To be honest, I am struggling.
Over the Christmas break, I thought that running for the office of school trustee is a good idea. My knowledge and my experience could make a difference in the delivery of education and the running of the school district.
I understood nothing in primary school.
I barely made it through grammar school.
I did all right during my Ph.D. years.
I spent all my life in the education sector.
I ran a university career centre for a decade.
I understand behaviour -- animal, human, institutional.
I understand numbers.
This week, I looked at the qualifications and ideas of the current school trustees (1). I found ...
A lot of self-praise about volunteering (2).
A little about how they want the best for all students -- which is the obvious goal.
Nothing about indicators how to measure the achievement of goals.
Nothing about actions how to achieve goals.
Nothing about the people who do the actual work at the school district -- the teachers, the administrators, the staff (3).
Nothing about teaching and learning.
Nothing about slipping standards, the stupidification of students, or the real problems of young people in 21st-century society (e.g. mobile phones, social media, A.I.).
In any case, the little they say is somewhat embarrassing. Education is too important to be left too laypeople. (To be fair, not all is lost: Two current trustees are teachers and one has worked in the school district.)
I also found out that all four trustees who currently represent the Coquitlam portion of the school district also serve in some capacity at the Coquitlam Foundation. This should worry us all. You see, the reason why governing boards are made up of a number of people is to ensure a diversity of ideas and opinions. The problem is groupthink. As Janis formulated it (4):
"The main principle of groupthink, which I offer in the spirit of Parkinson's Law, is this: The more amiability and esprit de corps there is among the members of a policy-making ingroup, the greater the danger that independent critical thinking will be replaced by groupthink, which is likely to result in irrational and dehumanizing actions directed against outgroups."
Here then is my struggle: As a citizen, I feel a duty to provide my expertise for the common good. I do not suffer crooks and clowns gladly. I do not love power (5). Do I really need the aggravation?
So will I run for office?
I would set the subjective probability that I will run at 30%. I would set the subjective probability that I will be elected as a trustee at less than 10%. There are still more than nine months to go. I will evaluate my motivation and my chances as I go along.
NOTES AND REFERENCES
(2) I am always suspicious about people who emphasise their volunteerism. How much time did they actually spend? Was the work a sacrifice (e.g. cleaning public toilets) or did they enjoy it (e.g. coaching a sports team)? Is public acknowledgement of their volunteerism the payoff they seek for their time, and is this then still volunteerism?
(3) When I was at uni, I worked at a zoo for two summers. A researcher did a study on the living conditions of animals in zoos: I alerted her to the fact that in each habitat there are always two species: The animal the visitors come to see and the animal that feeds that animal, cleans up after it, and takes care of it when it is sick. Both species must be properly accommodated.
(4) I. L. Janis (1971), Groupthink. Psychology Today (Nov 1971): 43 - 46, 74 - 76.
(5) "But what we need is that the only men to get power should be men who do not love it[.]" Plato (ca. 375 B.C.E.), The Republic: The Simile of the Cave: 521b.
ONE SENTENCE SUMMARY
I am struggling whether I should run for the office of school trustee or not -- the eternal problem, duty vs. convenience.
