Lebanon Rumors

Been hearing a few interesting things today....

For example, that the account given by LT as to how the newspaper knew about the complaint filed with the district? I've been told that's false - though since I've also been told it's true, both claims having been made by trustworthy sources, I'm withholding judgment.

Next, I've heard that there is more to the complaint filed with the district than the Lebanon Express story lets on. While the Express story relates Fandiño's claims of libelous statements being made on the LT blog (an issue that I have no stance on at the moment) and notes how that has been passed to the school board, I have been told that there was element to the complaint that referenced the LCSD's cyberbullying policy - basically, a claim that the writing of LT consitutes cyberbullying by existing district standards. I find that really interesting, since a) I had always assumed cyberbullying was done mostly by students (a terrible assumption, to be sure) and b), because I'm not at all sure if I think the statements made on the LT blog constitute cyberbullying. I just don't know much about it at this point. Furthermore, since this is a relatively new issue nationally, I'm sure it's relatively new to the district, which suggests that district policies that exist surrounding it have yet to really be tested... and I don't really want to see Josh and Rick doing the testing.

But the point is this: Nowhere in the Express story is the cyberbullying angle noted. Furthermore, that part of the complaint - if my information is true - is squarely directed at existing school district policy, which suggests that perhaps it should be dealt with in the Superintendent's Office or at least in the District Office and not at a School Board meeting. I wonder if all parts of the complaint have been passed to the board, or just the part dealing with Fandiño's claims of libel? If not, is Robinson dealing with the cyberbullying stuff? Should he be? Is it his place, or the board's place?

In any case, I also want to take this chance to ask a few more questions about the idea that blogger LT needs to be outed.

Fandiño has said that she wants the attacks to stop. Regardless of one's stance on whether or not what LT writes are 'attacks', let's take Kim's claim at face value.

Well, let's back up a step before that, even. What are the desirable outcomes to the filing of the complaint? (Obviously, different people are going to desire different outcomes.) What are the potential outcomes?

We know Fandiño's stated outcome; it was in the newspaper. Is that the same as her desired outcome? I suspect - but have no proof for - that Fandiño wants LT outed because Fandiño thinks LT is a teacher, and outing her will both end her blogging and let Fandiño exert some pressure on her.

Here's why I say this: If Fandiño wants the attacks to stop, is it possible to do so without outing LT? I think it is, depending on how the complaint is handled and who says what to whom. I value free speech fairly highly, and I think anonymous free speech is, for me at least (and my opinion may not be in line with legal interpretations), included in that category. Therefore, my desired outcome will leave the anonymity of LT intact (since their power to speak as they see fit partially derives from their anonymity). So, in my mind, if Fandiño and LT could find some common ground when it comes to what constitutes an attack and what constitutes libel - if they could talk, and I've not heard an account of them doing so (correct me if I'm wrong) - then maybe the complaint and the whole process could be avoided, and instead two folks who don't seem to get along could maybe start building a relationship based on communication and trust, even though they both know they disagree on many issues.

For me, it comes back to process and honest communication.

Lebanon, Robinson, Investigation, etc. etc.

I was going to address this in comments, but I decided to write up one post both to simplify and because posts are more visible than comments.

First, I want to address the comment that Anonymous left on my post regarding the latest school board meeting. Frankly, I think the comment conflates several things that I want to try and unpack. Anonymous says:

There are many issues involve here that you had failed to identify. The purpose of this investigation is a witch hunt and based on rumors. If a governing board investigate all the rumors that swirls around faster than the speed of light then the function of that governing board is no more than a rumor control board.

I agree that an investigation as conceived by Rick and Josh "is a witch hunt and based on rumors." That seems pretty obvious. I think Shimmin is more genuinely concerned and less likely to see the removal of Robinson as a goal (which is clearly what Rick wants, as he's been throwing anything he can think of to the wall and checking for what sticks in an admirably single-minded fashion). I'm not arguing that point. But it seems to me that we can ignore the garbage being spewed by Rick and still find that there is something going on - it's not one or the other.

Second the board can be legally responsible for the heading of the investigation. An investigation is first put in place if there is an allegations of a criminal misconduct which none had occured. The dissatification between management and employee relationship does not raise it to the level where money are spend to investigate such issue. NOTE: Employees will never be happy with management especially if the union is involve.

