The Great Principal Debate is Over (for now)...Now What?!

In last night's Dallas ISD school board meeting, the school board made decisions on the fate of the careers of two principals and some 400 school teachers. Considerably fewer principals than the 50 anticipated originally and far more teachers than anyone imagined. 

Among those two principals being fired was indeed the principal of Madison High School, the one position that was source of such controversy over the past several months (there will be more replacements as principals and some teachers, will either resign, accept demotions, or be transferred to other schools; in short, the controversy hasn't ended). 

I think it's very important to mention as Mike Miles does in this interview, that citizens have a right to express displeasure with this decision. The principals involved have a right to appeal the decision. Jason Whitely, the reporter in this interview, mentions pastors and ministers who were 'indifferent' to the process. I am assuming his reference was to me and Pastor Jones in our appearance on 'Inside Texas Politics'. But it's important to make a clarification, I am not (nor do I believe Pastor Jones is) 'indifferent'. My stance has always been that this is a complex issue. Behind all of the emotions expressed by students, parents and other stakeholders, are some very valid points, that should not be dismissed. 

But Mike Miles, for all of his missteps, has some valid points as well. If what we expect is 'reform' but 'reform' with all of the same personnel, we have to question whether what we are getting is real reform. I hope going forward that the Superintendent is more collaborative and more relational during his tenure. No one holding a public office, certainly one giving oversight, management and direction to a democratic institution like a public school district, can do so without engaging the constituent groups that are the direct beneficiaries and stakeholders of that institution. There are some real issues to be taken into account. For the most part, the main issue being that a change in principal or new teachers do not address the real problem of education in poor communities. Be it TAKS, TAAS of STAAR (the three generations of standardized testing administered to students in Texas) or the ACT or SAT tests, we have shown throughout the country that we can create generations of proficient test takers. What we have not proven is that we can truly and adequately educate students in 12 years of schooling. 

Some 80% of DISD students going on to colleges and universities in our country require remediation. That means they are requiring remediation after passing every standardized tests that implies that they read, write, do math and grasp social studies proficiently enough to graduate and go to a post secondary school and work. It is only when they get to a college, university or work that we find out that this isn't the case. If the goal of moving a principal is to make sure more children can pass the standardized tests, then we should all let Mr. Miles know that we expect more. We should let him know that increased graduation rates are not enough. We need to require that our students have been educated enough to employ that education meaningfully in an institution of higher learning or in the workforce. 

Far from 'indifferent', I believe we owe it to Mike Miles to give him that chance. I believe we owe it to our children, our community and to our city. I believe that if we fail to give him that chance, we will all suffer. 

I have very good friends who are smart people who feel differently than I do. But the real question is not how we feel about Miles. The real question is what is our responsibility to the children of Dallas, and how do we undergird the efforts of these principals and teachers to help make sure that these children succeed? I would argue that the highest and best energies of those who have spent calling for Mike Miles' retirement, could be utilized addressing issues of poverty in communities that constitutes the barriers to the education our children. 

We're in the Commencement season. Graduating students aren't just ending their public school life, they are 'commencing' - starting - a new phase of life. I suggest it's about time we ALL 'commence' making these schools better - for all of us. 

The DISD Controversy: Missing the Mark by Hitting Easy Targets

The school year is coming to an end, but not one of the most heated school district controversy since former DISD Superintendent Michael Hinojosa ran up an $84 million deficit!

For those who don't live in Dallas, the new Superintendent Mike Miles has raised just about everyone's ire. The business community has been put off because of an apparent arrogance and aloofness. There have been school board members offended because of he seems not to respect them. Teachers accuse him of micromanagement. Some principals seem terrorized by the executive directors overseeing their schools. And there are members of the community, more particularly the South Dallas community who are livid because of reported plans to replace principals in their neighborhood schools. 

Not only are these just a few of the complaints against him - each one of these complaints have subtexts to them that will make your head spin. 

And this is after 10 months!

I have some very smart friends on the anti-Miles/pro-Miles sides whom I feel are really missing the point, particularly when it comes to the schools in South Dallas. 

The problem is really simpler (and more complex) than whether or not we vigorously support or are vehemently against Miles' programs. 

The problem is poverty. South Dallas is an area of concentrated poverty and even when it comes to public education, the pathology associated with it cannot be addressed by changes in personnel and pedagogical techniques designed to raise test scores. 

Don't get me wrong. Strong principals in every school and a great teacher in every class is an inarguable objective. Creating an atmosphere in which expectations are are clear and in which students are cared for is laudable. But one cannot ignore what poor health, chaotic home situations, poor diet and a number of other challenges associated with poverty children bring with them in a classroom setting. 

