Transparency?

May 21, 2011 5:37 AM

School official squirms as he attempts to define transparency. The best part is when he informs the reporter that the process of handing over a public school to a for-profit company will become transparent after all of the decisions have been made and the contracts signed.
posted by Seymour Zamboni (35 comments total)

Troy: Now turn to the next problem. If you have three Pepsis and drink one, how much more refreshed are you? You, the redhead in the Chicago school system?
Girl: Pepsi?
Troy: Partial credit!

> Hoffman said Thursday the district cannot disclose any details on the turnaround now because the plans have not been made official. That means no public debate on the plans or the ideas behind them is to take place until an agreement is reached.

“When this process is complete, at that point we will be transparent,” Hoffman said.

"Trust us! What have we got to gain, aside from money?"
posted by The Card Cheat at 6:00 AM on May 21, 2011 [2 favorites]

Finally! America is rapidly seeing the error of its ways! Dismantle all social security, ban trade unions, emasculate the FDA and all other citizen/consumer protection rackets. Education, like water, energy, infrastructure, media, healthcare, is not to be and should never have been considered a "public service". Of course everything must turn a profit. What's that? Why yes, charities included.
posted by likeso at 6:00 AM on May 21, 2011 [4 favorites]

Let's wait until after the sex until we discuss what type of prophylactic one of us may have been using.

On another note, the union deal linked in the article seems pretty solid.
posted by Wyatt at 6:01 AM on May 21, 2011 [1 favorite]

He is not really attempting to define it. He just knows that "transparency" is something that sounds good so we will call whatever we are doing that. I have worked for people like this guy.
posted by ricochet biscuit at 6:04 AM on May 21, 2011 [17 favorites]

Though a starving man would leap for a crust of bread as much as he would for an avenue out of abject structural poverty.
posted by Wyatt at 6:05 AM on May 21, 2011

Actually, people who want to privatize everything need a long impecunious vacation in the more humble quarters of Kolikat, Abuja, Timbuctoo, or someplace in Chad.
posted by Katjusa Roquette at 6:27 AM on May 21, 2011

Actually, people who want to privatize everything need a long impecunious vacation in the more humble quarters of Kolikat, Abuja, Timbuctoo, or someplace in Chad........

.............because USA citizens being the afraid of their government. Have we buried this now?
posted by Mblue at 6:38 AM on May 21, 2011

And they have to promise to “check email and phone messages at least 2 times per day,” and “respond to all email or phone messages from parents within twenty four hours.”

Reading the 'rules' it strikes me that a decent principal is needed, not a takeover by a 'for profit' company.
posted by UseyurBrain at 6:49 AM on May 21, 2011

I have to say I am impressed with this reporter's follow-up questions. I'm so used to people asking a question, getting evasions, and just letting it go.
posted by Astro Zombie at 6:53 AM on May 21, 2011 [3 favorites]

The union deal for teachers may be solid, but what about the custodians and the lunch ladies? In many school districts such positions are coveted by people without college degrees because they offer security and benefits like health insurance. Once a school comes under private management they get rid of all of those jobs and replace them with more "cost-effective" contractors who pay shit wages and no benefits.
posted by mareli at 7:00 AM on May 21, 2011 [2 favorites]

Actually, people who want to privatize everything need a long impecunious vacation in the more humble quarters of Kolikat, Abuja, Timbuctoo, or someplace in Chad.

I'm thinking closer to home. How about Detroit?
posted by likeso at 7:07 AM on May 21, 2011 [1 favorite]

Actually, people who want to privatize everything need a long impecunious vacation in the more humble quarters of Kolikat, Abuja, Timbuctoo, or someplace in Chad.

You know, I think that privatizing public education is a terrible idea, but this is kind of bullshit. My understanding, for instance, of the French healthcare system is that the government funds insurance, but some of the providers are for-profit. Nobody is proposing to de-fund public education, and public-private partnerships, as problematic as they may be, are not the same as the government not being able to pay for universal education at all.
posted by craichead at 7:24 AM on May 21, 2011 [1 favorite]

Remember that guy who pleaded with the firefighters to save his house but they refused because he hadn't paid the $75 fee? Privatization of education may not bring us such dramatic images, but the idea of students being "educated" by corporations instead of by traditional public schools could take a lot of wrong turns.

This little thing about "transparency" is just the tip of the iceberg.
posted by kozad at 7:38 AM on May 21, 2011

My understanding of the rationale for public education was that in a democracy it is in the best interests of society as a whole for each individual citizen to be educated, because they have a part in making decisions that apply to everyone. So as a gay man with no children, I don't pay taxes to support public schools as a favor to the students who are educated there (and a favor to their parents) but because universal education is a public good, and I have a responsibility to help fund that.

This suggests that non-parents have as much right to stay informed about changes in education policy as parents. If what's being done at Clemente school only concerns the parents and their children, then the parents and their children should fund the school. But since what's being done at the school concerns the whole community, then parents and non-parents alike are entitled to the same information, at every step in the process.
posted by layceepee at 7:40 AM on May 21, 2011 [29 favorites]

Remember that guy who pleaded with the firefighters to save his house but they refused because he hadn't paid the $75 fee?

