PAUSD Superintendent Dr. Don Austin must promote transparency with district policies and include students as an integral piece of the decision-making process
Written by Yoonseo Lee
We recognize that the superintendent needs to make tough decisions and that there will be varying opinions on many issues. However, there are certain behaviors expected of a superintendent that we cannot compromise … Superintendent Austin has, in our opinion, repeatedly fallen short on all of these fronts.” In June, over 590 students, teachers and community members signed an open letter to express their disapproval toward the PAUSD Board of Education’s decision to renew Superintendent Dr. Don Austin’s contract to June 2027. The Board deemed his time in office as “satisfactory” in accordance with the PAUSD Promise, a goal Austin introduced back in 2019. The signees, however, disagreed with this assessment, claiming that Austin had failed to be transparent and show how he was incorporating public input into his decision-making. They also held him responsible for heightened community conflicts surrounding issues such as special education programs, math placement policies and staff safety related to student behavioral interventions. Since concerns expressed by community members remain unresolved, Austin must prioritize implementing accessible means of student and community involvement.
MANY FELT VOICELESS IN THE POLICY-DRAFTING PROCESS AND FORCED TO ACCEPT A POLICY THAT THEY WERE UNABLE TO CRITIQUE.
To be clear, a handful of community members did come forward in support of Austin’s contract renewal. They noted several of his past policies: new mental health services offered for students and staff; after-school childcare programs without income- based eligibility requirements; and literacy initiatives that showed promising results for historically underserved student groups. Supporters also refuted some of the complaints by claiming that the few strong voices that often criticized Austin did not necessarily reflect the general consensus, and that their pushback was far from “respectful advocacy.” In supporters’ eyes, some criticism was inevitable, given his position as the Board’s figurehead. During difficult times of uncertainty — such as during the COVID-19 pandemic — Austin had to make decisions that drew polarizing reactions.
The mounting complaints toward Austin, however, are not solely a reflection of his decision- making during challenging times. Instead, many felt voiceless in the policy-drafting process and forced to accept a policy that they were unable to critique. Once a policy was finalized, student opinions held limited significance — the policies were set in stone, and Austin only seemed to offer excuses and justifications for student pushback. For instance, when he announced the removal of special-education programs from both Escondido and Ohlone Elementary Schools in February, it came as an unpleasant surprise to many families. Ohlone — especially with its Choice Program, which allows increased parental involvement in the curriculum — was considered one of the most valuable special-education programs offered in the district. Community members such as parent Lars Smith, who now had to adapt to a new school, were not happy with the lack of public consultation. “I think that they chose a way to do it that’s going to be the most damaging to the most kids and the most families and special ed,” he said in a Verde Magazine article. “I think there’s not really anybody happy with it.” Although district staff viewed the proposed policy’s objective of creating cohorts of special-education students at similar grade levels as an upside, affected stakeholders found the drawbacks to outweigh potential benefits. While admittedly unfair to blame Austin completely, it’s difficult to see why he couldn’t have proposed a policy that created smaller cohorts across all district elementary schools without completely abolishing select valuable programs. Especially with such a drastic change, Austin should have publicly addressed why the Board believed the benefits of their policy outweighed community concerns or why it was the best possible solution for improving special education in PAUSD.
In another instance, major curricula changes led to considerable student pushback. An announcement stated that while community-college and other off-campus courses — including multivariable calculus — would be a part of PAUSD transcripts, students would no longer get them counted toward their GPAs. The decision was made so abruptly that those who held objections felt as though they had been denied a chance to advocate for their opinions. Austin’s lack of clear communication and failure to provide clear answers to representation. Anticipating pushback from students across the district, he could have proposed multiple options to alleviate such consequences — a standardized-curriculum advisory committee consisting of appointed students across the district and an open discussion panel in which students could comment on unfinalized policy drafts, to just name two.
AUSTIN’S NEXT STEPS IN OFFICE MUST INCLUDE PURSUING MEASURES TO INCREASE STUDENT REPRESENTATION AND ENSURING STUDENT VOICES ARE A MEANINGFUL PART OF FABRICATING POLICIES THAT IMPACT THEM MOST.
In 2019, before these two controversies, Austin proposed the formation of a student advisory board to address transparency concerns. Four years later, however, information about an advisory board is nowhere to be found, while neighboring districts have made significant progress: The Mountain View Los Altos High School District announced its inaugural student advisory council in January, which comprises high school students who can share their opinions with Board trustees and the superintendent. While PAUSD high schools do have student school-board representatives, with just one per high school, it is extremely difficult to incorporate student voices and gauge an accurate understanding of student needs.
Austin and other district officials can no longer continue one-sided conversations through Open Forum at school-board meetings or a singular liaison. Austin’s next steps in office must include pursuing measures to increase student representation and ensuring student voices are a meaningful part of fabricating policies that impact them most.
AUSTIN’S LACK OF CLEAR COMMUNICATION AND FAILURE TO PROVIDE CLEAR ANSWERS TO STUDENTS’ QUESTIONS IN THIS SITUATION REAFFIRMED THE STATUS QUO OF EXCLUDING STUDENT REPRESENTATION.
Comments