Brendan P. Walsh

I intend to write more fully about the Board of Education’s rejection Monday of hosting Head Start program at Poupard. One issue, however, that I wanted to address quickly is the explanation offered by at least two of the four trustees (Cindy Pangborn, Joan Dindoffer, Tom Jakubiec, and John Steininger) who voted to reject it.

Their excuse centers aound policy and they claim that policy does not allow for such use of school facilities during school hours, or some such variation Let’s disregard for the moment that Head Start is a federal educational program. Let’s disregard that the state department of education endorses Head Start as one of the most effective and proven programmatic offerings of its kind.

“Policy,” used in this context, is actually a shortening of the more apt term “Board policy.” The implication? You got it. The Board actually makes and adopts policy! So if the excuse of these Board members is, “our policy won’t allow us” ask them next, “So if you really support the program, change the policy.”

But has anyone asked what specific policy these Board members are citing? Noticeably absent in this excuse is the actual policy name and language itself.

Board policies are available online at www.gpschools.org. In reviewing them again, the closest policy I can find is policy number 7510 that in and of itself would not preclude the use of one of our schools for Head Start.

However, the language apparently leveraged to support those trustees’ rejection must be based on the associated Administrative Guideline to 7510. Here’s the distinction. The policy represents the will of the Board. The Administrative Guidelines, which are not even approved by the Board, represent the administration’s guidelines to support the policy.

In the case of Head Start, the administration clearly endorsed its adoption and therefore must not have found the program to contradict their guidelines. Even if they did, a simple change to the guidelines is even more easily accomplished than a change of policy, which requires Board approval.

But did any of trustees who rejected Head Start ask the administration this question? No. Instead they are misleading the public by calling it an abrogation of policy when they have not remotely proven that it is. And again, even if it were, it is within their purview to amend the policy should they- like the majority of the community – agree with the administration that Head Start would enhance the educational experience of students who need the most help.