SCHOOL BOARD SHOULD GET ITS OWN HOUSE IN ORDER

The Cape Girardeau Board of Education faces some extraordinary problems. The district's newest school building was constructed 27 years ago. The last three school tax measures put before voters were defeated. The board must soon brave an elementary school redistricting process that is sure to rankle many in the community. And at a time when the district needs community support more than ever to face these challenges, confidence in the school board and administration rests at a low level. Before any of these matters can be addressed, at least in a manner where community acceptance might be expected, the board must get its own house in order and determine whether leadership is present to overcome current problems.

While it would not serve anyone to underestimate the gravity of the recent commencement controversy, as some members of the school board did, the incident remains for us merely a galvanizing episode in what is a larger matter: public distrust of the school district. Certainly, the swift and vehement reaction to the commencement decision does not smack of a community willing to give the board and administration the benefit of a doubt. Where consensus should be in place, people of the district instead feel anger and alienation.

Whether the policy at issue (allowing seniors a credit or so short of graduation to participate in commencement) would stand up in the cool light of deliberation remains beside the point. Demonstrated by the board and administration was a willingness to act without much thought (and without public input) on a matter that was clearly of great importance to educators and residents of the district. Does this inspire anyone to turn over more tax dollars? We don't think so. And while denials abound concerning charges that favoritism was shown to a senior with ties to the school superintendent and a board member, this impression will be difficult to dispel. It remains a safe bet that any effort to put a school tax measure on the ballot soon will be met with community disfavor.

We question whether the lines of authority are clearly drawn and understood within the ranks of school district leadership. For example, we call into question a May 31 meeting in which the commencement policy was discussed. School Board President Ed Thompson, Superintendent Neyland Clark, Principal Dan Milligan and Director of Secondary Education James Englehart attended. In Mr. Thompson's words, Superintendent Clark "wished there was something we could do to help this kid out." Our concern is not only why one student's case was given such attention by four high-level school officials when other students were in the same situation, but why a school board member was even present in a meeting where a student's academic progress was being discussed.

These are the words of Superintendent Clark, who spoke to the public March 13, 1991, when he was interviewing for the position here: "The school board is the governing body. Their job is to set policy. They also have every right to come back and question if the spirit and intent of their policies are being met. But that's where it stops." We contend, and Superintendent Clark's words seem to support us, that school board members are charged with setting policy and not functioning in the day-to-day operations of the district ... and certainly not in participating at meetings where the needs of one student are discussed.

We question Superintendent Clark's handling of a letter submitted to him by a parent of a student who also happens to be a secretary at the high school. The letter took an opposite view from the superintendent's on the commencement issue, and in a subsequent meeting with Dr. Clark Monday morning, the secretary felt that her job was put in jeopardy by stating her opinion. Superintendent Clark said that was not the case, insisting a series of meetings with high school secretaries was meant to improve communications.

We bristle at the idea that genuine concerns expressed about school policy would pose a threat to a school employee's job. Even if that was not the case here, however, the management model seems amiss. Why call high school secretaries into a meeting with the superintendent concerning job expectations when within two months those employees will have new three new supervisors, a principal and two assistant principals? Beyond this, the secretary's letter was addressed to Superintendent Clark with the expressed wish that it be passed along to the school board. As of Monday night, when the board met and discussed the commencement controversy, Mr. Thompson admitted he had not seen the letter. Why is the board not furious about not getting access to these views?

Ask those who were directors of the former First Exchange Corp. what happens when a board remains silent and willingly stays in the dark. Members of the school board suggested this newspaper has been too aggressive in pursuing the commencement controversy. In fact, this newspaper has been asking question school board members themselves should be asking.

Finally, we see as ham-handed the entire approach taken in changing the commencement policy. Mr. Thompson said six of seven school board members were polled by telephone in gaining a consensus on the change. His quote: "It was a decision of the board." In fact, the board can not make decisions by telephone without public access to the process; it is a violation of the state Open Meetings Law. We accept that the decision was issued as an administrative directive by a superintendent who asked the high school principal to "work some magic" for a student ineligible to participate in commencement under the previous rules.

Superintendent Clark told this newspaper that he believes this controversy arose because he is "an educator, not a politician." Yet, the most unrelenting of the critics of the commencement change are teachers who feel the educational standards of the district were compromised. Their voices must be heard in making a long-range policy decision on this issue. Again, the words of Superintendent Clark on the day he interviewed for the job are instructive. He said, "I hope to have a chemistry -- your ideas are my ideas. I'm not selling my ideas. We'll be selling our ideas. ... If what the community wants is not conducive to my philosophy, then I have to leave."

Recent news stories suggest that consensus and public responsiveness are not bygone virtues. The Southeast Missouri State University Foundation last week backed away from a plan to buy and raze a house near campus when men interested in historic preservation stepped in to restore it. Gov. Mel Carnahan reversed his field this month when the public reacted negatively to his plans for settling a loan to two symphony orchestras. And the local hospitals, often at odds on matters of development, chose a partnership last week that will supply a push toward managed care. In these matters of flexibility by public entities, the school board should take note.

As a newspaper that has supported the last three tax issues meant to improve local public schools, and many before that, we join the disillusioned. Our desire is to see the public schools in Cape Girardeau move forward. Quite clearly, they are not. We see an embattled superintendent and an ineffectual school board. A leadership vacuum has settled in. Until this is corrected, none of the district's problems will be solved.