Submitted by Norman Wagemann.
It was the last day of school and the students from this particular junior high school gleefully boarded the school bus excited to be going home after another year of challenging educational drudgery. As the school bus pulled away from the campus, in route to delivering the children to their homes, the understandable exuberance and light heartedness overtook them. They began ripping the no-longer-needed pages out of their notebooks, wadding them up and throwing them celebratorily around the bus. The bus driver, knowing full well his responsibility for maintaining the cleanliness of both the interior and exterior of the bus, thought it unreasonable for him to be left with the results of this jubilation. Consequently he diverted course back to the school, where the waiting principle, still engaged in end of the year send-offs, greeted the returning bus. The bus driver announced to the children the bus departure would be delayed until the interior of the bus was satisfactorily cleaned of the wadded up paper now littering the bus. There was much consternation on the part of the children, but when the principle concurred with the directive, trash cans were retrieved and the paper litter was eliminated.
In today’s world that bus driver would likely be deemed insensitive, lacking understanding, not showing empathy to the diverse body of children who simply wanted to be included with the revelry of all the others and too insistent the standards of behaviour be observed regardless. I am sure in today’s world there would have been some kind of outcry for the bus driver’s censure. And those concerned about the feelings of the students and their own shock of, “who does this bus driver think he is?” would certainly rally to ensure the censure was voted for.
But wait there is more…
This same bus driver charged with taking high school students to an away football game (a game played at another school’s football stadium) did the unforgivable. In route back to the school from where the trip originated (the school of the students on the bus where they would be collected by their parents or pick up their cars for those of legal driving age) other bus drivers, also transporting students, often engaged in a little good natured race to see which bus got back first. [Note: the legal speed limit for buses was 55 MPH]. Wouldn’t you know it, when other buses started passing THIS BUS DRIVER’S BUS the students on the bus began to chant and encourage him to go faster. They obviously did not want to endure the shame of being the last bus back to the school. But to no avail. This same feeling-less, insensitive bus driver forcibly excluded these students from equal participation in the “BUS RACE” and potentially subjected them to ridicule by their peers.
Even in today’s world this bus driver would likely not be the target of censure (as in the first example) but the other bus drivers who willingly violated school bus speed laws (enacted presumably for the safety of the school children) would certainly not receive any condemnation. Why? Because they were doing it for the children. [Not really, they simply conceded to the peer pressure of the students. That’s right, they let a bunch of children influence them to do what they knew was wrong]
I’m sure the students praised those other drivers for trying to please them. Ah popularity, it “feels” so good.
That other bus driver probably not so much.
The spoil-sport bus driver went home that evening and slept like a baby knowing he had successfully completed his job of safely transporting his charges to and from the game, plus doing the “RIGHT THING.”
Sometimes we are faced with wanting to be popular and fitting in with what the “majority” is doing, OR, choosing to do what is right. This bus driver consistently in his life chose the latter.
His name is John Wagemann and he’s my DAD. And his oldest son is Paul Wagemann, my big brother. The acorn does not fall too far from the tree, thankfully.
What a beautiful story – and wonderfully well told and what we need more and more to be reminded of. Thank you!
Beautifully put!
I didn’t know John Wagemann, but I know Paul Wagemann well. He is one of the most principled men I have encountered over a long lifetime and does not deserve the censure recently issued by the Clover Park School District (CPSD) Board. He didn’t write the email which was cited in the censure although he did respond to the sender, to paraphrase, that he agrees that many are in the “equity business” for the money, not because systemic racism is a reality. The email message was obtained through a FOIA request by a a supporter of the CPSD equity policy; and it was part of Paul’s personal email which had to be used when the CPSD system was hacked and shut down. When the censure was first read at the November 8 school board meeting Paul requested a public hearing which is allowed per a Revised Code of Washington regulation. The board ignored his request, took a 20-minute break, because dissent from the crown was becoming vocal, and returned to vote for issue of the censure. The event came across as a kangaroo court to many of the citizens in the audience who voiced disagreement and gratitude for Paul having the courage to express disagreement with the district’s newly implemented equity policy, which is the view of a significant percentage of his constituents. This was censorship, not censure.
A very good story! I just have to point out that the head of a school is the principal, not the principle.
Agreed about the spelling error. Principal not principle.
I hope others, while enjoying this story, realized it is just that, a story.
Perhaps the dad was a diligent bus driver, what does it matter with regard to issues involving the adult son?
The values and principles of both father and son are related. Like the father, the son seeks to do the right thing. In this case the son seeks facts through listening to community members, research, asking questions of those who propose programs, and civil discourse among fellow decision makers so that he can vote on issues according to what he concludes is best for all concerned. Like the story goes, “Sometimes we are faced with wanting to be popular and fitting in with what the ‘majority’ is doing, OR, choosing to do what is right”. We all know that no one is perfect, that few decisions are “air-tight right”, but a community deserves thorough, conscientious representation of its elected representatives.
Sandra,
Please share your data on the “significant percentage” of Paul’s constituents who are against the equity policy? How many constituents are in his district? When was this survey given? In what form was this survey taken? I have attended board meetings and have never heard him speak of this survey. Why is that? However, since you know the facts, please share them.
The board meeting on November 8th was not a kangaroo court. Mr. Wagemann was given multiple opportunities to speak. He made a choice to stay silent about his racist email comments.
It is important to note that two of the sitting board members, who were personally recruited by Paul Wagemann to become board members, plainly stated that his behavior as a board member was unacceptable and disturbing. They made it clear that they had noted this behavior long before an equity plan was even an issue. They made it clear that what he has said and done on numerous occasions was inconsistent with the standards expected of school board members by the Washington State School Directors Association.
A board member has the right to disagree and to question, but once a vote is taken on a policy, the board speaks as a unified body. Mr. Wagemann undermines the work of our school board. He represents an extremist view and has an opportunity to share that view. He is out voted by those who represent our diverse population of families and students.
According to standards, a board member is to avoid conflicts of interest while serving. Mr. Wagemann’s strong political views seem to govern his comments and votes. His intense involvement in the last election to unseat two of his fellow board members in order to gain a political majority of our board and of our schools was alarming. Those racist emails were in the context of plotting a campaign strategy for the candidates he wanted on the board. More people need to take a look at those emails and see who were involved. It is quite revealing to see the common thread running through this group. Some of them have commented on this very post!
According to board standards, members are to own their words and actions. Mr. Wagemann likes to play the victim and let his political friends and family defend him. He is fine with those racist emails; obviously he never expected the public to see them. He got caught. Ethics is doing the right thing when no one is watching.
Those who consider it unfair that Mr. Wagemann is being held accountable for his behavior need to take their grievances to the WSSDA and stop disrupting the duties and procedures of our school board. I’m sure WSSDA would like to see and hear the comments made by Paul Wagemann. I’m sure our community would like to read those emails, see the names associated with them and hear the comments Mr. Wagemann has made to our female board members. There are no excuses for for Mr. Wagemann’s documented behavior.
Lastly, “courage” is not a word I would ever associate with someone who fails to apologize for inappropriate actions and/ or words.
Clover Park board member censured after calling equity officers ‘race pimps’
https://www.thenewstribune.com/news/local/education/article255709806.html