The community is tired of parental input being ignored, poor
communication, lax financial oversight, deteriorating
teacher-administration relationships, hidden agendas, low test
scores, high failure rates, rubber-stamp-wielding trustees and a
general lack of vision.
The community is tired of parental input being ignored, poor communication, lax financial oversight, deteriorating teacher-administration relationships, hidden agendas, low test scores, high failure rates, rubber-stamp-wielding trustees and a general lack of vision.
But timing is everything. Unfortunately, it’s not on the side of advocates to recall four Morgan Hill Unified School District school board members.
At an emotional board meeting, four trustees were put on notice that petitions for their recall will be circulated throughout Morgan Hill, San Martin and south San Jose. Board members George Panos, Tom Kinoshita, J an Masuda and Del Foster received the frustrated message. Together, these trustees are sometimes called “the senior four” because they’ve served longer than the other three board members. They are also, again unfortunately, often on the winning side of contentious, controversial 4-to-3 votes.
The group behind the recall effort, Community Alliance for Responsible Education, missed the deadline to place the recall question on the March 2, 2004 ballot. That means that if they collect enough signatures for a recall – 5,600 registered voters would have to sign the petitions – the school district would have to pay for a special election that would cost at least $28,000.
While the frustration with the MHUSD administration and these four trustees is completely understandable, we can’t endorse spending scarce district funds that should be used to educate our children on a recall election.
That’s especially true because the board seats held by three of the four recall targets – Foster, Masuda and Panos – will be on the November 2004 election.
It’s now impossible to ignore the community’s high frustration levels – and not just with the recall targets. It’s crystal clear that much anger is directed at Superintendent Carolyn McKennan. Trustees and administrators share culpability in the community’s eyes, and no one should try – as some have – to blame the difficult economy instead.
Those concerns are economy-independent.
It was telling that during last week’s board meeting that two trustees – Foster and Kinoshita – took great pains after presentation of damning statistics about Live Oak High School to say that they were well aware of the statistics. Foster even said his knowledge of the statistics “informed” most of his decisions as a trustee.
That means that while we’re well aware of the shameful number of Hispanic students failing classes, the appallingly few number of students who meet University of California or Cal State course requirements, the low percentage of students passing advanced placement tests, these trustees voted for more of the same.
They voted to give McKennan fat raises, positive performance reviews and an expensive contract extension in tight economic times, despite the fact that these failures occurred on her watch. Those perks only added to a contract that included a handsome salary, unprecedented longevity bonuses, a pricey buy-out clause and lifetime health benefits for a superintendent who was rapidly losing the trust of teachers, employees, parents and the community.
Those damning Live Oak statistics don’t address the management and fiscal fiascos surrounding the construction of Barrett Elementary School and Sobrato High School and the renovation of Live Oak High School. They don’t demonstrate the mishandling of the Small Learning Communities grant, the bungling of elementary school boundaries, the distrust that’s grown between teachers and the administration, and the frustration in the community that’s built to the point that many people believe recalling four trustees is their only reasonable recourse.
To put it mildly, we’re sympathetic to the concerns of CARE and many, many others. Nonetheless, we urge those who are passionate about a change of direction to expend their energy to support reform-minded school board candidates.
Find three well-qualified, well-spoken, energetic, dedicated people and organize campaigns now for the November election. Reform advocates only need to win one seat to have a majority for the next two years on most issues that will face the school board.
In the case of Kinoshita, whose term doesn’t expire until December 2006, if a recall effort is mounted, it should be timed to coincide with the November 2004 general election. But if good candidates run vigorous, educational campaigns, recalling Kinoshita should be a moot point.
Let’s harness the passion for education, the concern for student success, the energy of parents and community members, the will to make our public schools better places that was exhibited at Monday’s board meeting and use it to elect like-minded school board members next November.