This is just disingenuous, to suggest that nothing should be done in this case because "employees will never be happy with management especially if the union is involve." To me, I hear the commenter suggesting that the whole thing is just complaining on the part of teachers and staff. That kind of arrogant dismissal of what appears to be genuine hurt is a mistake. It serves as a refusal to legitimate the position of folks who are actually hurt and upset by this, and if there's one thing that folks working in a school district should know, it's that refusing to legitimate someone will cause them to shut down and/or become even more upset. I think a far better solution here is to take folks seriously and then prove there is no basis for their complaint. This requires actually doing some work in actually talking to folks and taking ideas seriously that you may not agree with, and I understand that it's far easier just to snipe at people and refuse to really listen, but doing so just breeds more anger and frustration, and that's what we're trying to avoid, remember? Telling folks to metaphorically "suck it up" because you think they're wrong is incredibly dumb.

Moving on to the rest of Anonymous' comment:

Third, the investigation can not be used for evaluating the superintendent. I suggest that YOU do your homework and read the contract first then the School Board policy before you wade into this muddy puddle. From the School Board policy and the Superintendent's contract. I suggest that RW should read board policy CBA and Superintendent's contract provision number 4.

I don't recall ever suggesting that this be used for an evaluation. Robinson is certainly right on that - there is an established process, and that's fine.

Fourth how will this investigation move the district forward? Debbie said this will be good for forming future goals for the board. How can you form goals for the future from investigating these issues? Running a school district is more complicated than writing an un-inform piece of article.

How will this move the district forward? I think I covered that in my original post: Lots of folks will not be happy without some resolution to their existing grievances. That's how.

Debbie, Rick and Josh have never read the board policies at least completely. The policies are there as laws to govern this school district. If they do not know the policies, how can they govern? Its like hand picking a bum off the street to become a judge to interpert the law. I can think of many examples to illustrate my point.

I have no doubt that Rick and Josh have not read the entirety of the board policies. Shimmin (whose first name is spelled Debi, by the way) will get there, I think, even if she hasn't yet. Furthermore, I don't think the positions taken by Rick and Josh on the relevant issues really have the best interest of the school district in mind, and I certainly think that Rick Alexander is simply unfit to be on the board; he's shown no ability in public to deliberate or work well (or at all) with other people, especially if they disagree with him.

I want to be clear on this, because it sounds like Anonymous is suggesting that I am defending Rick, and that's not the case. Thus far, it's never been the case, and I can't see a point in the future when it will be the case.

So if you want to know the truth why there is so much disfuntion on the board? There is your anwser. Lack of knowledge and vision.

Lack of knowledge - sure. Lack of vision? I don't think anyone on the board lacks vision. I just think that the members have varying visions that they've had real trouble articulating, partially because it can be a difficult thing to do and partially because the way they understand politics suggests that they think being honest about what you want means you're less likely to get it. (And in the case of Rick and his desire to get rid of Robinson, he's right, since he has no rational basis for the claim.) In other words, there is not enough trust between the board members that they can be honest with each other about their positions on board issues. This is a bad thing.

Moving on, Lebanon Truth did a short post as a response to mine, and it seems I was not as articulate as I needed to be. LT says:

LT thinks that Robinson would be comfortable with a reasonable independent investigation that is consistent with the terms of his contract. That means the investigation should be focused, limited, and unbiased.
RW needs to go back to a school board meeting, to see how Rick, Josh, and Debi are unable to articulate a clear plan for the investigation.

To be clear (and this may be slightly repetitive in regards to the earlier part of the post): I don't think any investigation or evaluation or much of any process whatsoever that involves Rick Alexander is going to be reasonable. I have seen no evidence that he's capable of conducting politics in an open and public manner. Plus, if his goal is really to get rid of Robinson, and he won't come out and say it, there's no way the current process will really get anywhere - he's just going to try and dance around the issue as long as possible, but it's long been obvious his rhetorical and political skills are nowhere near as good as they need to be for him to pull this off in public (besides that, I get the sense he hates the light). And as long as Josh is following Rick, Josh can't articulate what he wants either.

I guess I had assumed that it was obvious based on my previous comments that Rick is functionally incompetent when it comes to being a member of a deliberative body.

