Oxford School Board Meeting

          On June 27, 2011, the MTC interns attended a regular meeting of the Board of Trustees of Oxford School District at Oxford High School. Now, prior to attending this meeting, my experience of school boards and their many procedures was very limited. In fact, that experience was almost entirely derived from scenes in the movies Hoosiers, Field of Dreams and Footloose. As far as I knew a school board meeting consisted of irate parents, powerfully self-invested students, and either Gene Hackman or Kevin Bacon. At the Oxford meeting I did observe unsatisfied parents, but neither basketball nor dancing was discussed, no books were banned, and no one was dubbed a “fascist cow.” But despite this lack of Hollywood fanaticism, the meeting itself was absolutely fascinating and clearly highlighted the structural limitations of school systems and frustrations of those involved.

            To describe the scene, I will say this: there were fewer than forty people in the entire room, board members accompanied by the district superintendent sat in front, a podium for speaking was placed to the side of them, a man was filming an the entire process, and the lecture hall had swivel chairs worthy of a defunct Roy Rogers restaurant. After I got over the travesty that was the swivel chairs, I was given the meeting’s agenda and things got under way.

            Two things caught my attention during the meeting: the rigidity of the procedural process and dysfunctional public participation. Clearly, for the sake of transparency and consistency certain regulations are needed to ensure that meetings are on point and legitimate. But, when time is precious, spending ten minutes determining the date and length of a board retreat (I timed it on my watch) seems wholly avoidable and irresponsible. To be fair, I do not blame this on the board members themselves. Rather, this is a minor grievance against the larger inefficiency of the systematic procedures which must be followed. Why the board cannot have such frivolous discussions behind closed doors baffles me. Which leads me to my next point: more back and forth should be allowed between the board and audience. For, even if they discuss every single detail and have complete transparency what is the purpose if public reaction is stifled, or disallowed? I know this invites meetings to become marathon disagreements but ideally a reasonable middle ground can be found. During the meeting, a disgruntled mother shared a complaint regarding test scores for minorities and disabled students. Her intentions were commendable but her delivery was abrasive and personal in nature so she was quickly silenced. From my perspective, it appeared that the board was simply being self-defensive and refusing to grant her a pulpit out of self-preservation. I say this because they were not allowed, or maybe unwilling, to address her complaints. I would have liked very much to hear their opinions.

            Two days after the meeting the interns met with Marian Barksdale, a member of the school board. We had met with Mrs. Barksdale a month before and knew her to be genuinely concerned and dedicated to improving the education of all students. Speaking with her I grew to understand how frustrating it must be to sit before the public unable to fully educate them concerning the board’s efforts. Clearly, there is much that the board does, and is trying desperately to do, which goes unseen. Being a board member must feel like a full time job and I wonder how far good intentions can go in a system crippled by budgetary limitations, wealth disparity, and self-interest.