I don't think that was because firefighting in that community had been privatized, but because the homeowner was living in an unincorporated area that relied on a fire department funded by the taxes of residents of a nearby munincipality to provide service. The deal was that to get service from a public fire department, you either had to be a tax payer or pay an annual fee.
posted by layceepee at 7:43 AM on May 21, 2011

The union deal for teachers may be solid, but what about the custodians and the lunch ladies?
The city is currently trying to sub contract the custodians,(gut wages and benefits) with the issue going to arbitration. The lunch ladies,members of UNITE HERE! local 217, are currently in negotiations. As things stand now, there is no discussion of privatization with the food service.
posted by Unioncat at 7:47 AM on May 21, 2011

or pay an annual fee

Which, if we all recall correctly from the heated debate, the homeowner had refused to pay until his property caught fire.

Yes, a public meeting is public, therefore in the interest of transparency, both the public and the press have the right to attend and disseminate the information shared at the meeting.

Somehow this doesn't apply to New Haven and I'm interested in knowing why I'm speculating about the school district's ulterior motives at the moment.
posted by jsavimbi at 7:51 AM on May 21, 2011 [1 favorite]

Somehow this doesn't apply to New Haven and I'm interested in knowing why I'm speculating about the school district's ulterior motives at the moment.

I don't think it's very mysterious. They want to soothe worried parents, so the parents won't cause a stink, but they don't want to give any information to journalists or advocates who might ask hard questions. They think that the parents, the overwhelming majority of whom are low-income, aren't going to be sophisticated enough to challenge their spin.
posted by craichead at 7:58 AM on May 21, 2011 [3 favorites]

Before the meeting started, Chris Hoffman, the schools’ new $78,793-salary spokesman, alerted a school security guard to keep reporters out. Hoffman himself showed up to the meeting and made sure that a reporter wasn’t let in.

Great. They have a (well-) paid spokesman to make sure they don't accidentally tell anybody anything.
posted by pracowity at 8:10 AM on May 21, 2011 [3 favorites]

I'd be more convinced of some nefarious cover up if the parents had been barred along with the press. Basically, the gotcha here is that school officials got caught up with a catchword called "transparency".
posted by 2N2222 at 8:23 AM on May 21, 2011 [1 favorite]

I'd be more convinced of some nefarious cover up if the parents had been barred along with the press.

It was a meeting to explain the proposed changes to parents. There wouldn't have been any meeting if the parents were barred. The whole point here is that the district wants the deal to go through without anyone challenging it. They think they can placate the parents with spin, and they think they can prevent the press from fact-checking the spin.

The weird thing is how inept the spokesman was. He basically came right out and said that the reason the press couldn't come in was that they weren't going to be allowed to know anything until it was "official." He should have said that the parents needed to have a space to ask their questions without the pressure of being observed by the press. That would have been a much more convincing excuse for barring the reporter.
posted by craichead at 8:42 AM on May 21, 2011 [2 favorites]

Maybe the reporter should've stuck around and done some followup with the parents after the meeting. It sucks that the press wasn't allowed in, but that hardly means it was a secret meeting.

After nine years of failing, it was probably out of exasperation that the school was handed over to some for profit entity. Frankly, the principal should've been replaced after the second year of failing grades, as any equivalent manager in the private sector would've been. It's situations like this that give more credence to the proposition that the state can't handle its responsibility in providing for education. I personally don't believe that, but I can see how people could believe it.
posted by dave78981 at 8:43 AM on May 21, 2011

This is what happens when Weasels are allowed to shape shift. They can do it, but there's always that weaselness about them.
posted by tomswift at 9:03 AM on May 21, 2011

Frankly, the principal should've been replaced after the second year of failing grades, as any equivalent manager in the private sector would've been.

So here's the problem with that. The issue here isn't the failure of any particular principal. The issue is the failure of the system. The American educational system fails to do a good job educating poor urban kids. If you replace one principal with another principal, the school will continue to fail. When cities replace government management with for-profit management, the schools continue to fail. The problem is not bad management at the level of the individual school. It can't be solved with a change of managers. And, in fact, firing the principal every two years just creates chaos and makes things worse.

I don't pretend to have any idea how to fix public education in the US. But firing principals seems to be pretty discredited as a solution, and there's not a lot of evidence that for-profit companies do a better job than school districts do.
posted by craichead at 9:04 AM on May 21, 2011 [7 favorites]

"Frankly, the principal should've been replaced after the second year of failing grades, as any equivalent manager in the private sector would've been."

There is so much faulty logic and apples to oranges crap going on in that statement.