I should maybe phrase it this way, then: While I think that resolving some of the existing and long-standing grievances against Robinson is necessary for the district to begin the process of moving forward (whatever that entails), I don't think Rick or Josh are capable of or interested in working towards a resolution of those grievances. As long as they are driving the process, it will be inarticulate and dysfunctional.

It represents a real dilemma, however: If Rick and possibly Josh refuse to really participate in a meaningful way (to make a good faith effort, in other words), is it ethical to ignore them and move on without them? They are elected board members, after all. Sprenger seems to think it's not, and ultimately, I agree with her.

More Tools for Communication That Might Apply to Lebanon

I dug some handouts out of a binder from a training I attended once - and I still think they are some of the best concepts around to start to understand how our own communications styles and how they effect other people. I'd like to try and explain the two main concepts contained in said handouts in this post - but beware, this is first in terms of format for me, so I'm not sure how this is going to turn out. Plus, it turns out I'm a really bad lecturer in all formats.

I should give credit to Eric H.F. Law, who I believe was the originator of these. Also, much of the language is taken directly from the handout with little to no modification.

Concept #1: Power Distance Communication.

These can be separated into High and Low Power Distance, but I should note that they are a continuum rather than two discrete forms. Also, it should be noted up front that one person is not bound to one particular style, but can both change over time and change depending on the situation.

High Power Distance: Individuals who view the world with a high power distance believe that there is inequality in the world and accept that as a fact of life. Signs of high power distance may include (1) a lower trust level, (2) higher levels of desired protocol, (3) a desire to figure out the role of everyone in the room before participating, and (4) a need for more context before action can be taken.

How HPD can play out: People who are high power may have to work harder at building a safe environment (which is necessary for open and honest communication); they may be happier if they are together rather than interspersed with low power distance folks, at least at first. High power folks are more likely to be concerned with "what's in it for them." High power people have little tolerance for folks who think everyone in the room is equal. Finally, since lower power distance folks think of low-level high power folks as weak, said low-level folks may get run over quite a bit initially.

By the way, these attributes are generally understood as applying to group work, the workplace, etc - how folks interact with each other in social situations. In this case, think of a school board working group, a staff meeting at the district office, or even a teacher's meeting in one of the academies are Lebanon High School.

Low Power Distance: These folks believe that power is shared by many and high power people are either elitist (if they are at the top) or weak (if they are at the bottom). Lower Power Distance people may (1) downplay the importance of hierarchy, (2) have a low level of protocol, (3) feel that people should try to look less powerful than they are, and/or (4) feel that people can also gain power through education.

How LPD can play out: LPD folks may simply speak out rather than raise their hands or follow other protocols designed to maintain or maximize order; this may result in their dominating discussions. If a discussion enters the realm of difference, low power folks may show disdain for comments that either valorize the rich or anyone else at the top of a hierarchy.

Examples of these: I would think that something like a law office would be very high power distance, as it contains lots of hierarchy. Certainly military training can create situations that are VERY high power distance, with strict protocols surrounding peoples' roles and who can say what, and when, and to whom. I would think coaches also often follow a high power distance model, with an insistence on everyone knowing the ropes and rules, especially those governing who is in charge (always the coach).

Now contrast that with a group of teachers that get together for lunch every day. Yes, they are aware that some of them have more seniority than others, but by and large, the potential exists for the space created to be one in which everyone is treated as an equal, and formal rules governing the group can be tossed in favor of informal (and sometimes assumed) rules.

I don't mean to imply, however, that something we might normally think of as high power distance can't be low power distance. A staff meeting with teachers, administrators, and district office officials present can turn out to be a very low power distance affair.

And, of course, I should note again that these are concepts that generally apply to people's perspectives; as a result, you might find yourself in a group made up of folks who are all over the continuum and have very different ideas about how the group should or does work. How those perspective mesh, conflict, and play out is often very different, even with the same group meeting multiple times. The point is simply to be aware that different people view the protocols and practices of communication differently, and moreover, that these views can change over time and in different contexts. As a result, I think it's important to pay attention to where you are at on the Power Distance continuum as well as where others appear to be at. It can prevent folks from talking past each other, or getting embroiled in disagreements about how to communicate rather than what information needs to be communicated.

Concept #2: High & Low Context Communications

This concept goes really well, I think, with the first. Context Communications is, essentially, being aware of how much context is transmitted between people along with the information that's going back and forth.

