Pelikan / June 8, 2010 rev.

The June 7th Plain Dealer editorial (Cleveland Teachers Union must bend on seniority) is short sighted.

As a private sector for profit business the Plain Dealer has an interest in labor management issues and there is no begrudging its employees in articulating those cultural and economic values. And as seen in the June 3rd full page Plain Dealer ad sponsored by Cleveland business leaders, there are segments of the public who are believers in the CMSD plan, including a changed role for teachers.

When considered as an institution of the community, employing professional journalist, the public is correct expecting more than it would of a for-profit business. In particular we would expect a scope and frame of reference that is comprehensive, long-term, and balanced.

What is the imbalance in the Plain Dealer coverage of public education in its market?

For someone coming from a community perspective, the four part series preceding the June 7th Editorial was one of the more difficult education stories to put in context.

However when the Editorial states, “one of the country's most restrictive big-city teacher contracts”, it gives the series a context; and, in resolving that difficulty, suggests what many see as more significant in the Cleveland campaign to reform public education.

Why is so much of what is decided in Cleveland brought about by means similar to what we see associated with this editorial, the business ad, the series, CEO, and his new plan? Why does the Cleveland way of deciding always come down to the preferences of power? Why is our capacity to bridge power and community so undeveloped?

In the case of the editorial the imbalance reflects the internal culture of a for-profit press with a focus on self-promotion and selling a product to us as consumers.  The editorial push for results comes with a narrowing of focus and a targeted argumentation. It is selling, not informing.

The June 7th argument however, deals with only one part of the story, a single set of variables, and is sufficiently short sighted and simplistic to give the appearance of insight into the whole matter at hand.

The simplified editorial view of organization isn’t what we find in reality. Organizations are by definition complex entities set up to achieve functions of coordination in volatile environments. And it is the inter-action of the complex parts, each with its own contribution of flaws that has sustained the system we have today and likely to sustain it under the plan into the future. 

The outcomes of organizations are more than the inputs of its labor force.  Other factors in particular the inputs of management and governance need to be understood. 

Neither has the Plain Dealer nor the District been informative on the status of these other inputs in the same manner as they have targeted the teachers.  Nearly two years ago there was a recommendation by the Governor and later a CMSD Board vote for a study of the District administration. What is known of this today?

If the editorial scope included these matters in the same manner as it did the union, there might be an argument for those demanding that teachers trust that if they just bend, they will be treated fairly and real change will occur in the District.  

As a city resident and member of the Cleveland Education Committee I have closely followed this story. It includes an on-going and under-acknowledged Cleveland narrative, in which a few drive for change that rightly belongs to many more, doing it in a way so as to, at least in passing, acknowledge the legitimacy of the larger public.

The context that the editorial reflects is the one preferred by the few driving this change. While this is endorsed by many others in our region, it is particularly articulated by hundred year plus Cleveland tradition called “public-private partnership.”

Under this banner a few well placed individuals work not from a community perspective but from the context of political-economic power in Cleveland. Let me be clear that this context and perspective has much to offer, has value, and shouldn’t be labeled as the inherently wrong.

It should however be open to the same change it asks of others, it should be open to the value brought to problem solving from other public segments, and it should practice some humility.

As Clevelanders heard the announcement that Barbara Byrd Bennett was leaving her post, there began the search for a new CEO of CMSD. Consultants hired, preparation begun, the community called into the process. What did we in the community see and think important was the question asked at the sessions such as the one I attended at the Lutheran Church on Lorain near West 130th Street.

At that community involvement session over five years ago, the seeds of the division were already at work.  The perspectives of power and of community were both visible. Power called the meeting and decided the outcome. Community came to speak and to be heard. Especially in Cleveland’s context today, we should take great care not to dismiss any assets in our city, no matter how small they might appear. This wasn’t what occurred.

Whenever issues about the relation of the CMSD to the public (parents, students, community) were brought up as a major concern, those in charge would say “you mean we need better or more public relations.” The answer from the participants was “no, you need to be open to community participation.” At the end of the day, the deciders choose what they heard.

Public Relation is part of the political and economic power world. Its goal is to sell the product to consumers and leaves the consumer largely product of a script and hardly recognized outside of that script. Keeping a positive image of the powerful is central.

Community Participation assumes the capacity to listen to others’ perspective, especially those different from our own. It is an inclusive capacity built on an understanding of shared authority and responsibility. Unlike the consumer role the participant role is one of a person as a whole, as agent in what affects their family and place of residence.

Only one of these appears to be part of Cleveland’s civic DNA. As long as we decide in the same way we always have decided, we will get the results we always have.