The Canary In The Mine Shaft, Feb. 2009

This is what I wrote then.

It seems to be a little prescient now, even if it's me saying so.


"We have allowed Dr. Hall to not only prevent true public scrutiny of this very important decision but to actually eliminate the possibility of dissent.

So how can one municipal employee outmaneuver a Community Panel of very smart, distinguished Atlantans?

Here's how:

By asking for a Community Panel to "assist" with a recommendation for the new hire (a recommendation she is in no way bound to follow or even acknowledge), Dr. Hall is able to maintain the appearance of inviting public scrutiny.

But here's where it all goes wrong: by insisting that

(a) all applicants have their anonymity preserved (an unnecessary and, frankly, ridiculous requirement for a publicly funded school administrative position), and that

(b) all Community Panel representatives agree to keep secret all deliberations, and that

(c) no documents, such as CVs, may be copied or distributed outside of the room where the top-secret deliberations are being held, and that

(d) the Community Panel agree not to release a statement about its recommendation until that statement is "approved" by APS

--by insisting on all of this, Dr. Hall has created exactly what she wants: a lapdog of a panel that cannot bite back --or even bark, unless that bark is "approved" in advance by APS public relations.

Look: being allowed into the door; being allowed to participate in the meetings; having the feeling that Dr. Hall is really, really
listening to your opinion--that might feel good... but if it means I'm just gonna be a passenger on this ride, and not allowed to touch the steering wheel or my power-window button, or yelp when we run a red light, well, then--thank you, but I'll just take MARTA.

And don't forget what happened in the months leading up to now, when APS blithely ignored its own deadlines for establishing the new school boundaries, sent officials to meetings who delivered no new information and then refused to answer parent questions (how arrogant is that?) and refused to answer --despite repeated prodding--any of the reasonable, well-though out questions the MES panel posed in its open letter on the MES website....

Why in the world are we putting up with this crap?

APS bureaucrats get away with this because we don't hold their feet to the fire.

It really is that simple.

They're not evil or malicious, they're just mediocre. And they believe they're not really accountable to us, or maybe another way of saying it is they don't really have the time to be accountable to us because they feel they have much more important problems to focus on, like a whole bunch of horrible schools in horrible neighborhoods.

Well, too bad. I'm not willing to accept mediocrity as the price I have to pay for that, although I'm not unsympathetic.

(Someday, once we get established, let's establish a parent volunteer group to "adopt" a sister school in APS that could use our help. Let's get some paint and some playground equipment and go over there. Let's take this opportunity to set another good precedent. Anyone else want to run with this?)

Now, getting back to my rant:

Contrast Dr Hall's model, which serves only to consolidate her power and does not serve the public in any meaningful way, with the kind of approach we should have taken, as a PTO, independent of APS if necessary:

1. Fundraise for the purpose of advertising this position REGIONALLY;
seek to attract the best and brightest principal candidates from around the region. (There is no reason in the world this new
principal had to come from APS or even Georgia. How about attracting a principal from a school district that ISN'T among the worst-performing in the country? Somebody with really, really high standards?) Don't you think the idea of a brand new, gorgeous school in a thriving community full of affluent, involved parents would be a little bit appealing to
some gifted teacher or asst. principal out there looking to move up?

2. Make it clear up front that anybody who applies for this very public job is going to have to undergo some level of public
scrutiny if they make it to the "finalist" round.

3. Preserve the anonymity of all applicants, if you want, up until three finalists have been identified. Then release every relevant document about them and do so online.

(At this same time, release the CVs of all other applicants with
their names redacted. This is a public job. There should be no expectation of privacy, but we'll be empathetic and just give them a little privacy).

4. Invite public comment, but filter it through your designated Community Panel. Allow no disrespectful or inappropriate commentary.

5. After a finalist has been identified, insist that the Superintendent forward her recommendation to the School Board for approval rather than make the decision herself, unchecked. The School Board should accept the Superintendent's recommendation in most cases but if there is an egregious error or public outcry, this is one last opportunity for a poor decision-in-the-making to be corrected.

Designate one School Board meeting, therefore, for public comment, before the Board votes on whether to accept the Supt's recommendation.

Finally:

At all times the CVs and bios of our currently serving school principals should be posted online, period.

Wouldn't this simple rule have prevented the Morningside principal fiasco a few years ago?

We need more transparency, but it's one of those things in life you can't get unless you are willing to be ferociously persistent.

So, my fellow parents, while I'm for courtesy at every turn, please: don't just go along to get along. Confront! Be nosey! Ask
questions! Summon your inner journalist! If you have to be a pest, at least you really are doing it for your kids."

Questions I asked Dr. Hall about Yolonda Brown....

....but never received an answer.



1. The hiring process for Ms. Brown was, if you believe what you read on the email listserv for the New School parents, badly flawed. Parents object to not having a chance to scrutinize the candidates' qualifications, and many of us feel the process should be much more transparent, especially in light of the fact that APS's current superintendent believes herself to be a reformer. How does this dismayingly opaque selection process, which, among other conditions, requires all members of the so-called Community Panel to take a vow of secrecy, serve the parent stakeholders at this new school?

2. What possible hardship could be suffered by, say, the three finalists for an APS principal's job, were they to be named publicly and their records made available for public scrutiny? And would any such hardship outweigh the right of the parents to scrutinize the finalists before a winner was named?

3. Do you agree with the premise that when critical hiring decisions are made in a secretive way within a highly political structure, public unease with the outcome is almost inevitable? And will you, as a reform-minded principal, pledge to err on the side of transparency and not opacity when it comes to making critical personnel decisions in the future? Will you commit to making public the CVs of all "finalists" for any public school position before a decision is made to choose one of them? Or, failing that, will you at least allow the members of any Community Panel to discuss the relative merits of any finalists with their constituent parent groups before a hiring decision is made?