Thursday editorial: Nixon, Hulshof flunking leadership
Huy R. Mach | Post-Dispatch
There are good reasons to doubt whether Missouri gubernatorial candidates Jay Nixon and Kenny Hulshof understand the deep problems that long have plagued St. Louis Public Schools.
Both men have plenty to say about education policy and throw around myriad concepts concerning school finance and programs. But when asked about something crucial and concrete — namely, the future of the special administrative board that was appointed 18 months ago to run the district after it lost accreditation — the candidates have played it cute and vague.
The last thing in the world the kids in the St. Louis schools need now is more uncertainty. Again.
The special board is led by Rick Sullivan, former chairman of McBride & Son, one of the nation’s largest home builders. The other two board members are Melanie Adams, a program director at the Missouri History Museum, and Richard Gaines, an insurance executive. In March 2007, they were granted the authority formerly vested in an elected school board.
Mr. Nixon, the Democratic nominee, has played politics with the city schools, as he did from time to time during his 16 years as state attorney general. In the spring, he hinted that, if elected governor, he might support repeal of the legislation that established the transitional board. Since then, his statements have been more measured, but he recently observed that “it’s a transitional board for a reason.”
Mr. Hulshof, the Republican nominee and a U.S. House member from Columbia, has tiptoed around the question of Mr. Sullivan’s future: “This has to be done with local input,” he said during candidate debates. “I applaud the direction he and the others [on the special board] have taken.”
Given St. Louis’ crisis in public education — and the state’s complicity in creating that crisis — those vying to become governor at least should show some knowledge of why the district lost accreditation and why a special board was appointed.
For that they could turn to the specially commissioned report prepared less than two years ago by former Washington University Chancellor William H. Danforth and civil rights attorney Frankie M. Freeman. It recounts the details of dismal failure in academic achievement. It emphasizes that turnover in the membership of the elected board and having six superintendents in four years had caused chronic instability in the district. The conditions were worsened by board meddling in contracts and personnel, as well as by public disputes among board members and turf battles.
The special administrative board finally restored calm and order to the district’s public proceedings. Just weeks ago, it appointed a new superintendent: Kelvin Adams, a senior school district official from New Orleans, who was chosen after a national search.
Are Messrs. Nixon and Hulshof proposing to restore instability?
The greatest miscalculation in Mr. Nixon’s career was his handling of the federal desegregation lawsuit involving St. Louis Public Schools, which was driven, according to many observers, more by his personal political concerns than by concern for the public good.
Politics is the kindest explanation for Messrs. Nixon and Hulshof’s present posture: currying favor with those who lost power as result of the state intervention. Either that, or they don’t understand the importance of public education to the future of the city of St. Louis.
If Missouri’s next governor puts the circus back in charge of St. Louis Public Schools, he will doom more generations of children to failure. Avoiding that will take the exercise of leadership, and thus far, both candidates are flunking the course.
Nixon would push the legislature to dissolve the board, while Hulshof has merely said that the chairman doesn’t have lifetime tenure. Seems like the good folks at the editorial board ought to be able to see the big difference between these positions.
As I read it, the criticism in this editorial is aimed at past Elected Board members for messing with contracts and causing instability by superintendent turnover in the district, as well as for holding a “circuslike” atmosphere.
Since the SAB was appointed, yet another superintendent has been let go and millions spent on a search for a superintendent whose approach to our district we have yet to see. As a parent, that has felt no more stable to me than the past superintendent turnovers. I hope for the best but Dr. Adams is still an unknown. It cannot be denied that had the Elected Board stayed in place, Dr. Bourisaw would still be leading the district and the time any money lost over this change in superintendents would not have occurred.
The only contract controversies and personnel meddling by an elected board member of which I am aware involved Veronica O’Brien. Can others be cited? Six other board members should not be tainted by the actions of one.
Regarding the circuslike atmosphere, again, that was created by one board member. Since April 2007 I have not seen anything remotely circuslike about our meetings. We discuss parental concerns with the choices made by the district, have had educational experts come to talk to us about ways to effectively evaluate the impact schools have on their students’ learning, provide a forum for community members to interact with us regarding their concerns, and discuss the problems facing our district in a caring and professional way. Peter Downs runs our meetings in calm and orderly fashion. Donna Jones, David Jackson and I bring parental perspective to the table. Bill Purdy brings great information and perspective as a long-time educator and principal in SLPS. Flint Fowler is a thoughtful and caring man who represents the voice of concerned community members well.
To hold up calm and quiet meetings as the standard of perfection for bodies that are meant to serve the people is ridiculous. I have no doubt that in Philadelphia in the summer of 1776 there were raised voices and disagreements, there was spirited discussion, and the document created, our Constitution, was made the better for having different voices and perspectives hammer out their concerns and reach agreement. Had Thomas Jefferson sat down with two like-minded friends and written a document based only on their own like-minded perspectives, the Constitution would not be what it is. I am glad that both of the major party candidates for Governor realize that governmental bodies exist by and for the people, and that while democracy may be loud and sometimes messy, it is still the best governing style human beings have devised.
As the parent of two SLPS schoolchildren, I understand better than the Editorial Board exactly what is at stake here. Perhaps if anyone writing these editorials would ever care to meet those of us from the Elected Board whom they are so fond of publicly insulting, they would find us very different than the picture they continue to irresponsibly present to their readers.
And finally–the SAB was put into place on June 15, 2007, not March 2007.
Hit the nail on the head there. That’s the main reason I can see why the P-D is fast approaching irrelevancy (and non-existence).