Educators Struggle to Find the Right Words

By Ann K. Williams
Staff Writer

January 23 -- School district officials got a crash course in Confucian political theory this month when “zhengming,” -- “the proper naming of things,” -- was ignored to the confusion of all.

Last Thursday, the Board of Education acknowledged that the language they adopted at their previous meeting changing the roles and responsibilities of District Advisory Committees (DACs) needed to be clarified and perhaps rewritten.

At the same time, they accused “a local newspaper” of “misrepresenting” their intent.

“Our objective was to clarify the DACs’ roles and responsibilities, and not to diminish them in any way,” Board member Kathy Wisnicki read from a prepared statement.

Referring obliquely to a recent article and editorial published in the Santa Monica Mirror, Wisnicki said the board’s actions were “mischaracterized,” and that this “led to a misunderstanding of what we are trying to accomplish.”

“We sincerely apologize for that misrepresentation,” Wisnicki read.

The two changes that seemed to draw the most ire were the deletion of the DACs’ role in “overall planning” of “educational program and budget resources,” and the apparent reduction of the Special Education DAC’s responsibilities.

While repeated reference was made to the deletion as affecting -- or not affecting -- “board policy,” actually it was made to a set of administrative regulations originally drawn up by district staff, not the board.

No matter, it was still perceived as an affront by many.

“The law of unintended consequences is very important,” Craig Hamilton, speaking as co-chair of the ad hoc facility master plan committee, told the board.

“A significant number of people in the community” will see the change as inhibiting their participation, and as a sign that the district and the board “are afraid to engage in a healthy dialogue,” he said.

Tricia Crane, chair of the Special Education DAC, implored the board to bring the deletion back for discussion.

“Our DAC members sometimes ask tough questions about difficult issues,” she told the board. “Please don’t reduce us to unpaid workers reporting to staff.”

The DACs “have done remarkable, vital work,” Superintendent John Deasy responded. The district “respect(s) the extraordinary value of our DACs.”

The deletion was meant to clarify, not change, the role of the DACs, he said.

It’s important that the District continue to receive “advice, suggestions, recommendations and general comments” from the DACs about “allocations and expenditures” and “programmatic pieces,” Deasy said.

After talking for nearly 20 minutes immediately following public comment, the board asked staff to return with a clarification and “maybe some revision to the language” at the next board meeting on February 2.

Later in the evening, the board took action on revisions to the “charges,” or lists of the responsibilities, of the DACs.

Once again, Hamilton and Crane were on hand to object to what appeared to them to be a “significant” reduction in the scope of the Special Education DAC’s responsibilities.

They were joined by Zina Josephs, secretary of the Fine Arts DAC. She said the revised charges reminded her of a recurring episode on Sesame Street in which children were shown four pictures and asked “which one doesn’t belong.”

The Special Education DAC’s charge to prepare a handbook “is completely out of whack with what the other DACs were being asked to do,” Josephs said.

She was careful to qualify her perceptions as those of “an outsider looking in.”

Crane asked the board to reintroduce language calling for the Special Education DAC to “advise” the board “on its proposed implementation of the Special Education Strategic Plan,” a plan which the DAC played a major role in creating.

While the Board seemed sympathetic, Board member Jose Escarce pointed out that the use of the word “proposed” carried an “implicit promise” that might cause trouble down the line.

He suggested substituting the wording “on its ongoing implementation,” and the Board eventually agreed to insert this language.

In closing, Deasy reiterated the need for better communication.

“We want (the DACs and the staff) to communicate ahead of time with each other,” he told the Board. We need to “seek (the DACs’) input on the staff report.”