Foot-kissing at Lowell School and 'The Death of Common Sense'
In modern life, a Kafkaesque world emerges as people rely on overly complicated procedures and regulations, creating a vacuum in reasoning and resulting in disproportionate reprimands.
After reading about an unfortunate mess at a nearby school, I am left feeling that the basic prescription for today's messes — that is, more policy and procedure — is not enough, nor practical.
A March 24 article in the Seattle Times reports, “Probe Finds Missteps by Lowell Principal.” Principal Gregory King and Assistant Principal Rina Geoghagan have been officially reprimanded for failing to properly report and investigate an incident in which an instructional assistant is alleged to have kissed a student’s foot.
Leaving aside the oddity of foot-kissing, there were two things about the long and tortured report which caught my attention. First, the actual results of a year-long special investigation by attorney Cristin Kent seem somehow incidental to the whole thing. In the last sentence of the third paragraph we read, “The investigation found no foot kissing actually occurred."
Still, the article continues for another 30 paragraphs regarding the investigation, the reprimands, the person who brought the allegation, and the need for more thorough procedures and additional training.
Such allegations do, of course, need to be looked into. But the investigation and subsequent turmoil seem oddly out of proportion to the single telling sentence — “the investigation found no foot kissing actually occurred.” This judgment pales to invisibility compared to all the fallout and subsequent community uproar. Truly, if there were ever such a thing as, to put it in Shakespeare's words, "Much ado about nothing," this would be it.
The second thing that caught my attention is the report that the administrators in question, one of whom had a job offer in Tacoma withdrawn because of the investigation, would be sent for more training. Not only that, but the school officials themselves acknowledged the need for more and better policies with respect to such matters.
The overall level of anxiety and the recourse to more training and more policies and procedures brought to mind the book, The Death of Common Sense, by attorney Phillip K. Howard. First published in 1994, it is now out in a new and revised 2011 edition.
Howard makes the argument that in the decades since World War II, “We have constructed [in America] a system of regulatory law that basically outlaws common sense." He observes that, "Modern law, in an effort to be self-executing, has shut out humanity.”
Howard’s point is that we keep trying to write procedures, policies and regulations so extensive that they will, one, cover every possible contingency, and two, rule out the need for human judgement. So Seattle Schools’ response to an allegation that proved without basis is more training, more procedures, better and more extensive policies. And who can blame them? These days it is our answer to everything. Got an issue? A concern? Develop a law, regulation, policy, or procedure. Send people for more training. Problem solved.
However, Howard suggests a different answer. “Sensible government requires officials [in this instance, a school principal] to make judgments . . . not to mindlessly comply with rigid mandates.”
The key word there is judgment. You can’t really avoid human beings making judgments about what is correct, necessary, and wise. But we try. Nor should we want a world in which people are not expected to make sound judgments. Yet, we create ever more extensive laws, policies, and procedures in an effort to not have to count on people to make reasonable and intelligent judgments.
But is that really possible? Is it even wise? And is it working?
Howard argues that we labor under the false assumption that law should be as detailed as possible. He proposes a different path: to move away from the ever thickening thicket of policy and procedure to “Radically simplify law, leaving room for real people to take responsibility.”
One curious upshot of this recourse to more detailed law, more policy, and more procedure is that personal responsiblity and accountablity seem to vanish. The answer we get, should we inquire, is, “Well, no one actually made the decision — it’s what the policy mandates.”
A simple example takes place in the bars of most major airports. Regardless of one’s grey hair or wrinkles everyone is carded, no exceptions. For the thirty-somethings, it may be a thrill that someone would still think they might not be 21. But they don’t, not really. The point is that no actual barkeep can be trusted to make a reasonable judgment. The rules have to be followed no matter what.
Howard terms this “the death of common sense.” If the airport bar example is trivial, others aren’t. He tells the story of Mother Teresa’s order finding a building suitable for a homeless shelter in New York City. The religious group was prepared to rehab the building and operate it at no cost to the city. But city inspectors insisted that nothing could happen in the abandoned four-story building without installation of a code mandated elevator, which would have cost a couple hundred thousand dollars. The nuns didn’t have that kind of money, so the project was abandoned. Code won; common sense lost. And no actual human being could exercise reasonable judgment.
