Town Square

Post a New Topic

Board members want more info on bullying case

Original post made on Mar 8, 2013

Palo Alto school board members this week said they want more information on what went wrong in a 2010-11 middle-school bullying case that led to federal civil-rights findings against the school district.

Read the full story here Web Link posted Friday, March 8, 2013, 9:04 AM

Comments (22)

 +   Like this comment
Posted by parent
a resident of Adobe-Meadows
on Mar 8, 2013 at 10:19 am

"I'd like to see another report now that the district staff is looking into it. They need time to figure out what happened.

"I think reporting back to the board is understood," she said.

Heidi Emberling is such a disappointment. She says she wants the district to investigate itself?! What?! And then say says that she thinks that she doesn't even need to tell Skelly that he has to report his "self-investigation" back to the board because "reporting to the board is understood"?!!

Are you kidding? He didn't report to the board. That's what he did not do. He did not do that on TWO DIFFERENT OCR investigations and reports. Now you say that you think it's just "understood."

[Portion removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Townsend-Should-Resign-Today
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Mar 8, 2013 at 10:41 am

> Board member Camille Townsend stressed the need
> for a policy requiring that only elected board members,
> not district staff, be authorized to sign agreements with
> other government agencies.

Camille Townsend reveals her complete lack of how information flow in a large, organization should work. In this case, she should be pressing for a "policy" that requires the District Staff to reveal, in writing, any/all interactions with other government agencies within five working days. Status of each of these interactions should be provided the Board (and the public) at least once every thirty days. Resolution should be revealed within fourteen working days.

In the case of an elected Board of Trustees, there should be at least the signatures of the Board President, the Superintendent, and the appropriate Administrator (such as the so-called Compliance Officer) or school principal where the initial problem originated that resulted in the oversight of the school district by a higher authority.

Townsend does not seem to have any sense of how authority/chain-of-command structures should be formed in publicly-funded organizations—like public schools.

Townsend's claim that "experience matters", which she used to ride to a 3rd term on the Board, seems to reflect that "gingo-ism matters" more here in Palo Alto, than real experience.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Gunn parent
a resident of Gunn High School
on Mar 8, 2013 at 10:56 am

We are at sea in a leaky boat. The only board member who seems to have a clue about how to respond is Melissa Caswell:

"The board needs to direct staff on fact gathering to see how these things (in the OCR report) came to be, what processes didn't happen and why, and how we can change them so that they will," Caswell said.

That is different from what she said at the last board meeting, when she refused requests for an investigation because OCR had already done it.

Dana Tom wants to hear from OCR: "It'd be great to hear from the OCR," board President Dana Tom said. "We'd love to have the OCR at some level provide some information and context." Doesn't Tom realize that PAUSD has already heard from OCR? Is he looking for a different message? Perhaps that rather than an investigation and finding of violation of civil rights law, that OCR picked us to be their special friend? That may be how Laurie Reynolds wants to spin it, but it's not true.

Heidi Emberling is giddy over the "exciting opportunity" to trust district staff to clean up the mess that they created.

Tom says, ""When I look at our district I see a lot of staff members working very hard trying to do their honest best." If this is their honest best, they should be fired.

The school board had the chance to win back public confidence with honesty and an willingness to let some sunlight in. Only Caswell seems to have an inkling that that is the only course that makes sense here. PAUSD's reputation for being well-managed and well-run is hanging in the balance here and that's something we're going to miss when it's gone.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by parent
a resident of Adobe-Meadows
on Mar 8, 2013 at 11:15 am

Gunn Parent: "Perhaps that rather than an investigation and finding of violation of civil rights law, that OCR picked us to be their special friend."

Yes, don't they know who we are?

LOL.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by cd
a resident of College Terrace
on Mar 8, 2013 at 11:29 am

"The school board had the chance to win back public confidence"
Sorry, the board hasn't lost public confidence. It doesn't need to "win it back".


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Pretty Much
a resident of Community Center
on Mar 8, 2013 at 11:31 am

The name:

We Can Do Better Palo Alto

just about says it all.

Wish Dauber had won. At least he would have been a voice for accountability for this do-nothing board.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by dvd
a resident of Community Center
on Mar 8, 2013 at 11:32 am

@cd:

Maybe not your confidence. But I bet you're outnumbered on this one.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by parentP
a resident of Adobe-Meadows
on Mar 8, 2013 at 12:04 pm

It's no wonder the teachers are disheartened with their salary negotiations. Leadership lapses like this one, and the costly litigation and professional development responses they generate, eat up a lot of money that could be used to reward employees. So now we're gonna create new positions at the district office in answer to this crisis? Just what we need, even more money funneled away from direct contact with our students.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by daniel
a resident of Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Mar 8, 2013 at 12:10 pm

cd, I'll bet you that any person who reads about this scandal will lose confidence in the board lickety-split. Those who haven't lost confidence in the board are those who haven't had a chance to find out about this.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Let the supe go
a resident of Palo Alto High School
on Mar 8, 2013 at 1:10 pm

[Post removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]


 +   Like this comment
Posted by cd
a resident of College Terrace
on Mar 8, 2013 at 1:17 pm

@dvd
How many turned up at Skelly's performance review last week? One person? The real, physical numbers don't show that the board has lost public confidence.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Wondering?
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Mar 8, 2013 at 1:25 pm

> how many people turned up at Skelly's performance review?

