Lebanon's October 15th Board Meeting & The Potential Review

From the Lebanon Express account, it sounds like the review is dying a relatively quick and painful death.

More specifically, it sounds like Robinson is doing his best, with prejudice, to kill said review. I'm not surprised, but I cannot stress enough how counterproductive and short-sighted I think this is.

Bluntly, I don't see the core of the anti-Robinson contingent coming around based on his future management style, even if he's as soft and gentle as a kitten. It's not happening. What might split the contingent and start resolving the underlying conflict - maybe - is for some of their grievances to be addressed to their satisfaction. (Note: This does not require getting rid of Robinson.)

Robinson, however, seems to be doing his best to stifle any sort of inquiry that might stand a chance of placating folks. To me, this is indicative of the 'old' Robinson, the one who might be conflating "leadership" with "absolute power." It therefore suggests that he's not really learned what he seems to need to learn, which is to compromise - or, to be a little evil - to at least appear to compromise. He's not even doing that.

The result, I think, is that those folks that bear grudges against Robinson are not going to let them go anytime soon. They are not even going to start letting them go. Robinson's refusal to address the perceived mistakes - whether or not the mistakes are real or not - is probably going to a fairly significant issue.

Unless, of course, Robinson plans to literally outlast the entire anti-Robinson contingent and hire only folks who like him, in which case this is the best move possible.

No, the preceding paragraph is not serious. In fact, it's an idiotic and impossible idea - but it makes the most sense (which is to say, still none) if we grant that Robinson appears to be a fairly intelligent human being.

The only other thing I wanted to address from the story is this quote by Debi Shimmin:

Board member Debi Shimmin made it clear she she wants an independent review to move forward.

“When I made the motion to bring Jim back I told the community we would do this review,” she said. “My credibility is on the line.”

This is absolutely true, especially among the folks who supported her vote to suspend Robinson.

It is also absolutely stupid, politically, to say it. Note: I did not say that Shimmin was stupid. I said that publicly admitting her actions are tied to how she perceives her credibility is stupid.

It's stupid, by the way, because it suggests she is beholden to the will of the community and not her conscience or what she believes is the best course of action for the district (and in this case, it undermines her stated belief that a review is necessary on the merits of the case). It's also very, very bad politics, even if it's true. I'd much rather the basis of my disagreement with someone be their principled, thoughtfully considered political position than the fact that they make decisions based on pleasing one group of constituents. (And I know exactly how naive this sounds; I'm saying this is what should be, not what is. I have no illusions about how politics works - but I do dream of a better world.)

By the way, what do I think are the reasons there should be a review of Robinson at all? Well, as best as I can tell, there are three things.

1. Special Education - both the fact that I've been told multiple times that kids in special education classes are being forced to take standardized tests as if they were fully-abled students and the fact that for some reason (possibly related) three of the four special ed teachers at LHS resigned in one year, writing a letter to the superintendent or district as to why. I've not read the letter, but that behavior is a giant damn red flag, or at least it should be. Oh, and also the fact that I've seen kids who are developmentally disabled placed in the same classes as kids who seem to be pushed into special education classes on the basis of behavioral problems. This is a terrible, terrible idea that I've only seen hurt everyone - behavior kids because being in such a class suggests that their academic chops are being called into question, and developmentally disabled kids because the behavior kids take out their anger and frustration on everyone in sight, which hurts the possibility of a learning environment.

2. Punitive personnel transfers. I've not seen any concrete evidence, but this sort of claim is incredibly hard to prove without an organized investigation since it often relies on pulling together a very disparate set of evidence. However, I know that at least in the high school the turnover rate seems incredibly high. Also, former teachers have corroborated this point with me.

3. Robinson's management style/the anger of teachers. This is the most vague of the three, but as I have said before, there is no freakin' way so many teachers get so angry for so long without some basis for their anger. What that basis is is as of yet unknown to me, at least concretely. I can guess at it, but it seems worth looking into.

I want to address one point of contention: That I believe an independent review is necessary (as opposed to an in-house review).

First, cost: Bite the bullet. Pay for it. Get your money's worth - no open-ended review, shop around, etc. - but I simply think that doing it trumps the money argument.

Second, the political argument: No one who believes in the need for a review is going to be satisfied with an in-house thing. They will not think it's credible, because they don't perceive Robinson or anyone on his staff or his side as credible. An external review that validates him is something Robinson can point to and use as a political weapon, as distasteful as that might be.

Third, on merit: As mentioned, Robinson's credibility is an issue with lots of folks. Why is this a merit argument and not a political argument? Simple - because the people who Robinson lacks credibility with are teachers and staff members within the district, and it is absolutely necessary that Robinson be a credible leader for them if the district is going to do anything but resemble a disaster. Yes, said staff and teachers have a responsibility to work toward reconciliation and trust as well (for example, buying into the results of a review or maybe into a new program that Robinson develops), but Robinson needs to lift a damn finger when it comes to attempting to regain his credibility through being willing to compromise, and I don't see him doing it. An external review that validates Robinson should be evidence that he is acting properly, and at that point, if his critics are still shouting, they stand to lose what credibility they have left.

I get that it's easy to see this as a waste of time and money, and to think that Robinson's critics are power-hungry and not all that bright. However, that sort of dismissive view is both counterproductive and, I think, a product of some education-related class bias - and class bias trumps reason almost every time.