Conservative School Board Majority Proposes Changes

As part of a sweeping policy review, the county Board of Education’s conservative majority Thursday proposed changes to areas ranging from AIDS-prevention workshops to how to notify parents of their rights.

The three-member majority, which has clashed with county schools Supt. Charles Weis on issues ranging from AIDS education for teachers to federal grant applications, decided to update board policy last year.

But critics of the conservative majority say the review--which so far has cost the board nearly $15,000 in fees to lawyers hired to draft policy revisions--was actually commissioned to find ways to scale back the superintendent’s power.

A committee including Weis, the five board members, attorneys and county school employees met for the second time Thursday to talk about proposed changes that include modifying the way the superintendent of schools’ office gets permission from parents to teach HIV / AIDS prevention.

Wendy Larner, a conservative board member, requested that the policy be changed so that parents of about 1,200 students who attend the county’s special education programs and school for incarcerated juveniles notify officials if they want their children to attend the workshops.

The policy now calls for including students in the sessions unless parents decide to take them out.

But Weis called Larner’s proposal unnecessary, saying county school officials verbally notify parents that children in special education or Juvenile Hall receive sex education or HIV / AIDS prevention information.

“This is really not a problem for us,” Weis said.

Larner also wanted to include a discussion of what segments of the population are most likely to contract HIV.

Another proposed change involved transferring responsibility for notifying guardians and parents about their rights and responsibilities from the county superintendent’s office to the board.

But John McGarry, one of two board members critical of the review process, blasted that suggestion.

“It is not our board’s responsibility to tell administrators what to do,” McGarry said.

The debate over policy centers around control of the $39-million office of county schools, which performs a variety of administrative functions for the county’s 21 school districts. The office also runs schools for incarcerated youths and special education students, and programs for troubled teens.

Weis said the board should have authority mainly in two areas: helping to negotiate disagreements between parents and local school districts, and providing guidance for the county’s special education, vocational and incarcerated youth programs.

“It is not the county board’s function to oversee all the school districts in the county,” Weis said.

But board President Marty Bates said the panel should have more control over the county superintendent.

“The people elected five representatives to oversee the administration of this office,” Bates said. “I am not saying the board should administer, but I think we should have more oversight.”

Weis said he views the policy review as an effort by the board’s majority to restrict his authority because Larner, Bates and board member Angela Miller often disagree with his position on issues. But Weis said that because he, like the board, is elected, he must listen to parents and school districts before he implements any policy.

“I think that elected county superintendents have a large area of responsibility and that they are charged directly by the people through the electoral process to do their job,” Weis said. “The county board is not appointed to oversee or monitor the superintendent’s work.”

Members of the board’s conservative majority say they are not trying to become administrators but are merely trying to establish clear policies.

“The superintendent is jealously guarding complete autonomy,” Larner said.

McGarry and board member Al Rosen disagree, criticizing the majority’s effort to increase the board’s authority. They said a panel that essentially meets once a month should only provide broad direction.

“My whole feeling on this is that the board has no purpose in trying to micro-manage what a superintendent was elected to do,” McGarry said.

The board is expected to further discuss the proposals when it meets again July 29.