislators to investigate, and discovered that they too, refused to do so.) She didn't want to use the courts so, she decided she would follow the next election and inform the public if the opportunity presented itself.

In the fall of 1997, Horwitz found out that the Caucus had interviewed candidates and decided upon three new people who they believed to be independent and one who was on the board, but had been appointed for such a short time, her voting record had not yet indicated whether she could remain integral in this position. It reassured Horwitz that puppet voters would no longer help Superintendent Sloan control in his toxic ways using absolute power.

Soon thereafter, she noted an article in the Wilmette Life, the local paper, about how the two incumbents who were rejected by the Caucus, were claiming to have been "dumped" for no reason. They insisted they had done a good job and some unidentified person, alleged to be one of the regular cronies who served as a verbal hit man for the administrators, told the reporter that the problem was the Caucus President, who had a personal vendetta against Superintendent Sloan. As soon as Horwitz read this, she smelled a rat. First of all, Janice Feinberg and Marilyn Horwitch, the two alleged dumpees, were documented party line people. She knew this beyond a doubt since she had her lawyer send a letter to each of them about the abuse inflicted upon her as well as decisions detrimental to the children and they both ignored her in spite of the fact it indicated that litigation would be forthcoming if they did not intervene. They seemed to be operating above the law and above the costs of litigation. Secondly, smearing people was commonplace in education, so she knew where there was a smear there was someone who threatened their fiefdom. But most of all, the statement in that article that stated that Avoca School District is an excellent district with no problems, propelled her to take action. A district that just had an EEOC charge of Age Discrimination filed against it, and had received a letter about other problems that were harming children as well as squandering tax monies to abuse teachers, was simply not excellent and this false information was disturbing.

She phoned the local paper trying to get the truth published so she could make that impact on the election, previously suggested by the state board. She spoke with the reporter about the obvious manipulation of this board election and how someone was trying to stack the board with votes for Sloan. Why else would it matter that new candidates were on the scene? Why would these two women have such vested interest in having to have those positions? Why would they participate in a smear campaign against the president of the Caucus to regain positions that were non paying and often burdensome? Why would four members of the Caucus walk off in protest just because those two people were not reslated? Why would one of the independent candidates receive calls saying her children were in danger? Why did rumors circulate that this independent candidate belonged to the Christian Right group and was a danger to the future of public schools?

The Caucus, which consisted of nine people, had voted 5/4 to slate new blood. Now they were behaving like children and deciding to support the incumbents, rather than honoring their consensus vote. Horwitz told the reporter about the teacher abuse and how children were being hurt. She pointed out it was definitely untrue that there were no problems and that this appeared to be a tactical ploy to restack the board.

The reporter took notes, but when she followed up, the editor, Elaine Fandell, stated she was not going to include this article since it had nothing to do with the election. When Horwitz pointed out it had everything to do with the election and that the district people had given their position only. They had indicated that the Caucus president was self-serving; Horwitz question why the paper would not report the other side. Fandell gave no answer: she simply refused.

Horwitz found this confusing since the same newspaper constantly cited problems at the other Wilmette district, where Horwitz's children attended, yet Horwitz found her own district to be more professional and more effective. There is no way a citizen can know why there is compromised reporting, but this was obviously not objective. How could they let a comment about how there were no problems in the district stand when Horwitz documented a big problem for them?

Horwitz then took the essay she had composed for the press and gave it to some concerned parents, trying to follow the suggestion of the state board. She knew that unless the new people were voted in, teacher abuse would continue as well as tainted decision making. One parent put the essay on the Internet and that resulted in district wide meetings attacking Horwitz and unofficially informing the staff that she was now an official pariah and tattling and spying would please the district. (The union officers conducted the meeting, which sheds light on how thoroughly the system is oiled to promote teacher mistreatment.) That was in the fall of 1997, and one and one half years later she was terminated after repeated attempts to push her out with harassment.