Howard anticipates the objections to giving people, rather than policy, greater sway. “Giving people responsibility always raises the fear that someone may misuse their authority. But there’s no need to trust anyone. Protecting ourselves from mean, venal, or stupid people also has a simple requirement: are we personally accountable? To induce prudent behavior everyone needs to be at risk.” The ironic result of the triumph of procedure is that seldom is anyone really accountable.
I suspect that in many areas of life and in a host of institutions, reasonable people opt out because they discover that they aren’t allowed to exercise judgment or common sense.
Reading the saga of this sad elementary school incident that apparently never happened — the year-long investigation, the reprimands, the resignations, additional training requirements, the withdrawn job offers, the turmoil of a school community — and then the note, “the investigation found that no foot kissing actually occurred,” seems downright Kafkaesque.
It called to mind both Howard’s lament for The Death of Common Sense as well as Kafka’s own tart observation that, “Just because we believe in Progress does not mean that any progress has been made.”
Like what you just read? Support high quality local journalism. Become a member of Crosscut today!
Twitter
Facebook
RSS Feeds
Comments:
Posted Thu, Mar 29, 10:57 a.m. Inappropriate
Insightful article, Tony. The principles can be applied to the current news cycle. Our City is considering an ordinance to mandate periodic inspections of rental units – establishing a procedure to make sure all apartments are safe, and sanitary, have heat and toilets and running water. A good thing? It seems so. At the same time, we are debating whether to amend the comprehensive plan to allow tent cities, not just on church property, but on private property throughout the city. Also a good thing? I think so. But will the result be that tenants of dry, warm but imperfect rentals that aren’t 100% up to code having their units shuttered, and being forced out, perhaps into cold, damp uncomfortable tents? If so, not such a good thing.
Posted Thu, Mar 29, 12:46 p.m. Inappropriate
In some cases, it may well be that the thicket of regulations and procedures not merely banishes good judgment as a side effect, but actually does so intentionally. I would like to share a personal experience which, though quite trivial in the scheme of things, is illustrative.
I currently teach two sections of calculus at a university at which the procedures are highly rigorized. All students in a particular class take common exams. Therefore, when exam time rolls around, I and each of the other instructors submit questions to the class coordinator, who proceeds to assemble them into a test. The result is that when exam turns out to be too long or not balanced properly--as is usually the case--no one is to blame. It isn't my fault, because I don't know what other questions they will be combined with, and it isn't the class coordinator's fault either, since he simply puts together what he was sent.
The system is designed to be as fair as possible, or at least to provide the illusion of fairness. When grading, I am provided with a standard key and must provide detailed explanations for every grading decision that I make that deviates from the key; this makes it easier to follow the key even when it would have me do something silly. Students are also subjected to a complex grade appeal process, creating the illusion of due process in the grading.
Why would we burden ourselves with such a complex process? Who gives a flying logarithm whether Suzie gets 3 points of partial credit for factoring incorrectly and Bob only gets 2? Because The Customer is Always Right, and we must do what we can to insulate ourselves from students accustomed to easy A's and with overzealous parents.
Posted Thu, Mar 29, 4:58 p.m. Inappropriate
Mr. Howard's book is excellent and so is this article. Thank you Mr. Robinson.
Posted Thu, Mar 29, 7:50 p.m. Inappropriate
This ludicrous article sinks Crosscut to a new low.
Posted Thu, Mar 29, 7:54 p.m. Inappropriate
To turn the possible victimization of a non-verbal disabled child into the tired canard of "overregulation is killing free enterprise" is barely worth a response. "What's Tony Thinking?" Obviously not a whole lot about much.
