Notes on the 26 January 2016 Meeting of the Minneapolis Public Schools Board of Education Committee of the Whole

Here's the gist of the 26 January 2016 meeting of the Minneapolis Public Schools (MPS) Board of Education Committee of the Whole, with regard to the matter of chief public interest---  the renewed quest for a new Superintendent  >>>>>


This was by definition not a time when the Minneapolis Public Schools Board of Education made definite decisions, but rather moved in the direction of decisions via discussion. From the discussion of the renewed search for a Superintendent, now that the school board blew the first search, a consensus seems to be forming around the following:


>>>>>  hiring another search firm and following a process that would take us up until the end of May;


>>>>>  bountiful opportunity for community input as to what "stakeholders" are seeking in a Superintendent.


>>>>>  a desire (that could be seen at cross-purposes with bountiful community involvement) to winnow the candidates down to just two before conducting public interviews, with the expressed view that a high-quality candidate does not want to expose herself or himself to a public spectacle that might see her or him eliminated when six or even three candidates are still under consideration.


....................................................................


I was actually proud of the school board during the November interviews and community events during the first search, and I was of the conviction that the board, while not opting for my preferred candidate (Charles Foust), came to its 6-3 vote for Sergio Paez carefully and with sound reasoning.


But this evening, I disagreed with every major point around which consensus seems to be forming >>>>>


>>>>>   The school board should not hire another search firm.


It should depend on its own Department of Human Resources to send out notices of the opening for the position of Superintendent of the Minneapolis Public Schools--- then evaluate those applications for viable candidates, identify 10 or so for uppermost consideration by the school board, winnow the list down to five who will be given semifinalist interviews, then focus on three candidates at the finalist stage.


>>>>> Given that there is already some groundwork done and a pool of candidates already considered, the process should not take five more months but should be expedited to unfold within no more than three months.


>>>>>  Just as too much of a mystique has now surrounded the selection of the (never gonna happen) perfect Superintendent, there is now too much buzz around community input.


A central theme in all of my communications to the school board and administrators at the Minneapolis Public Schools is that they must develop a coherent educational philosophy grounded in knowledge-intensive education imparted by knowledgeable teachers, confidently explain that philosophy to the public, then move forward with the many actions necessary to deliver such an education.


I value explaining the theory and action necessary to achieve educational excellence over community input regarding the selection of Superintendent or any other decision or program.


But here we are, with meaningful progress toward achieving excellence in education on hold while we exaggerate the importance of the next Superintendent of the Minneapolis Public Schools--- as we are always putting aside what really matters by pretending that the hot topic of the moment is much more important than the mere matters of paramount importance, namely




>>>>> curriculum;




and


>>>>> teachers.