High Context Communicators: When people communicate, most of the information is either in the physical context (body language) or internalized in the person. Therefore, implicit messages are critical. High context people may struggle initially in a new setting as they have to reorient themselves within the new shared context.

How this can play out: A high context communicator might feel the need to speak uninterrupted to get their point across; this may take some time, making others impatient. They may also need more extensive directions put in a context they can work with.

Low Context Communicators: These are pretty common in U.S. society. The low context individual values the explicit codes and pays less attention to the information embedded in messages. They will often need little contexting time; they feel that they can confront new situations with requiring a great amount of time and detailed programming; finally, they may have difficulty functioning in a high-context environment where contexts are constantly in play, since low context folks often are often unaware of their internal context.

How this plays out: Basically, low context folks just want the answer (think more "yes/no" than the "why"). They don't want all the context, which they often perceive as extraneous or wasteful.

When I was introduced to this concept, I was asked to envision a tower. At top of the tower is the piece or pieces of information that need to be communicated between people. The rest of the tower, the foundation, the framework, all the floors up to the top - those are the context that is needed for the information to make sense. A high context person will often feel the need to communicate the entire tower from the bottom up before communicating the information itself. The tower is the contextual information that is perceived as required for the desired piece of information to make sense. If the person listening interrupts, this can be perceived as a need to build a bigger tower - to include more contextualizing information along with the desired information, because it suggests to the high context person that the questioner didn't really understand what was going on.

Needless to say, this can be infuriating for low context folks who just want a 'yes' or 'no' or other short answer.

The way I understand it, low context folks tend to assume the shared context, the tower, between people or groups. As a result, low contexters tend to view all the other communication, the tower-building, as a repetitive waste of time.

It was mentioned above that many folks in the U.S. are low context. I would argue (and it's here that I out myself as preferring high context) that what this indicates is that folks in the U.S. feel like they have a shared context in which to understand and master new information. Personally, I consider this a bad assumption in any group, much less larger groups that may contain people from significantly different backgrounds.

In fact, when wedded with power, I consider low context communications to be one way in which things like white or male privilege are manifested and transmitted: People of color and white women are expected to share the context created by the privileged white male while not being allowed to change or modify the "shared" context at all. Then the "shared" context is considered universal. It can work this way when any kind of power differential between individuals or groups is present, even if all the folks present are, say, white guys - there are certainly other axes along which power is transmitted.

Again, as with the power distance concept, the context communications concept is something that both exists on a continuum and is very mutable and flexible. One person can change over time in the way they communicate, and they can also change depending on the situation they are in. For example, a group of really close-knit friends or coworkers may have developed a shared context around certain subjects over time, allowing their communication to be successfully low context. On the other hand, some of those same folks may adopt a high-context attitude with their students, or in larger staff meetings. Similarly, groups of professional and classified education staff may have their own shared context - but it's important to remember that the context-building in this case needs to be a self-aware and self-conscious process; otherwise, it's easy to get back to that point where a shared context is assumed, and that becomes a barrier to communication.

Concluding Thoughts

I think both of these concepts have a lot of potential when it comes to Lebanon and the problems that have plagued it over the last decade. Certainly there are genuine differences of opinion when it comes to pedagogy and education policy, but (and this is especially true of the last several months) those differences hardly ever get really aired, since communication is, I think, so incredibly poor between folks right now.

Sitting down and thinking, as an individual, about where one falls on these continuums, especially in what contexts, and even thinking about where you think other people fall, is also a good first step to learning how to communicate with one's coworkers and other educational staff more effectively. I know that folks often want to resist doing the internal and introspective work that I'm suggesting, but I cannot express how important that work is: One cannot make others change. One can only change oneself and try and support others as they do the same.

Lebanon Truth wrote a post in which they criticized Rick Alexander (rightly, I think) for not being willing to sit down and read a book on how to be a better school board. While I think the choice of book is hilariously (and seriously) appropriate, I would argue that in addition, what is important for the currently disparate and contentious group of five individuals that are trying to oversee the LCSD is that they take the time outside of board meetings and working groups to get to know each other as people and develop some sort of shared context, some common ground (and maybe some shared values), which they can use as a basis for their work in the future. I have the feeling that Rick Alexander has no intention of doing something like that, as it would require him to actually a) learn about the rest of the board, and b) open himself up to them. But relating to other human beings on a personal level is, I think, a prerequisite for being effective in a work-related situation.