Posted Thu, Mar 29, 8:06 p.m. Inappropriate
The WHOLE point is that there WERE protocols in place and neither principal followed them. And, when called on it, claimed they knew nothing and it was proven that they DID know. That is what is called less-than-truthful.
The two women who brought this to them NEVER said there was abuse, sexual or otherwise (and by the way,the behavior was not just about "foot kissing"). They saw behavior of a staff member towards a child (actually more than one child) that was inappropriate to professional training and let the prinicipals know. They, as first line responders, were supposed to do an investigation and did not.
The investigation revealed that the principal said he couldn't do an investigation because he thought it was racially motivated. What?
The investigation revealed that the assistant principal said she couldn't do an investigation of abuse if she had not witnessed it herself. What?
The issue is protection - when you follow your training you protect the district from lawsuits, you protect staff and their careers from unfounded accusations and, most of all, you protect children.
It seems Mr.Robinson forgot about protecting students.
Posted Thu, Mar 29, 8:19 p.m. Inappropriate
How very dismissive of a) POTENTIAL unprofessional, if not abusive actions; and b) the other findings of the investigation, which are serious and bear attention.
We need this "procedure," Mr. Robinson, of people who should know, people thus trained, look for signs of abuse of unprofessional behavior directed at children. Three people did the simple, uncomplicated, procedure: They reported it to their supervisor. Simple and necessary.
The supervisor(s) then didn't act promptly on the report, and, furthermore, possibly retaliated against the reporters, who were just doing what is right (and mandated.)
Yet you mention none of that. Why not?
These three people did what we hope every employee, particularly of a school, for heaven's sake, would do, which is report behaviour that is unprofessional and maybe abusive. It is not for THEM to determine the nature of the action (the kid's shoe and sock were off; the foot was near a aide's mouth. Hmmm, one thinks...) Thank goodness they did the simple, mandated thing: Speak up; report.
Yet you keep harping on the fact that "it wasn't foot kissing," as if this is somehow relevant. Was it professional? No. Was it creepy? Yes.
Did the supervisors follow the simple procedures to see what was going on?
No.
Did they turn it back onto the reporters, claim THEY were to be investigated?
Yes.
Let's keep our eye on the ball: We WANT and ENCOURAGE responsible adults to report (easy enough, even if it's difficult); we DON'T want to natter on about "too many dang procedures, alas!" when really there aren't. Let's focus on how three employees were made to feel targeted for reporting, thus instilling in ALL employees a fear or reporting if their jobs are thus threatened...
Where is the protection of our children in your argument, Mr. Robinson?
Posted Thu, Mar 29, 8:48 p.m. Inappropriate
Wow. You read that report and all you got out of it was that the "investigation" (if it merits that title) concluded that there was no foot kissing. Let's set aside the three different people who all witnessed foot-kissing. Let's set aside all of the other unprofessional and inappropriate behavior witnessed by several mandatory reporters. Let's even set aside the fact that the "investigation" consisted of little more than asking the person "Did you kiss her foot?" and his explanation of what he said he did. Let's set all of that aside because none of that was what the report was about.
The report was about the intentional and retaliatory investigation of two dedicated public servants for failing to report the potential abuse of a child. The only evidence that these two people witnessed this and didn't report it was their report of the incidents - their reports which satisfied the duty to report. You want absurd, THAT is absurd.
How did this abusive Kafka-esque investigation come about? It happened because the two administrators who got the reports denied getting the reports to cover up for their failure to respond to them.
Take a moment, Mr. Robinson and think about this. Multiple professionals charged with the care of our children - our children, Mr. Robinson - report that one of their colleagues is behaving inappropriately and unprofessionally with a number of them in a number of ways on a number of occasions. They report this to the school administrators as the law and the School District policy requires them to do. They also report it to the District's health and safety department. Okay so far? I don't know about you, but I'm glad that they did. I'm proud of them, both of them. Then the principal and the assistant principal did nothing. They took no action. Did you read that part of the report, Mr. Robinson? How do you feel about that? A school principal gets a report that one of his staff is acting inappropriately and unprofessionally with the students and the principal takes no action in response. I'm not so happy about that. I'm not so proud of him.