How many people knew that it was open to the public? Was there a general invitation offered by the Board?


Was this session recorded for people to watch, who otherwise had to work?

Expecting people to attend every meeting that the school district, or the City holds, during the day, is out of the question for virtually everyone who holds a job.

Wonder why the Board doesn't record/stream these events for people to review at their convenience?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by cd
a resident of Crescent Park
on Mar 8, 2013 at 1:37 pm

@Wondering
Everyone who had any interest in attending knew and you saw the result. It's been reported on numerous occasions both on-line and in public.
What did you want, a personal invitation?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Gradma
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Mar 8, 2013 at 1:46 pm

Unfortunately Kevin Skelly displayed, during his first five years as Superintendent, he was the worst leader of the PAUSD that I can remember and I go back to the late, great Dr. Newman Walker.

After five years the School Board voted to continue his tenure, perhaps because they were too lazy to go out and find someone else. A weak School Board begets a weak Superintendent.

If it wasn't for Bob Golton's firm hand the PAUSD would be in worse trouble.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by parent
a resident of Adobe-Meadows
on Mar 8, 2013 at 1:48 pm

@cd

Make your point. Is your point that people are informed about this case and just don't care, that they are uninformed, or something else? Who shows up where when doesn't prove anything. In Palo Alto, everything happens behind the scenes, even complaints about lack of transparency happen in a very untransparent manner.

If people who are so-called "community leaders" and elected officials and former elected officials who are buttonholing and calling members of the board to tell them that this is a crisis and they have to get going and do something about this situation would do so publicly rather than just let the Weekly and We Can Do Better and CAC and SEAN and other advocacy orgs do it, then this would have already been over now. Members of City Council, former school board, former city council -- all of you who are saying privately that this is a mess, and that governance is broken, and that we need an investigation -- the fact that you are saying this privately instead of publicly is not helping. The board obviously is head down in the sand and only public calls for the restoration of public confidence will work. They are thick. They don't get subtlety. As it stands, they just think the paper has some inexplicable vendetta against them and they are headed to the bunker.

While this all burns down, another crisis is happening at Gunn. City leaders, you have to put a stop to this or our youth are going to suffer again. What are you afraid of? Whatever it is it's not worse than what is about to happen.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by @cd
a resident of College Terrace
on Mar 8, 2013 at 1:50 pm

@cd

> How many turned up at Skelly's performance review last week? One person? The real, physical numbers don't show that the board has lost public confidence.

Trust me, had we known, we would have. IN FORCE!

More relevant: How many people at the district cared about the civil rights violation?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by cd
a resident of Crescent Park
on Mar 8, 2013 at 2:07 pm

@@cd
Had known? The event was talked about numerous times on these forums alone! Next excuse?
Seriously, by all available checks, the board has not lost public confidence. Your hyperbole fails at the most basic litmus tests.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by No notice
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Mar 8, 2013 at 2:08 pm

It isn't as if the public was widely notified about Skelly's performance review. Had we known, most of us would have made the time to attend because it needs to be made known to all of PAUSD how unhappy we are with Kevin Skelly, how badly he has behaved, how unqualified he really is for the job, how bad his people skills are, how he trivializes legitimate problems, how he openly disrespects parents, and on and on and on. The overwhelming majority of us want him replaced, and would have loved to give that input, but almost no one knew about it coming up until after the fact!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by cd
a resident of Adobe-Meadows
on Mar 8, 2013 at 2:22 pm

@No Notice,
Produce some real numbers. One person showing up is not an "overwhelming majority". Hyperbole claim is not evidence of support for your position.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by parent
a resident of Adobe-Meadows
on Mar 8, 2013 at 2:23 pm

No, you prove that it's all hunky dory. I don't know what the "majority" wants. But I know right from wrong and this case is wrong from the top to the bottom.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by cd
a resident of Barron Park
on Mar 8, 2013 at 2:53 pm

@parent
"I don't know what the "majority" wants."
"No Notice" claims he does, he just that he can't show any evidence of it.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by ahavil
a resident of Palo Alto Hills
on Mar 9, 2013 at 11:03 pm

ahavil is a registered user.

How can the school board implement a policy that prohibits bullying amongst students when its administrative officials bully their staff members? Ask some of the former and current teachers at Gunn, for example. The administration treats its teachers (and probably classified staff as well) horribly. It has turned into a literal hell there. Too bad what Scott Laurence and Noreen Likins worked so hard to establish has come undone in these past few years. We need better role models at the top of the food chain. The teachers are fantastic if left to function autonomously, which is really unfortunate, because the school should be working in synergy. Practice what you preach, please.


Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.

Email:


To post your comment, please click here to Log in

Remember me?
Forgot Password?
or register. This topic is only for those who have signed up to participate by providing their email address and establishing a screen name.

Steins, sausage and spaetzle: Mountain View hosts second Oktoberfest
By Elena Kadvany | 3 comments | 2,683 views

Men Are Good For Three Things
By Laura Stec | 29 comments | 2,659 views

Two creative lights depart Palo Alto, leaving diverse legacies
By Jay Thorwaldson | 2 comments | 1,448 views

Reducing Council Size? Against
By Douglas Moran | 13 comments | 1,097 views

Storytime is Full
By Cheryl Bac | 4 comments | 946 views