If policy changes implemented by the reform slate of the four members of the St. Louis Board of Education have not been a panacea for the struggling district, neither have their decisions caused the district’s undoing as activists and other detractors warned when the board brought in a private restructuring firm.
The New York-based turnaround specialists, Alvarez and Marsal, believe it’s better to make a decision and be 10 percent wrong and 90 percent correct, than not address the problem. Notwithstanding the harsh charges from a variety of critics (some honorable and others suspect) that the district has seen no benefits during this last 18 months, a calm, insightful observer, Larry Handlin, observes rightly in the current issue of the Arch City Chronicle that, “The District offices run more smoothly than (it has) in the past. Decision making, which was non-existent occurs with frequency and speed. There are many problems to fix and the sheer number of fronts on which the board is confronted with problems compounds the situation’s difficulty…because there are so many different narratives of what is wrong, critics never lack a target. The difficulty for the board majority is that regardless of what they do, they cannot address each issue and can be accused of ignoring The Problem.”
Those among us who truly are concerned about the primacy of the district’s children first must be willing to go beyond wishful thinking and come to grips with the challenging internal and external realities that face the District. We must be willing to face unpleasant facts about the district’s overall dismal student achievement results and adapt to changing realities. Too many of us have accepted apologists for the status quo and been blind to the need for a change in course. For example, we must be willing to make unpleasant decisions about whether the right people are in the right jobs.
The district had to be restructured in order to be in a stronger position to afford the children a better educational experience. Mistakes have been made and there has been considerable pain, some unwarranted, but there was no way to avoid some of the pain experienced by many because of the desperate need to re-structure the district’s operations and fiscal management. Again Handlin tells us, correctly that, “The District needs to demonstrate command over its internal challenges before confronting external ones such as an overwhelmingly poor population and a racially divided community.”
Despite compromising the children’s well being, there is a persistent, unprincipled challenge from a committed group attempting to keep the board from succeeding at any cost. This group’s credibility has benefited from the failure of the board majority to communicate to the public its successful initiatives. Handlin confirms this by saying, “By allowing loud dissent to appear as the public face of the SLPS, the Board is losing a public relations war and decreasing confidence.”
Yet Handlin concludes with guarded optimism that, “Overall, the SLPS shows dramatic improvements in key areas and is now in the position to implement curriculum reform which is the primary step toward raising achievement.” It is fair to say that the District has made some measurable progress in its mission to improve on the poor student performance of the past. Much remains to be done, but there is a continuing need for public dialogue, but it must be a civil dialogue about an agenda that best serves the district’s children.