One of my surest measures of an business, organization or even a person for that matter is how willing they are to admit to and then to correct a mistake.
That's why this whole debate over where Michael Cuneo finishes his senior year is so troubling to me.
By my reading, the boy's father did the right thing. He called the school department before moving his family and asked the right question: Can my son, who has spent 11 years in Newburyport's public schools, finish his school career in Newburyport if we're forced to move out of town.
He says he was told yes, a response that no one has disputed as far as I can tell.
However, the answer was incorrect. Or at least fells far short of the truth.
This was mistake number one.
Upon meeting with the school committee, the Cuneos learned that their son couldn't finish without becoming a choice student. And, according to the administration, that process opened the schools up to risks they weren't willing to shoulder. So they turned the Cuneos away, even though the school department helped create this mess with incorrect information. Garry Cuneo says the family wouldn't have moved out of the city had they known Michael couldn't finish up his senior year at NHS.
Then, this week, just prior to the start of school, the committee members learned they could in fact allow the student to stay without playing the choice card. They evidently didn't know they had this power earlier in the summer when it could have been most helpful
This was mistake number two.
From my perspective the Cuneos did only one thing wrong: they trusted the response they were given from the school department. To me that seems like a far less egregious error than the two committed by the school department. In fact, it's not even fair to call it an error.
In my eyes, the mess falls entirely at the feet of the school department and committee. I know the committee is charged with representing the entire school system, not just one child. But the system failed here--not once, but twice--and the school committee needs to acknowledge the errors and to correct them.
--
Daily News article here.
12 comments:
"The school committee needs to acknowledge the errors and to correct them." Clearly, you don't have any experience with the school committee or school dept., or you wouldn't have written such a ridiculous thing. They NEVER admit to being wrong!
This is an example of a misnamed legal doctrine called "estoppel against the government."
You and I and others in the private sector are subject to a legal rule called estoppel. If we say that a person can do X, and we allow the person to do X, we are forbidden -- "estoppel" is a fancy word for "forbidden" -- from preventing the person from doing X.
The rule is based in fairness. If we tell our neighbor she can build a treehouse that overhangs our property, we're forbidden from revoking consent after the neighbor spends $800 in materials and time to build the (luxurious) treehouse.
The doctrine of "estoppel against the government" is misnamed because, in practice, the government is rarely estopped. A town can issue a permit for a treehouse, Suburban Dad can build the treehouse, all the neighborhood kids can play in the treehouse for months, and the town can change its mind, revoke the permit and order the treehouse dismantled.
The government can't be estopped. In consequence, you can't rely on what the government says.
Perhaps the Charter Revision Commission could explore making the town government play by the same rules as the private sector.
All that aside, I see this as an example of a more common principle: get it in writing. The Cuneos relied on the oral guidance of someone in the front office of the high school. On somethng like this, I would have goten something more official, and definitely in writing, like from the superintendent. (Apparently he was already allowing this on the sly.)
A good lesson for sure.
I keep seeing the stories about the father who pushed for the override and kept his son/daughter in NHS last year. Who is it? The paper named the Cuneos, but not the other family. Politics?
Getting it in writing doesn't matter if you're dealing with the government. The gov can say that the written permission was erroneously granted. If you've relied on the permission, too bad.
Not only can the government enforce its decisions by the threats of incarceration and deadly force, it doesn't have to keep its promises.
Another reason to keep government small, powerless and stingily budgeted....
I've asked myself the same question but for a different reason. If the kids had to be choiced into Port than they didn't live in town, so how does a non-porter get involved in city politics.
Warning: I'm just a blogger, not a reporter. I'm not all that eager to publish the names of the family, especially if I can't confirm it independently. And I really have no time or interest in doing that if you do know the kids, you don't need to tell me. I won't publish it.
I guess we should all have our notepad with us... and get everything in writing - because you never know.
The School Committee got it wrong Monday night. In the meeting, they focused on the process by which the Committee could implement MA General Law regarding the admission of a non-resident student. Members discussed certain considerations for a policy that would guide its implementation. Some members indicated that the Committee should proceed slowly to ensure the adequacy of the policy.
The entire issue was prompted by the Cuneo situation. However, I felt that there was too much emphasis on the policy development and too little on how to expedite his return to the Nbpt. school system. If the Committee was not there to directly address his situation, then there was not much need to discuss the particulars of a policy. Just say a subcommittee will develop a policy and will bring it to the floor for discussion some time in the future. Don't waste time in the meeting if you're not there to address the central issue. Hell, there was no awareness of the existence of the particular provision of MGL a week prior. The Committee should have met specifically focused on how to legally and expeditiously return Cuneo to the school system.
Kudos to the members of the public who spoke at the microphone. Particularly Tim Brennan. I think his concise, straightforward, and heartfelt plea to the Committee was influential in advancing the cause. The Committee essentially did what he suggested in crafting an authorization to enter into negotiations with Triton. Had he not spoken just prior to the end of public comment period, I'm not sure the crowd rumblings that resulted in the recess would have occurred. After the recess, B. Menin did the right thing in trying to craft language that authorized the committee chair to enter into negotiations with Triton.
Tom,
The family in question did live in Newburyport, but moved to Newbury in spring '08. That explains their involvement in school issues.
Clipper89 - you bet it's political that the family that got the preferential treatment isn't mentioned! A simple search of the Daily News archives will give you a list of the founding members of the Vote Yes group, and you can probably figure it out from there.
Thanks for being discrete anonymous.
I will, however, stand by my first amendement-hugging friends at the Daily News. I don't think they'd bow to political influences. I suspect two things happened.
Either, they don't have the names and didn't bother checking....
or
They do have the names but didn't see the need to print them. The Cuneos, after all, appeared before the School Committee and made their plea public.
The other family, however, didn't do anything to thrust themselves in the public spotlight. Should their kids really be identified? For what purpose, other than to satisfy our curiousity?
This is better than the New York Times Public Editor column.
Post a Comment