The incident above illustrates that board elections are a primary vehicle for maintaining absolute power over a district. That way whatever the superintendent did, he would be protected by his votes. His behavior regarding Horwitz was abusive, but he had his votes. The costs of litigations were outrageous, but he had his votes. He and other administrators could lie in court under oath, but he had his votes. It is all about voting, yet it is nearly impossible to know the true motives of any candidate when public relations and control of the local news creates their desired truths. People must carefully watch their elections and their board members' behavior if they want their children to be safe. First, they need to be informed of the game; to try to make sense of all this without knowing the administrators' "rules of the game" would be like playing football having no clue of how it is played, not sure which goal post was whose, and without knowing how points are scored. Of course they would fail. And of course reform has failed. Teacher abuse has kept the rules from all the players - except those in this system of organized crime.

In addition, a major reason that people with good intentions cannot get past the propaganda machine is the civility game:

We should accept the fact that on most significant political and moral issues intelligent people of character will disagree. While it's appropriate to advocate and defend one's convictions with passion, I think it's illogical and unethical to reflexively treat people who disagree as enemies or conclude that by virtue of their contrary beliefs they are evil, stupid or both. It's also a mistake to think that the intensity of our convictions increases the likelihood that we're right or gives us permission to demonize those who think otherwise. This sort of moral arrogance ravages our relationships with unkindness and anger and coarsens our society by replacing civil discourse with name-calling.
Michael Josephson

What Josephson is espousing is true. Moral arrogance is wrong. However, is it moral arrogance when our society name calls World.com executives? Is this a moral issue or an affront to society that must be exposed? What is happening in our schools isn't just about name-calling; this is teachers trying to save their careers, their students' destinies, as well as their lives and report non-compliance with laws. Since our educational leaders have been held on such a high pedestal, our complaints are considered blasphemy and the victims become the abusers by virtue of the power field. We appear uncivilized calling our schools evil. And as we are ignored, accused of making false statements, of being delusional, and simply cast aside as hysterical, our voices get louder and so do their accusations against us. This is the pattern of abuse. The victim has no way out and the perpetrator can and will harass the victim even more if she attempts to speak out. By employing actions so over the edge of civility and so violent, our description of what has occurred makes us sinister for even suggesting such a thing. This quality of abuse makes it self-perpetuating and creates a cycle of victimization that only the most astute could penetrate. It results in a large group of teachers who submit rather than being considered unkind, and a small group of teachers who fight only to have their pleas sucked into a vacuum of disbelief. Abuse is self-sustaining and all much wicked because it is.

Therefore, although citizens could hold our school boards who condone abuse accountable and vote them out, it cannot be done without information that they are mistreating the teachers. So our school board elections continue to be removed from public scrutiny and when an occasional teacher speaks out and makes any progress uniting with the parents who have their own discontent with the schools, her voice is usually eliminated by the network of cronies in place to protect the system, and nothing changes. Or if it changes, it changes for only a short time, until no one is paying attention or just long enough to appear different, but teacher abuse is never eliminated from the possibilities, only tabled until it is safe to resume.

In Breaking the Silence, by Joseph and Jo Blase, they cite ethics incorporated in administrative doctrine: "School district office personnel and boards of education throughout the United States are legally, professionally, and ethically responsible for the general welfare and safety of teachers, and the conduct of school administrators." p. 154.

Unfortunately, what is on paper is not what is in practice in many of our districts. When Horwitz presented her board with a 197-page document detailing abusive practices in her district, asking them to investigate her allegations so that the abuse would stop, her board responded:
"Investigation is not what we do." They proceeded to order her to partake in conflict resolution with administrators whose cruelty had nearly killed her, put one of them in charge of the process and took advantage of her "uncivil" reaction to being deprived of her rights and sense of sanity and used it as justification to fire her. This followed with years of legal actions to bury her claims, with two members voting against what they knew was wrong, but with not one board member of that board or future boards who were continuing the abuse, standing in protest and saying, "I will not do that to another human being, let alone a teacher." Rather than proceeding to vote the corrupt boards out, the taxpayers, or voters, carried all the costs of this process rather than becoming appalled and demanding the resignations of people who were ethically deficient. Voting bad boards out rarely happens, because not enough people know what is really going on. Our administrations carefully position layers of propaganda while sealing them with intentionally constructed terror or retaliation, confident their secret is safe.