The answer isn't as simple as replacing Superintendents, principals and teachers. Frankly, we always replace superintendents, principals and teachers. We need to provide an atmosphere in which real learning can take place (what that looks like is another argument), but we need to provide a safe atmosphere in which children are inspired to aspire and achieve, beyond the campus. We cannot afford to act as if education exists in a vacuum and our city has to take responsibility to address neighborhood issues that frustrate what our schools are trying to accomplish. 

It's for that reason, I don't think replacing Miles is the right answer. Let's face it. If we get rid of Mike Miles, he'll do just fine. Virtually every principal or teacher replaced will do fine. But if we don't address the barriers to student achievement on the campus and the community, it really won't matter. We'll be doing this again 10 months from now...or less. 

More on this later...

Bad Form to Suggest Investment in Poor Neighborhoods?

Interesting article in yesterday's Dallas Morning News. It's about the transformational impact Dallas' wealthy philanthropic community...

"[Dallas'] philanthropists may be the most civic-minded in the country. Over several decades, Dallas’ superrich have transformed their city, making it the “American capital of philanthropy,” according to Richard Fisher, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas and himself a member of the giving class."

"“Dallas has always been a city driven by private philanthropy, with active civic involvement going hand in glove with the accumulation of wealth,” Fisher says. “Now, with the enormous riches that have come with Texas’ economic boom — not just in oil and gas but in financial and business services, technology, health care and other areas — the levels of philanthropic giving have skyrocketed to levels that would be unimaginable most anywhere else in America.”"

"The Dallas donors have funded everything from world-class cultural institutions to parks and even bridges, showing the power of American philanthropy to contribute to urban flourishing..."

"The city’s wealthiest philanthropists are also sometimes called the new Medicis, and there’s something to the comparison: Not a single major cultural institution in Dallas would exist in its current form — or exist at all, in many cases — without their help, whether it’s the Dallas Museum of Art, the Nasher Sculpture Center, the Perot Museum of Nature and Science or the Dallas Symphony Orchestra. The George W. Bush Presidential Library arose on property donated by Ray Hunt, head of a global petroleum company."

"The philanthropists’ generosity extends beyond cultural organizations. The superb new bridge that spans the Trinity River, designed by famed Spanish architect Santiago Calatrava, was partly funded by Margaret McDermott, the vivacious centenarian widow of the founder of Texas Instruments and the “queen mother” of Texan philanthropy. (McDermott attributes her longevity to the vodka martinis she drinks with her meals.)"

"Yet Hunt rejects the Medici comparison. “We are new rich — we’ve made our own fortunes, starting from nothing, in one generation,” he says. This swiftly made wealth, he thinks, motivates generosity: “We know we have been lucky.”" (Full article can be read here).

To be sure, Dallas looks different - especially downtown. It looks positively wealthy!

But Sharon Grigsby, Deputy Editorial Page Editor, raises a question I've been chewing on in a different way: why doesn't this largess extend to some of Dallas' most poor citizens?!

"Yes, philanthropists in this city knows how to lift up a beautiful building or urban park, but what about lifting up a neighborhood?"

"I know that a lot of do-good groups in the city raise money for all sorts of worthy causes — from literacy to prevention of child abuse. And lots of those big shiny new buildings offer programs for the so-called “underprivileged.”"

"That’s not the kind of spending I’m talking about — I’m talking about doing something transformative — transforming the neighborhoods in this city that need to be healed in the same way that the philanthropists have transformed the Arts District."

"This isn’t the first time I’ve written these sentiments — and I’m far, far from the first person to write them. But the Points cover just got under my skin. I think it’s great that the private sector steps up to the plate — but how about stepping up to the plate on behalf of social justice? And stepping up in a big all-out way."

"It was tough to see our city gushed over in print for its success in creating sparkly baubles and to see “givers” lionized for their can-do-great-things spirit. What we need is a lot more projects that are at least as big as Jubilee Park — and preferable a lot bigger."

"When Dallas philanthropists are ready to write some huge checks on behalf of healing needy neighborhoods, then I’ll think it’s time to gush over them."

Ok. It's impolite to tell someone how to 'spend' their money. But there are rich people who prioritize transforming human lives over civic projects. There's nothing wrong with these projects, by the way. They contribute to our civic vitality. Yet there are poor and homeless people who will never be able to enjoy that benefit. With a fraction of that generosity, we could practically end homelessness and strengthen whole neighborhoods.

Sharon's right: investing in people and their neighborhoods isn't glitzy - it just makes a city an even better place to live...