To the editor,
I would like to complement you on Meridith Savitt’s thoughtful and comprehensive story about the Lab School discussion that has been going on in the Bethlehem School District in recent months. The Lab School has been an important component of Bethlehem’s high school experience. As outlined in your article, it is being shunted towards oblivion using carefully curated information, administrative fiat, and a failure by Board Members to hold the Superintendent and her staff to account for arbitrary decisions. Most Board Members have also failed to discuss the issues and clearly state their opinions in a public session.
The Lab School discussions also serve as a new example of long-term patterns of disfunction in the relationship between the Board and the Superintendent. Again and again, controversial issues are essentially dismissed based on unchallenged information provided by the Superintendent and her staff. Again and again, assertions of legal or privacy issues are used to bury discussions. Again and again, as Ms. Savitt’s article highlights, few if anyone on the Board challenges the information provided or states an opinion regarding an issue or addresses the real concerns of the citizens addressing them. The public deserves more.
One consequence of the hush-hush way with which controversy is handled in the Bethlehem School District is that awareness of the issue is often limited to only the individuals involved. This prevents the dysfunctional patterns and processes used from being widely recognized. The resulting information silos reduce the possibility of broader-based groups forming to seek improved oversight of the district over the longer-term.
Several examples can be seen from recent years:
• A group of parents were deeply concerned about the behavior of one of the coaches. They raised their concern with the Superintendent and the Board. The Superintendent commissioned an “independent” assessment. The Superintendent chose the consultant. The consultant’s report was never published because the Superintendent said it could not legally be shared or discussed. Nothing changed. The only challenge, without discussion at the Board level, was one no vote on the retention of the coach in question, a vote only identified by a number. Several team members, who might have been better positioned for sports scholarships if they played their senior year, chose not to play their senior year. Other team members have left the team since that year.
• Students, parents and concerned citizens raised serious questions about the District’s inclusion and equity policies and deficiencies. The Superintendent appointed a task force including a majority consisting of the Superintendent and her staff. A consultant chosen by the Superintendent was employed. After a task force report, a diversity and equity director was added to the staff. Within a year, that new member of staff had left. Nothing had changed. Other than employing someone to manage statistics, nothing more has been done about diversity and inclusion. Did the Board discuss the goals of this effort before or after it was started? Has the Board ever evaluated the cost of this initiative? Have they ever followed up to see if the original goals had been accomplished or considered whether the time and money expended had added value to the district and/or how the whole process reflected on the effectiveness and commitment of the Superintendent and her management team? Were goals even set?
• The way the Lab School is allegedly being redesigned is just another example of this process. Now, a new committee is being organized by the Superintendent, presumably dominated by the Superintendent and her staff. A new consultant has been appointed, apparently by the Superintendent without input from or discussion with the Board. One Lab School parent will serve on the committee along with one parent of a former Lab School student. There are no teachers on the committee. There are no students on the committee. There are no representatives from the general public on the committee. The Board has said nothing, taken no action. Where is this process likely to lead?
As I noted above, I believe your coverage of the District, now and in the future, is important. It makes some of these processes more visible to the public and to families with children in the Bethlehem School District. I hope you will continue to cover the district and highlight both its successes and its failures.
Sincerely,
D. W. Schrempf,
Slingerlands
