City School Stories

Notes from the Field

Submitted by Frank Murphy on June 28, 2011

In March of 2011, the Seattle School Board voted to terminate the contract of its Superintendent of Schools, Dr. Marie Goodloe-Johnson.  This decision was made after the Board determined that Goodloe-Johnson had mismanaged a financial scandal involving a mid-level manager of the district.  An audit of the district’s finances had revealed improper activity in the district’s small business contracting program.

This marked the end of the tumultuous three and half year tenure of Goodloe-Johnson in Seattle. Extensive reporting of the many controversies that swirled around this Broad Academy-trained superintendent can be found on the Seattle Education blog.  This post, Ten + Reasons Why the Seattle Public Schools Superintendent, Dr. Marie Goodloe-Johnson, Should Be Fired With Cause, provides a comprehensive summary of her policy and program initiatives.

As I read this particular piece, I could not help but note the similarities between the actions of this Broad-trained superintendent and our own Broad-affiliated Superintendent Ackerman. They definitely share “ A Broad View” on how a school district should be managed. Both of these school superintendents have distinguished themselves as autocratic leaders with poor communication skills and a propensity for creating toxic work environments within their respective districts.

Another Broad-trained superintendent, Lavonne Sheffield, recently resigned from her position in the Rockford School District after two years of turmoil as the leader of that district.  An editorial concerning Sheffield, published in the local press of the Rockford School District’s community, doesn’t sound far different from the commentary concerning Ackerman’s performance in Philadelphia.

Other fired Broad-trained leaders such as Thandiwe Peebles, Minneapolis’ superintendent, A. Woodrow Carter, Capistrano (California) Unified’s superintendent, and John Q. Porter, Oklahoma City’s superintendent, all demonstrated similar personal and managerial styles.  What is important to note regarding these superintendents is how they all enthusiastically embrace and demonstrate the Broad leadership philosophy of disruptive innovation: a point of view that supports dismantling public schools and replacing them with charters, and/or voucher-funded private schools.  For a more comprehensive discussion of the Broad Foundation’s training programs and education policies read this post.

In recent months, there has been an increasing chorus of voices calling for the ousting of Arlene Ackerman as Superintendent of the School District of Philadelphia. Local blogs, most notably The Philadelphia School Notebook, are filled with comments voicing dissatisfaction with her job performance.  Pennsylvania’s state representative Michael McGeehan, an Ackerman critic, has called for her resignation.  Recently Phil Goldsmith, in this opinion piece, comprehensively described an extensive list of reasons why Arlene Ackerman should resign.

I fully agree with Goldsmith’s assessment. But I also believe that Ackerman’s resignation will serve little useful purpose if we fail to address the issue of returning local control of the Philadelphia School District to the citizens of our city.

Replacing Ackerman is an important decision as David Davies points out in this post published at newsworks.org.  But choosing her replacement will be determined by whoever controls our district. Is this a choice that should be made by a governance board that has no accountability to the public whom it serves? Or is this a decision that should be owned by the local community most affected by the eventual consequences of that choice?

And who will be Ackerman’s replacement?  Will the next district leader come from the pool of newly trained or recycled Broad candidates? Will we continue to place the management of our public school system in the hands of educational entrepreneurs who advocate for the private management of one our most vital public institutions?

Or will we seek an educational professional who has years of experience as both a teacher and a school-based leader.  Will we choose someone who is familiar with the history and needs of our local community?  Will we seek a leader who believes in the importance of building upon the strengths of a school community while seeking adequate resources to help it to improve?  Most importantly, will we finally entrust our schools to the management of an educator who believes that education is a public trust, not a commodity to be traded or sold?

The havoc Arlene Ackerman has played on our district should be no surprise to anyone.  She clearly demonstrated what kind of leader she is when she led the San Francisco School District.   Her selection by the School Reform Commission to run Philadelphia’s schools demonstrated a clear lack of judgment by the members of the School Reform Commission.  Allowing her go unchecked for as long as she has, further demonstrates the SRC’s lack of accountability to the Philadelphia community.

It is time for the School Reform Commission to start to deal with the chaos that has been created by the current district administration.  Their first step should be to terminate Ackerman’s contract. Then they need to a select a new school chief whose vested interest is in serving the citizens of Philadelphia by strengthening and sustaining our public schools.  This time the SRC members need to seek a leader with their eyes wide open.

If they are unable to do so, it is time for them to offer their own resignations.