Beyond that, not enough people care to know. And those who come close to knowing are told, "We cannot reveal personnel issues", indicating they know something the teacher did that has forced their hand, and leaving the inquirer believing they shouldn't intervene as the board knows best. The cover up process is executed with such precision that one ponders what our schools could be if this energy were directed toward love for our children rather than as negative energy hiding the truth.

William Hazard, an alleged educational expert, testified at the Horwitz hearing:
Generally there is some pretty firm boundaries about who should do what when. And when push comes to shove, in my judgment the superintendent and the principal have to call the administrative shots, and as a teacher I may not like it. I may think it's unwise, I can voice my belief that this is not wise, but when I have said my piece, then I have two choices. I can either do what I am told to do or I should resign.

Q Why is that?

A Because to stick around and continually fight with the administration serves no useful purpose. It may serve my ego needs.. Over time, if the board members make dumb decisions, the community will replace them with other board members. If the superintendent makes a whole series of dumb decisions, he or she will be replaced, and the same is true for principals or other administrative folks.

Again theoretically it is true that boards are obliged to follow codes of ethics, but they don't follow them, and from the height of their pedestals, few notice. Theoretically, administrators with "dumb" decisions will result in their being replaced, but they cover it up and avoid accountability. Theoretically, the election is the opportunity to force our schools to run properly, but it isn't because political shenanigans assure that our administrators keep votes in their pockets. Our schools are political machines that are revered as though they are run by a force higher than our churches. The foxes are in the hen house and the world has hardly a clue. Why? Teacher abuse.

The anatomy of how politics rules and dumb (and nasty) ideas never stop, contradicts Hazard's claims that this is a self-correcting cycle and that teachers should not fight the system, but leave if they don't like it, knowing the next election will change things. That is minimally a pipe dream and more than likely the false mantra power brokers in education use to make the obstacles to their malfeasance go away, a mantra that is attached to money if one is an educational expert.

Furthermore, boards can create directives that guarantee their wrongdoing is out of the public eye, thus assuring that future elections will have nothing to do with their dedication and positive contributions to our children, and everything to do with their politics:

"The school has an interest to protect." -- Steve Wood, president of Benton County School of the Arts board in Arkansas, explaining the board's new policy that prohibits teachers and other school employees from talking to reporters. The board, by a 5-0 vote, approved new rules that require all reporters' questions be directed to Woods. Woods exempted board members from the policy, saying it would restrict their freedom of speech. (Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, Sept. 10, 2002).

Does anyone detect a double standard here?

TEACHING TO THE EDUCATION FADS

Thomas Sowell
The Washington Times
CREATORS SYNDICATE 8/02
At the heart of the problem of educational failure is the low academic quality of the people who become teachers and principals. This low academic quality has been documented by empirical research so many times, over so many years, that it is incredible how this crucial fact gets overlooked again and again in discussions of the problems of our schools.

It is not incredible how this crucial fact gets overlooked when you consider who is controlling the airwaves in public education - those who behave in reprehensible ways. Hazard says that this problem will solve it self, but not as long as people like Hazard are paid to describe our educational system. He would have so many fewer hearings at which to testify if he let the truth be known.

We recently found this on a Ed reform loop: "Eventually, parents are going to realize that teachers should work for them, not for politicians." -- Patrick Cox, 1985

How well their teacher abuse plan has worked. Seventeen years ago he believed that people would figure out that teachers work for politicians and not for the good of the children. They still haven't figured this out. NAPTA intends to pull the curtain on their plan so teachers will start working for parents. Most teachers always wanted to, even though parents do not know that.

Top

EVEN MORE POLITICS
Board Member