I called my mother-in-law. She is a clinical psychologist with a strong interest in forensic psychology. I have always loved talking to her about her experiences, and I enjoyed her insights into public figures and people in my own circle whose behavior I found puzzling.
"Narcissistic sociopaths," she opined. "Arrogant, power-loving, entitled, cold, uncaring, and they lie."
"But why are so many of them like that?" I wanted to know. "Yes, I could believe one or two of them would have those sort of issues, but there's a whole bunch of them, mostly in positions of influence, who are closing ranks and acting as one."
"That's how in-groups evolve," she explained. "These people have worked together for years and years and years. They will have disposed of people who tried to stand up to them, just as they disposed of Mrs. R. That's the antisocial nature of the breed. And over time, who is going to be left at the top? The people who think and act alike."
I thought about that in-group. Liz A. and Andy M. had worked together for 30 years. Bill B. and his wife were close friends with Liz A. and her husband, who also worked for the district. Sharon Z., the superintendent's secretary, was included in that faction. All of these people were friends outside work. Liz A. contributed to the campaigns of two of the board members, Pearl C. and Jo L., both of whom were definite "in-groupers" and were singularly unresponsive to my family's concerns about P.'s injuries. According to Lynette, Jeremy N., the director of public relations, was a cousin of Pearl C.'s. One of Andy M.'s co-workers in HR, Terry N., also appeared to belong, as did another notoriously dictatorial principal. Karen M., P.'s teacher, was on the peripheries of this cohort, and her despotic nature clearly appealed to Liz. A. Many of these people socialized regularly. To the best of my knowledge, some of them still do.
This was the group that had disproportionate power within the district. I had assumed that the district would embrace the open and democratic management style, one that encouraged tremendous creativity and inclusivity, that was typical of Silicon Valley tech companies. To the contrary, the district was rigid, authoritarian, and hierarchical.
CUSD was renowned for its high scores, but how much did the district have to do with those? The people moving to Cupertino were typically highly educated and strongly invested in their children's educations. It was not unusual for a child to start school knowing his or her multiplication tables and reading chapter books. Of course these kids were going to test well. The general teaching style at Cupertino was rather dry and strongly test-oriented. The district had cut music and art programs, school buses (except for special education students), and the GATE program.
Perhaps the district's reputation as an academic powerhouse fed into the narcissism that my mother-in-law so astutely discerned and that was so apparent in the administration's responses to P.'s abuse. Most of the administrators were extraordinarily entitled. They flaunted state and federal laws and even their own district policies about restraints and seclusions. Rules and laws were for "the little people." They lacked empathy and would hurt anyone to protect themselves. They could not accept criticism and would shamelessly retaliate against anyone who had the audacity to challenge them. Their behavior toward my daughter can aptly be summarized by The Hymn of the Narcissist, a meme of unknown authorship.
That didn't happen.
And if it did, it wasn't that bad.
And if it was, that's not a big deal.
And if it is, that's not my fault.
And if it was, I didn't mean it.
And if I did ...
You deserved it.
The vast majority of teachers are kind and idealistic people, and I think that may well be true of most school administrators. Certainly I had many positive and pleasant experiences in the time three of my children attended Cupertino schools, and I had the privilege of interacting with some wonderful people. But ... then there were those who would probably have flourished within the organization in Germany in the 1930s. CUSD had a lot of problems, and they weren't confined to P.'s situation.
I recall that my son, over the summer between first and second grade, attended a Mandarin enrichment program every morning at Collins Elementary. There were other enrichment opportunities available in the afternoons, and he decided to stay on for a Kung Fu class three days a week. This was all well and good except he always seemed desperate to go to the bathroom as soon as we got home.
"They lock the bathrooms in the afternoons," he told me.
"Well, go as soon as Mandarin enrichment ends," I suggested.
"I can't," he replied resignedly. "The bathrooms are locked."
I dropped by the school office the next day to speak to the summer school principal.
"The bathrooms are locked at the end of the school day," she barked.
"But some of the kids stay on for afternoon activities," I protested. "They need to go to the bathroom before those classes start."
The principal looked profoundly pleased with herself.
"They have to be quick! They have to be quick!" she replied almost gloatingly.
Ah, the titillation of power. What an important person one must be to have the authority to prevent little children from using the bathroom.
Shortly thereafter, the father of another student mentioned to me that his son was also complaining about bathroom access. I shared that I had spoken to the summer school principal to no avail. He was angry and indignant.
"My son is six years old!" he burst out.
By the next time we chatted, he too had complained to the principal. He said she was initially high-handed and patronizing. She told him the bathrooms were locked before the children were released from the morning program so that the janitor wouldn't have to clean them. The janitor apparently cleaned them before classes ended and didn't want to have to clean them again later. This father also found the principal haughty and uncooperative, but dads sometimes have more authority than moms, it seems. When he became insistent, she very begrudgingly let him know that, well, actually, there was another bathroom that the children could use if they had to. It wasn't particularly conveniently located, but at least they had that option. Why couldn't she have told me that when I spoke to her?
My dear friend Lynette, as a brave opponent of the district, experienced retaliation through her young son. A friend, who was in the school office at the time, shared with Lynette that she had seen her son hurrying by one morning, slightly late and looking anxious, to get to class. A few minutes later, an "in-grouper" board member's son had sauntered by. Only Lynette's son was sent to the office to be written up as "tardy."
Lynette decided to catch this discriminatory treatment on video. She followed her son into the school on an occasion he was late and filmed him rushing to class. Shortly thereafter, he re-emerged, headed for the office. And then, sure enough, the board member's son waltzed casually by, even more late. He was not sent to the office. Lynette sent a copy of the video to the board.
"Why the discrepancy?" she wanted to know.
The board's response was to tell her she had videotaped children without their parents' written permission and that this was verboten. Nobody seemed to care that a child was being treated unfairly and that there were obvious double standards. No explanation was offered. Lynette was fair game, and it was acceptable to gang up on her. Her son was collateral damage in the district's corruption.
My children and I regularly visited the park behind our house. An elementary school abutted the opposite side of the park, and we often met parents and children from that school in the afternoons. At one time, all they could talk about were the problems they were having with the school principal, who seemed harsh and unsympathetic. The stories were legion.
One that I remember was that the children had to go outside at recess, during which time the classrooms were locked. One little girl, on emerging from the classroom, found it to be very cold outside, but she had left her sweater at her desk. She asked the principal if she could borrow a key to get inside and retrieve it. The answer was no.
"But I'm freezing," she pleaded.
No.
She had then used a hairpin to open the classroom door and recover her sweater, for which she had been suspended from school. The punishment seemed harsh and ... shouldn't the basic physical needs of small children receive at least some consideration? When the chorus of complaints against the principal, rose to a crescendo and the parents were in open revolt, she was rewarded with a promotion to the district office. Needless to say, she was a district insider.
What was wrong with these people? Why were they so wedded to their power trips? After we moved to Colorado, I was pleasantly surprised to find that children were generally treated with respect and kindness in the schools. This was a refreshing change! Too many people in power within Cupertino Union School District were clearly toxic and unhealthy. "Narcissistic sociopaths" indeed!
No comments:
Post a Comment