Then it gets really good. A third person - different from the first two - witnesses the behavior and also makes a report. This person makes a written report directly to the principal. The principal happens to be in the District headquarters the next day and discusses the report with an HR manager. Together they read parts of the earlier written report from the health and safety department about the behavior witnessed by the first two people to report. The principal cannot explain the the HR manager why he took no action in response to this report, so he denies ever getting the report. Now, instead of being in trouble himself for failing to act, he has put the first two people in trouble for failing to report. How you like him now? How proud is he making you feel?
Want to hear the two things that make it really great? The principal didn't read the whole report from Health and Safety. If he had, he would have seen the part in which it says that the first two folks had fulfilled their duty to report. Also, the principal was going to do the investigation himself. Imagine how that would have gone:
"Why didn't you report this?"
"I did report it."
"To whom did you report it?"
"To you."
That wouldn't make for a very unbiased investigation, would it?
I understand that you want to make a little debating point, Mr. Robinson, but don't do it with two honest and dedicated people's careers which were nearly ruined by this and don't do it with our children's safety.
Posted Fri, Mar 30, 7:26 a.m. Inappropriate
While none of us want excessive regulation, we all want some regulatory protection. We need that protection most in two specific types of situations: 1) when one party has all of the authority over another party and 2) when one party has all of the expertise.
This story was a situation in which one party, the Instructional Aide, had all of the authority over the non-verbal disabled student and then when one party, the principal, had all of the authority over the two folks who made the initial reports. We need regulations to protect them.
This story, rather than a story of the failure of excessive regulation was, in fact, a story of deficient regulation. It wasn't a story about whether foot-kissing occurred or not. It was a story about the failure of two principals to take the proper action after getting a report of foot-kissing (along with a host of other inappropriate and unprofessional behavior). It was also the story of these two principals exercising abusive power over the two people who reported, throwing suspicion on them to evade their own culpability for their failure/refusal to act as the law, District policy, and their moral duty as human beings required them to do.
I'm no fan of excess regulation. I'm no fan of zero-tolerance rules. But this is NOT the event that you want to use as the cornerstone of that argument.
Posted Fri, Mar 30, 4:21 p.m. Inappropriate
The first comment is an "Editor's Pick"? Since when does routine/mundane inspection of rental units compare to the investigation of potentially inappropriate actions with a disabled child at school? Now do you see how ludicrous this comparison is?
Posted Sat, Mar 31, 8:26 a.m. Inappropriate
http://www.wsbtv.com/news/news/secretary-accused-of-using-school-money-to-shop/nD97X/
I do not understand why an investigation has not been done of greg king's involvement in embezzlement of school funds in Georgia. Is it closed and hidden because he has certification that allows him to be a principal of a school; for that matter, I know the embezzlement is just the tip of the iceberg. This man has left several school systems under a cloud. Has anyone done an investigation of the man himself? The recent behavior at Lowell is not unusual for Gregory King. He's been doing this for awhile. What must be done to rid the educational system of an unethical individual that is hurting and ruining other educators' lives?
Posted Sat, Mar 31, 11:20 a.m. Inappropriate
I am puzzled by the defense of the clerical intricacies this incident. To (non-academic) me the signature crime of foot kissing seems pretty harmless, the kind of lapse that might be well covered by an oral admonition, not a pile of documents that makes it way to the upper echelon of a school district. Then, of course there are the unspoken crimes (..along with a host of other inappropriate and unprofessional behavior..). But that's not what the article is about. What I read Mr. Robinson is saying is that administrative superstructure completely outweighs magnitude the crime (if there was one). I think he's right.
Posted Sat, Mar 31, 2:55 p.m. Inappropriate
Protocols come about as consequences to failures in communication or failures to act when needed. The teachers had protocols to follow and so did leadership. The simple fact is that had everyone followed the protocol, the matter would have been investigated and resolved. Now that is simplicity itself.
Login or register to add your voice to the conversation.