I am appalled and embarrassed by many of Piali De’s comments at the school budget discussions as reported in the Jan. 15 issue of the Press. And I find it regrettable that Chairman Keith Cheveralls allowed—even encouraged—one person to dominate much of the conversation and to make accusations and demands that I believe overstep the boundaries of her elected office. What sounds to me like a personal list of dictates, Cheveralls called a “dialogue,” and he deemed a wide range of structural demands, many of them unrelated to the budget, “incredibly helpful.” The professional manner in which the administrators answered De’s demands stands in marked contrast to her attack.
Many of De’s statements ring of arrogance and a lack of respect for boundaries. To claim that school administrators are “tone-deaf” to change is, to say the least, insulting, and it is presumptuous of De to suggest that the schools should immediately adopt her list of proposed changes. To call the efforts of bright, experienced, and dedicated professional educators “muck” is inexcusable. And it is overstepping her role to ask that administrators compile job descriptions and cost comparisons just on her say-so.
Some of De’s comments suggest a lack of understanding of the processes and priorities of public schools. Schools are not corporations, kids are not products, and cost is not always the bottom line. In the case of lunchroom supervision at the elementary school, De looks at the dollar figure and declares it too high. Sadly, she seems to care nothing about the story behind that figure, the lengthy deliberations by professionals which concluded that a better environment for kids is worth a slightly higher cost.
It seems clear from her remarks that De has a bias against the elementary school. Over the years administrators have worked hard to validate the equality of the elementary and secondary schools, and to have De create divisiveness is wrong. Without offering any rationale or evidence, De proclaims the elementary school “aides-heavy” and at the same time suggests Bromfield create a humanities department. Her pronouncements preclude collaboration.
I worry about the future leadership of our schools. What qualified, intelligent administrator would seek a job in Harvard, to be treated with such incivility?
Carlene Phillips
Oak Hill Road
