Once again the school system is front-page news, not because of great accomplishments in education or an exciting new program, but because a poorly managed conflict has been allowed to spiral out of control thanks to a series of overreactions that are all too familiar.
This month we learned that a complaint about a child’s experience in the Pelham Elementary School has led to the superintendent banning the mother with the complaint from all district properties, thereby preventing her from taking her seven-year-old daughter to or from school.
The conflict has escalated and broadened, with the superintendent now engaged, through an attorney, in a battle with the chair of the Regional School Committee over the fact that he allowed members of the public to raise concerns at that committee’s April meeting. What began as hurtful behavior among early elementary students, a situation that should have provided a learning opportunity for students, and perhaps adults as well, has instead degenerated into a battle of lawyers, legal threats and character assassination that would be shocking if we hadn’t seen it all before.
The initial complaint appears to be that the child, an African-American, experienced comments or teasing from her peers about her appearance that was intense enough to make her not want to wear her hair down, and to talk about lightening her skin. The subsequent dispute arose because the mother felt that the situation was not dealt with satisfactorily.
I have no firsthand knowledge of the case, and I don’t intend to speculate about what either party did or didn’t do. My assumption is that, as in most human discord, there is some truth on both sides. My concern has to do with systemic problems in our public schools, and patterns of behavior of school leaders who ought to be addressing those problems.
One of these behaviors is the defensive reaction that exacerbates rather than resolves problems. It is mind boggling that a child who has already suffered from a hurtful social situation at school
has now lost the right to have her mother bring her to and from school. It is shocking to read that the district’s lawyer has also prohibited the mother from communicating with school officials.
When things happen to our children, parents get upset and sometimes even act unreasonably. But there are many ways to manage and diffuse conflict, and in all of them access and communication are essential. Banning a parent or calling in lawyers is an imposition of power and a barrier to communication essential to resolving issues. Yet one hears again and again from parents — particularly parents of more vulnerable students such as those in SPED programs, adoptive children, and students of color — that this is exactly the type of response they get in our district.
When any child experiences a situation in the schools that makes them feel bad about themselves, it requires a supportive response. What those of us in the white majority have to acknowledge is the extra significance and additional pain experienced in an incident like this one, due to the long, terrible, and ongoing history of racism in our society. The fact that there may not have been racist intent among the young children involved, or even among the adults who responded, doesn’t change the fact that the African-American family involved experiences the situation in that cruel context. Failure to recognize that reality and to take responsibility for it perpetuates institutional racism.
The unfortunate reality of our school system is that we are not dealing with an isolated incident. All too frequently, people of color in our school system — parents, students, teachers — report a lack of support when facing these sorts of experiences. Combined with the decades old failure to adequately address disparities in discipline, and the low percentage of minority faculty and staff, the situation makes one wonder how much those in charge really understand or care.
The unpleasant spectacle of the superintendent’s side battle with the chair of the Regional School Committee represents a third distressing pattern that reinforces the impression that more attention is given to fighting for power than to meeting the needs of children and families. One can sympathize with the challenge faced by administrators faced with criticisms in the press and unable to respond fully, yet still condemn the aggressive, bombastic, insulting, and threatening language used by the superintendent’s attorney — the second she has brought in.
That approach seems designed to obstruct reasonable questions such as: Why shouldn’t the public question the banning of a parent from community buildings that we fund? Is it appropriate to silence an elected official based on who his child plays with? And, what do recurrent public quarrels between the superintendent and members of the board elected to supervise her say about the quality of school leadership?
Jim Oldham is a Town Meeting member from Precinct 5.