Koocher, Leib Sit Out '85 Campaign, Call for Greater Efficiency in Schools

At a Cambridge School Committee meeting two weeks ago, one committee member gave a 10-minute soliloquy on poor children, working class families, and disadvantaged schools during a two- hour debate on an AIDS policy for the Cambridge schools.

Exasperated with the lack of progress the meeting was making, committee member Glen S. Koocher '72 threw up his hands and leaned back. He then stood up, walked around, went to the back room where the sandwiches and coffee are kept, walked around some more, talked to some parents, and finally left the hearing room.

Fellow member Rena H. Leib sat quietly while Koocher paced the room in frustration.

Koocher and Leib, the two incumbents who are not seeking reelection, will leave a school committee that is continuing to handle problems of its own inefficiency and internal bickering. They will also take their differing styles with them.

"I can be rather tactless and abrasive for which I make no apologies," says Koocher, admitting that he has sometimes fueled the political fires which hindered constructive debate and decisive action.

Koocher was instrumental in setting up cambridge's voluntary desegration program from 1979-81.

Koocher says he is quitting after 12 years on the committee to spend more time time with his children, Rebecca and David. Koocher, who works for Blue Cross/Blue Shield, says he will continue to write on social security, medicare, and health policy issues.

Koocher says that he had planned to step down after his fifth term but, not one to be scared off by a good political fight, stayed for what he says was the wrong reason. "I had heard an effort was being made to disendorse me by the [Cambridge] Civic Association, and I wanted to stay and survive that challenge."

Koocher was endorsed by the CCA for most of tenure at the school committee but was disendorsed in 1983 mostly because of personality conflicts between Koocher and other CCA member, CCA officials say.

Less Controversial

Leib, more soft-spoken than Koocher, believes that the school committee can do without some of her colleague's controversial stands and opinions. Leib, as well as others, objected to the way in which Koocher successfully attempted to dismiss former superintendent William C. Lannon by drafting a proposal not to renew Lannon's contract at this term's first meeting.

But both see a need to continue to change the school committee and the way it goes about forming school policy.

"There are some people for whom I can't understand their motivations for serving on the school committee unless they have other ambitions." says Lieb, who has decided not to run so she'll have more time with her two young children. "They don't seem to make judgements according to what is best for the kids."

Koocher agrees with CCA member Leib in the ways jobs are filled and potential applicants are recruited. Both believe the committee must continue to move away from filling school positions solely from within Cambridge, and rewarding teachers and staff solely on the basis of seniority.

"There is still an element of political interference," says Koocher. He belives much of the patronage and seniority-based promotion schemes are implemented by "traditional independents" and not CCA-endorsed officials, but still sees the problem as affecting the entire system.

"People should not be so naive as to think that people like Frank Duehay and Alice Wolf and the other pious hypocrites of city government are not as much into patronage aas some of the other hard-core political figures they criticize," Koocher says.

Long Range

Leib believes that the school committee needs to focus more on its objectives, giving more thought to long-range goals rather than short-term remedies. She says that Superintendent Robert S. Peterkin's "Key Results" proposal presented in June gave the committee an agenda and has pulled the community together.

"It's the first time that anybody has tried to get an overall goal with long-range plan," says Leib. "He's very conscious of people's different interests and concerns and he takes the time to respond to them."

At the same time, she points out that parents and school staff were not consulted before Peterkin's proposal was formulated. The extent of parent involvement within the school department, particularly in evaluating teachers and administrators, has become an important issue in this year's committee race.

"There have been too many times that people have been ignored even though their input has been asked for," says Leib