BY DEBRA KEEFER RAMAGE
In the wider world of public education, education reform and associated politics, things are heating up. In the state of Washington, the state Supreme Court struck down Seattle’s charter school amendment as unconstitutional. In LA, there is concern over a semi-invisible player in the high-stakes school reform game called the Center on Reinventing Public Education (or CRPE—pronounced “creepy”—see In These Times story “Meet the Latest Free-Market Group That Wants to Take Over Your Public Schools”).
And the situation in the Minneapolis Public Schools (MPS) system is far from cool and calm. There is currently an uproar over the purchase of materials from a firm called Reading Horizons that turned out to be grossly culturally insensitive. Some allege that MPS has “quietly gotten out of the business” of authorizing charter schools. And one greatly anticipated charter high school in downtown Minneapolis, Mill City High School, was forced to close two weeks into the school year when only a third of the enrolled students showed up for classes.
In March, Southside Pride published an article about the Superintendent search that noted that the school board had decided first to hire a search consultant. In late spring/early summer, the firm of Hazard, Young, Attea & Associates (HYA) was hired, and immediately got to work defining the search parameters. The process culminated just last week with the production of a Leadership Profile Report. (Note: at the time of writing, this report was still in draft form. It is accessible from the Superintendent Search page of the MPS website.) In its introduction, the report described some of the diversity outreach efforts that had gone into the consultation thus far:
We commend the Minneapolis Public Schools School Board for their efforts to include representatives from many diverse and varied groups within the school district and greater community in the search process. The online survey was open from Aug. 31 to Sept. 17 and then reopened at the request of the school board for an additional two days. Invitations to participate in the survey and/or focus groups were sent to 12 community partnership groups, 14 foundations and corporations, 7 community stakeholder groups, 150 school site council chairs, 1000+ parents, 20 members of Workforce 2020, 30 interfaith partners, 42 elected officials, 19 M.P.S. executive cabinet members, 24 ELL staff, 9 special education staff, all Davis Center staff, all principal and assistant principals and 18 labor union representatives with a request to share the invitation with their constituents.
There were 994 responses to the survey. This broke down to administrators – 66, community members – 174, parents – 465, students – 20, support staff – 81, and teachers – 188. The main themes are largely agreed upon by the great majority of survey respondents:
● Foster a positive professional climate of mutual trust and respect among faculty, staff and administrators.
● Listen to and effectively represent the interests and concerns of students, staff, parents and community members.
● Hold a deep appreciation for diversity and the importance of providing safe and caring school environments.
On Sept. 17, the job advertisement went up. The initial slate of candidates will be presented to the Board on Nov. 9 by HYA. From that point, there is a very tight timeline of narrowing and interviewing until on Dec. 8 “or soon after,” they announce the appointment.
In our previous article, and in other media and public statements, current Interim Superintendent Michael Goar has made it clear that he wants the permanent job. (Although that didn’t stop him from applying for at least one other Superintendent post in another city.) There have been allegations that he and his allies sometimes “forget” to include the word “Interim” in his title, and that his high profile, for good or ill, may be discouraging good applicants to apply because they assume the job will go to him. So how does he stack up against the main requirements, as laid down by the stakeholder engagement process?
In terms of fostering trust, and listening to and effectively representing the many MPS constituents, Goar has had a few stumbles. In May, Goar “surprised” the Board, with whom he had so far had a collaborative relationship, when he questioned the amount of spending about to be authorized to bring the Phillips Swimming Pool project to fruition. With a similar ask on the table for another pool in North Minneapolis, he questioned whether it made sense to spend so much on “one sport” without more in-depth assessment. Did he really not know the history behind these requests, or did he speak too hastily? Rebukes were swift and came from many quarters, including Board member Rebecca Gagnon. From an article in the Minneapolis Star-Tribune: “Gagnon said many board members have been involved with the renovations at the Phillips pool for years. It’s an issue that unites them, even when they differ on other issues. She said the pools are a worthy investment because many area students do not know how to swim and are at increased risk of drowning.” Goar ultimately withdrew his objections, and the amount awarded was modified slightly but still significant at $1.75 million. Is this an example of Goar being slightly “tone deaf,” at least initially, when he thinks he is right and discounts the perception of others, others who may have more history and more “skin in the game” than he has?
An early action by Goar may have also surprised the Board, and may be resulting now in the great amount of “push-back” that Goar seems to experience on some of his (otherwise highly lauded) initiatives. Within weeks of taking the Interim Superintendent position, Goar cut 160 central office administrator and technical jobs. One senses that when he was previous Superintendent Bernadeia Johnson’s fine detail-oriented second in command, he was itching to do this. But was it too quick, or too much?
And then there is the Reading Horizons debacle, which he is struggling to put a positive spin on. Goar has made it a positive talking point that MPS did not cancel the order and attempt to recover the $1.2 million spent on the materials that were ultimately deemed completely not useable (although MPS even questioned that, at first). He says that by giving Reading Horizons feedback and a second chance, they are helping other districts avoid being infected by the bad content. and stresses that no students were ever “exposed.” Then he started setting up encounters between the most vocal in their critiques of the Reading Horizons purchase and executives from the publisher. But this only dug the hole deeper, because apparently he didn’t get that it was also very much about the money. The words of a parent, angrily rejecting an invitation to meet with Reading Horizons, sums it up well. “While I appreciate that Reading Horizons has made a commitment to improving their curriculum, my central issue is not with Reading Horizons and I have no interest in taking time from my family or my job to meet with them … my issue is not with Reading Horizons … my issue is with Minneapolis Public Schools and the Board. Not only did MPS invest 1.2 million dollars without adequately vetting the material or company, but MPS spent taxpayer dollars without a contract to protect those dollars … The Superintendent’s initial response was the books are only a small part of the whole. A significant number of Board members expressed that either this was the right company to keep working with or that now MPS is in a position to help heal this company and improve resources for other districts … And now, MPS is using more resources to have various staff meet with Reading Horizons … My issue is with MPS because you are ignoring community members, a portion of your board, your student representative to the Board, and I believe your own ethical compass … As I said in my comment at the Board meeting—I am asking you to walk away from this contract. Not doing so is clearly telling the community that you will give our money to a company that produces racist materials.”
Interim Superintendent Goar does have a lot of strong qualities, and it’s clear he does have a vision for the future of MPS, and a passion to implement it. Does he have the ability to see past his own gifts and his own passion to work collaboratively, to show more respect to his Board, to parents and students, to teachers and staff, to the wider community? And ultimately, will someone better come forth in the search process? Watch this space…
