SCENE FIVE
JUDGE
Plaintiff Lawyer, please call your next witness.
PLAINTIFF LAWYER
Yes your Honor we call Parent Pat to the stand.
(Parent Pat takes the stand and is sworn in)
PLAINTIFF LAWYER
Parent Pat, please explain how you came to be part of the school’s Shared Decision- Making/Shared-Planning team.
PARENT PAT
I understand that when the Superintendent formulated the plans for the shared- planning teams he developed a system where each stakeholder unit could select their representatives. As a member of the Anytown USA Elementary School PTA for several years now and having been an executive board member for the last three, when the invitation from the superintendent for our participation came to us, I was fine with becoming a member of it.
PLAINTIFF LAWYER
What were your expectations of what the group would do?
PARENT PAT
The superintendent had a meeting of all the district committee members. He had a consultant explain the overview of what the group would do and showed us how we would come to consensus on matters of importance. They explained what we could do and what we could not do, and then sent us on our way.
PLAINTIFF LAWYER
What was your first meeting like when the group first convened in your building?
PARENT PAT
It was interesting to say the least. Dr. Lipservice convened it. He repeated some of the overview statements that the superintendent had given. He stated very clearly that the group would not have much to do since the real educational authority clearly remained with him. I asked what our roles would be then. He said that we would consider issues that he might raise and offer him ideas about how he might or might not use them.I asked who would be running the meetings. He said he would be. That’s when Teacher Terry pointed out to him that the group Facilitator would be chosen by the group, not by him. He backed off when he realized that, and I was chosen as the first Facilitator.
PLAINTIFF LAWYER
How did that go for you?
PARENT PAT
It was difficult for me. You see, obviously I am not an educator and here I was setting agendas for issues that I knew nothing about and quite frankly, I felt I had to rely on Dr. Lipservice for his assistance as reluctant as he seemed to give in the first place.
PLAINTIFF LAWYER
But you prevailed?
PARENT PAT
I guess I did. We did have meetings. I don’t know how effective they were at first. We really only addressed what I call “super” PTA matters, like what color azaleas to plant in front of the school and when the spelling bee would take place.
PLAINTIFF LAWYER
Did that change?
PARENT PAT
Well, we tried. We knew the school performance data had come out. I asked the principal if we might be able to examine it. He stated, rightly I’d add, that we couldn’t see specific student data or teacher data. I replied that we understood that but would like to see the strengths and weaknesses of the school, especially since we’d been cited by the state for poor performance of our underprivileged children, our special education students, and our ELL children.
PLAINTIFF LAWYER
And you got that data?
PARENT POLLY
Yes we did. Dr. Lipservice distributed overview copies of the information at the next meeting and proceeded to tell us that the data showed that we were improving on all fronts.
PLAINTIFF LAWYER
That was it?
PARENT POLLY
I got a call that night from another parent member. She asked if I understood what Dr. Lipservice had presented. I said that I had no particular expertise in analyzing school performance data and had to rely on the principal for that. She differed greatly and directed me to the sub group performance information and trend graphs. They certainly didn’t show improvement!
PLAINTIFF LAWYER
So the interpretation of the school’s performance on standardized exams by Dr. Lipservice, with the full understanding that standardized exam data is only one way to assess a student or a school, was wrong?
PARENT POLLY
Either wrong, or badly misinterpreted by him! At the next meeting I pointed this out and requested that we form a sub-committee to review the data and report out on their own findings and recommendations.
PLAINTIFF LAWYER
Dr. Lipservice agreed to this?
PARENT POLLY
He stated his displeasure, but agreed to the motion.
PLAINTIFF LAWYER
I wonder why?
PLAINTIFF LAWYER
You’ll have to ask him.
JUDGE
We will take a recess now to hear the rest of Parent Polly’s testimony.
…
Parent Polly’s testimony is complicated to parse. The bulk of it speaks to the next High Involvement variable, KNOWLEDGE. However, it is also entwined with power issues, as it remains clear that Principal Lipservice seeks to minimize the shared-planning group’s province, power, and influence.
The overriding issue in this testimony is the parent’s free admission of her inexpertise in using data. She basically put herself at the mercy of the principal and his data people in understanding what the data might actually suggest so that the group might be able to formulate some true action planning.
This occurrence is fairly common, i.e. a group deals with an issue that they have little or no real training on and are asked to identify root causes, formulate goals, and set action plans. However their ignorance, either because they have been misinformed, NOT informed, or do not know HOW to use data and action plan naturally leads them to making bad decisions. And in making a bad plan, they substantiate the critics who say that shared planning groups are ineffective.
~Richard Bernato, Ed.D.