By Michael Hays

Despite the mediocrity of public education in Las Cruces, most school board elections elicit little interest or debate. Often, candidates run unopposed. Sometimes, challengers run against incumbents so unpopular that popularity instead of platform decides the outcome. Rarely, an incumbent pressures a challenger to drop out.

In this year's election, the only candidates, unopposed incumbents Connie Phillips (Chair) and Bonnie Votaw, are the board's most qualified members. Las Cruces is lucky to have in Phillips someone who, at great sacrifice, is working diligently, intelligently, and diplomatically to improve district education. She deserves strong and sustained support of her direction and endeavors from other board members and the community. Board elections seldom require candidates to discuss problems, offer solutions, make commitments, or earn mandates. (The incumbents whom I interviewed two years ago could not name a "signature" achievement after eight years' tenure.) Despite campaign platitudes, most board members manifest little resolve to use their policy, budget, and employment powers to address education issues or involve the public in addressing them. Thus, boards past and present have done little evident to improve education.

Despite my support of Phillips and Votaw, board members have had opportunities to do better since the last election. Some knew of a proposal made over a year ago which urged the superintendent to initiate a consortium of community groups to help students with off-campus, after-school tutoring and study halls. Stan Rounds yes-yes'd the proposal and did nothing - likewise, the board.

Board members profess to believe in public participation but restrict opportunities, mechanisms, or venues for public support or involvement in deliberations and decisions. (Recently, they held open meetings with students; they fear open meetings with adults.) Only when they face hot topics do they invite the public to take the heat. Expecting difficulties over redistricting, they created a committee to redraw elementary and middle school boundaries. The committee worked so well and did such good work that board members adopted its redistricting proposal as presented. However, this success did not prompt them to consider public participation on a regular basis on recurrent issues, and thereby interest the community, involve citizens, educate committee members, and develop future leaders.

Board members and district leaders have been asked to consider curriculum revisions to improve instruction, help teachers, and benefit students. They have refused.

Meanwhile, as board and district officials conduct business as usual, the irrational and corrupting demands of No Child Left Behind bedevil them as they do school officials throughout the country. Annual Yearly Progress goals, even "safe harbor" standards, are increasingly difficult to attain. So this district, like districts elsewhere, resorts to ploys gaming the system in order to boost test scores.

Locally, the district divides high school juniors into three groups: those likely to pass the required tests, those unlikely to pass them, and those called "bubble students" likely to pass them with special assistance. About four weeks before the tests, it transfers these "bubble students" from some of their regular classes twice a week to half- or full-period remediation sessions in reading and math. Other juniors receive remediation instead of instruction in their regular English or math classes.

Board members and district officials may know that this scheme does nothing for students or their education. Indeed, it mocks education by undermining its purposes and quality. It impedes the education of "bubble students" in the classes from which the District removes them. It ignores the students who need regular remediation. It does nothing to improve the education of all students in earlier grades in order to make this selective, 11th-hour, educationally worthless cramming unnecessary.

District leaders' best defense is that NCLB makes them do it. It is not a good defense. As required percentages of passing students rise but student preparation lags, cramming will not likely close the growing gap. Next year, when graduation requires passing these tests, many poorly educated students, despite cramming, will fail, some after multiple chances. As a result, graduation rates will fall; dropout rates will rise (message to potential dropouts: stay in school; instead of a diploma, get a certificate of attendance); and employment and education opportunities will diminish.

By refusing to adopt feasible and timely measures for educational reform locally, district leaders have allowed student education to suffer, teacher morale to deteriorate, and respect for public schools to diminish.

They had alternatives. They could have avoided secrecy and informed the public, especially parents, of the impending crisis and its consequences. They could have invited the public to help them address issues and take initiatives which districts have the power to take if they have the wit, wisdom, and will to do so. Instead, they declined disclosure, deferred action and avoided accountability.

What to do? Those concerned about a district with failing schools must demand reforms, repudiate stop-gap gimmicks, and rebuke officials distrusting citizens and disregarding the community. Past refusal to address this crisis means that present responses cannot be tentative half-measures.