Educational Doubletalk

In today’s edition of the Statesman Journal, education reporter Tara McLain writes about State Senate Bill 755 which seeks to limit sweetheart “end-of-contract” payments to administrators of school district and education service districts (ESD). This issue has resonance in the Salem area as the former Superintendent of the Willamette ESD received a few extraordinary perks upon his resignation.

What I found to be most interesting about the article were the arguments by the opponents of the bill. While not agreeing with their initial argument, I can at least understand it. It is the position of the Oregon School Board Association that the problem that SB 755 seeks to address is a rare one and is generally corrected by the districts themselves.

If they had stopped right there, then I would feel their position was logical and rational. Unfortunately, they felt the need to add a second prong to their attack. Not only is the problem rare, BUT, they argue, it would devastate the ability of these districts to attract qualified administrators to open positions.

At this juncture, the addition of this second line of reasoning would lead the prudent person to ask: If sweetheart deals are rare and, when they do occur, are typically self-corrected by the districts themselves, why should this be a defining issue in the recruitment process?

It would seem that school boards want to have the option to use these sweetheart deals as a lure. If used as a lure, then it undermines the contention that the problem both is rare and self-corrected by the districts themselves. In essence, the opponent's two-pronged strategy is nothing more than doubletalk with each prong contradicting the other.