The Principal does not control dysfunctional families, lack of resources, poor upper management, poverty, health and social issues, etc, etc.....
posted by tomswift at 9:06 AM on May 21, 2011 [5 favorites]

craichead,
It seems like in the US we expect the schools to make up for the failings of the rest of society. After a few decades of trying this, it doesn't seem to be working very well.
posted by wuwei at 9:06 AM on May 21, 2011 [1 favorite]

Basically, the gotcha here is that school officials got caught up with a catchword called "transparency".

In Iowa we have "open meeting" laws, so the "gotcha" here would have been some people losing their jobs. Not sure how it is in Connecticut.
posted by cjorgensen at 9:07 AM on May 21, 2011

"In Iowa we have "open meeting" laws, so the "gotcha" here would have been some people losing their jobs. Not sure how it is in Connecticut."

Typically it's the number of public officials at the meeting that triggers the OMA -- not the number of private citizens or even public EMPLOYEES. In my state a "majority of a quorum" of a public body triggers the OMA, though of course some things may always be discussed in closed session.

Depending on who was at the meeting, this may not have fallen under OMA requirements at all. Although it still seems like a dumb idea to invite parents are bar the press.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 9:14 AM on May 21, 2011

If Onyx Blackman can't stop it [full episode with hulu plus here], nobody can.

Reality being stranger than fiction is really starting to lose its charm.
posted by Rykey at 9:55 AM on May 21, 2011 [1 favorite]

Love Letter To Albuquerque Public Schools
posted by milkrate at 3:09 PM on May 21, 2011 [2 favorites]

"Frankly, the principal should've been replaced after the second year of failing grades, as any equivalent manager in the private sector would've been."

First of all you're over-estimating the private sector. Second of all I'm not really sure how even a good principle can turn a school around in just two years. If you fire the teachers, you have to replace them with someone else.
posted by delmoi at 6:08 PM on May 21, 2011 [1 favorite]

Eyebrows McGee wrote: "Typically it's the number of public officials at the meeting that triggers the OMA -- not the number of private citizens or even public EMPLOYEES. In my state a "majority of a quorum" of a public body triggers the OMA, though of course some things may always be discussed in closed session."

Lame. In my state, two people is enough to trigger the open meetings law. People have gotten sued over it and decisions made vacated because two board members discussed an issue before them with each other without publication of the date/time of the meeting beforehand.


delmoi wrote: "Second of all I'm not really sure how even a good principle can turn a school around in just two years."

It's not possible. Why? The kids. You can't, except in some exceptional circumstances, get the kids where they need to be that quickly, especially without stable homes and the like. Yeah, some kids do fine in school no matter their home situation, but that simply isn't the case for most children.
posted by wierdo at 11:13 PM on May 21, 2011

"In my state, two people is enough to trigger the open meetings law. People have gotten sued over it and decisions made vacated because two board members discussed an issue before them with each other without publication of the date/time of the meeting beforehand."

Always, or are we talking about a board (or subcommittee) of five people or fewer? On my board, three triggers the OMA because it's a majority of a quorum.

I find it hard to believe that state legislators, for example, can't have one-on-one discussions about pending legislation without getting sued. It'd bring the whole state to a grinding halt. Possibly deservedly, but I feel like it would have been in the news. :)

(And on your second point, I agree; a lot of these school "turnaround" programs are just rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic. There are often some real pathologies in schools that need to be addressed, but if kids are still coming to school hungry because nobody fed them *all weekend*, living in a situation with the constant threat of violence (domestic abuse or neighborhood violence), moving frequently due to housing instability, nobody in the home ever read or talked to them, they get inadequate sleep because there are no enforced bedtimes, seven years olds are truant because they're home caring for younger children, etc., and you have a WHOLE SCHOOL of kids with those or similar problems, there's only so much a school can do. As someone noted upthread (I think) we've basically decided to turn schools into the delivery point for a whole raft of social services and anti-poverty programs, which is too late in the childrens' lives and far, far too narrow to make a real impact. We need real anti-poverty programs, delivered to communities (not just children), to make an impact on these failing schools.)
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 4:17 AM on May 22, 2011 [1 favorite]

Frankly, the principal should've been replaced after the second year of failing grades, as any equivalent manager in the private sector would've been.

Every time I see this shit I think "have you ever worked in the private sector?".
posted by fullerine at 9:05 AM on May 22, 2011 [4 favorites]

Augh what is this; further 4chanification of metafilter? It's just a goddam pta meeting, she could go right in and probably even bring her video camera if she kept it cool, but she's purposely acting confrontational and hasn't got any motivation beyond her own bizarre agenda. I wouldn't say he's "squirming" so much as bemused, and trying to semi-politely rebuff her aggressive gibberish.

One morning we're going to wake up to Julian Assange rediscovering Jesus Christ as his Lord and Savior, and Glenn Beck wearing a Guy Fawkes mask, and the Tea Party merging with the Anonymous Hordes; and by god the Republican Party will have won over another swath of the population with no just cause to vote Republican but that they've been pied-piper'd by the word "transparency", just they way these sons of bitches done it before with "family values"
posted by ankurd at 10:48 AM on May 22, 2011