All good points. But one of the concerns I have is that if they aren’t open to filling positions with anyone who is white then their talent pool is far more limited. The connection between my point and the article is that I can’t remember the last time they hired anyone in a leadership position that was white and quite frankly, that’s ju…
All good points. But one of the concerns I have is that if they aren’t open to filling positions with anyone who is white then their talent pool is far more limited. The connection between my point and the article is that I can’t remember the last time they hired anyone in a leadership position that was white and quite frankly, that’s just weird and suggests exactly what you imply which is the whites can’t deliver equity which I think is total BS. the last time the district delivered any educational gains for black and brown kids was under a white Superintendent. Since Goren, the board and admin just talk about equity. The results are dismal at best and disastrous at worse. Maybe we should be focused on a more balanced view of leadership in D65 and not one that automatically rejects a large percentage of the population based on race alone?
Yeah -- I'm not sure if it's a matter of being "not" open vs. "less" open to hiring a white person in those positions. I think there's probably concern it "sends the wrong message" or feels like going backwards. I also think there's likely a lot of people who felt Goren and previous admins didn't make "enough" progress towards equity, regardless of how the people since have fared.
I think the more recent results are some combination of poor strategy/implementation, a board that's too homogenous in viewpoints (and light on humility/accountability), and mostly that the issues people are purportedly trying to address are deeply ingrained in society -- and it unfortunately is going to take quite some time to figure out what works. COVID feels like such a crutch, but you also can't deny the impact it's had on the students, teachers, staff, and parents...and that likely set us back a matter of years. Sure, cue the "we should have reopened school faster" rhetoric, but there's little we can do now about that beyond recognize the impact it had in potentially inhibiting progress. We're still digging out of a hole here.
I world argue the problems are a direct result of the board and admin starting with Horton. I feel like there is too much data to suggest otherwise. You don’t lose 20% of your students in a few years if you are hitting it out of the park. Other districts with similar Covid closures are not in the state of total financial and operational dysfunction as ours. Yes, learning loss is directly related to how long kids were out of school but the other stuff? The sooner this board gets voted out the better. Until then, it will be bad decisions and zero accountability
All good points. But one of the concerns I have is that if they aren’t open to filling positions with anyone who is white then their talent pool is far more limited. The connection between my point and the article is that I can’t remember the last time they hired anyone in a leadership position that was white and quite frankly, that’s just weird and suggests exactly what you imply which is the whites can’t deliver equity which I think is total BS. the last time the district delivered any educational gains for black and brown kids was under a white Superintendent. Since Goren, the board and admin just talk about equity. The results are dismal at best and disastrous at worse. Maybe we should be focused on a more balanced view of leadership in D65 and not one that automatically rejects a large percentage of the population based on race alone?
Yeah -- I'm not sure if it's a matter of being "not" open vs. "less" open to hiring a white person in those positions. I think there's probably concern it "sends the wrong message" or feels like going backwards. I also think there's likely a lot of people who felt Goren and previous admins didn't make "enough" progress towards equity, regardless of how the people since have fared.
I think the more recent results are some combination of poor strategy/implementation, a board that's too homogenous in viewpoints (and light on humility/accountability), and mostly that the issues people are purportedly trying to address are deeply ingrained in society -- and it unfortunately is going to take quite some time to figure out what works. COVID feels like such a crutch, but you also can't deny the impact it's had on the students, teachers, staff, and parents...and that likely set us back a matter of years. Sure, cue the "we should have reopened school faster" rhetoric, but there's little we can do now about that beyond recognize the impact it had in potentially inhibiting progress. We're still digging out of a hole here.
I world argue the problems are a direct result of the board and admin starting with Horton. I feel like there is too much data to suggest otherwise. You don’t lose 20% of your students in a few years if you are hitting it out of the park. Other districts with similar Covid closures are not in the state of total financial and operational dysfunction as ours. Yes, learning loss is directly related to how long kids were out of school but the other stuff? The sooner this board gets voted out the better. Until then, it will be bad decisions and zero accountability
There were about 40 candidates for the Evanston library
It is safer to run for library positions clearly. Less mud slinging and toxic pathetic women calling people racists.