By Antonio D. French
Filed Friday, September 15 at 6:33 PM
At the last meeting of the St. Louis City School Board, the board majority surprised many by voting to drop the word "interim" off the title of new Superintendent Diana Bourisaw, effectively making her the leader of the district for the foreseeable future.
The 4-2 vote, which happened in a closed meeting, occurred after some stern objections from the board's minority -- most notably from board member Ron Jackson who stormed out of the meeting before the vote was taken.
Jackson sat down with PUB DEF this afternoon to talk about that vote, the current state of St. Louis Public Schools, and why he thinks the state should step in to take over the district.
Part 1: Why were you upset by the actions of the board majority this week? (approx 4 mins)
Part 2: Do you agree with fellow board member Bob Archibald that school boards should not be elected by the public, but rather appointed by governors or mayors? (approx 8 mins)
Part 3: Is this all just "sour grapes"? Would you and Archibald be calling for a state takeover if you were still in the majority? (approx 2 mins)
Part 4: Can you see why some people may be fearful of a takeover of SLPS by this governor's administration? (approx 1.5 mins)
10 Comments:
I find it interesting that Messers Jackson and Archibald continue to complain about not seeing the contracts, proposals, etc, etc. Certainly, it behooves the Board majority to proactively share that information with all Board members. That should be a given, and I fault the majority for not doing so.
But it also behooves the minority to ASK for the information they want to read and review. Neither Archibald nor Jackson have ever stated they were denied access to this information. So it seems clear that they have made a decision NOT to ask for it, apparently so that they can say they haven't seen items such as the contracts, etc. I think that is disingenuous, and a disservice to the people they represent.
Mr. Jackson's position is that he would never have asked for a state takeover if the people he supported had been elected. That flies in the face of the purpose of any election, not to mention the concept of local control. Given his prior positions, such a viewpoint greatly diminishes his credibility,(at least to me).
Finally, Mr. Jackson complains that the Board majority comes to meetings with a pre-set agenda, that doesn't allow for much, if any, true interchange of ideas. I believe he is correct, at least to a certain extent, and the Board majority should do better to hear an opposing viewpoint. Yet Mr. Jackson himself contributed a great deal to this atmosphere, by doing the exact same thing for several years when he was part of a majority that allowed no discussion or exchange of ideas. Thus he contributed mightily to the current bitterly-staked out opposite positions. Perhaps rather than storming out of meetings, he and his consituents would be better served by him trying to listen and learn. Then, if he still disagrees, through constructive opposition, he can help provide the groundwork for the next election.
Friday, September 15, 2006 7:48:00 PM
Ron, sorry it sounds like sour grapes. If your people would have won then no state takeover. Appointed boards are better? A another Slay board that detroys a school system. Yeah, you had a plan and you had a bad plan. Ron you are sad.
Friday, September 15, 2006 10:36:00 PM
I agree it is sorry grapes. State takeover like Wellston no good. The children are failing even more.
Friday, September 15, 2006 10:38:00 PM
Of course sour grapes are involved...at least Mr. Jackson can admit it. Here's a few observations...(my humble opinion).
Mr. Jackson says that "improving academic outcomes have never been a priority" in this district. They are now.
Mr. Jackson said "you need stability". Absolutely right. But the majority he was a part of completely devastated what little stability we had. I know he believed they needed to "restructure the operations of the district" first...but the fact is that the system could not cope with the restructuring as they saw appropriate. BAD JUDGEMENT on their part.
He states "you can't just turn the ship 180 degrees". I bet the passengers on the Titanic wished that the captain had turned 180 degrees right before they smacked into the big chunk of ice.
He claims they "had a vision". Having a vision is not only easy, it is a responsibility of every caring person on the planet. What is hard is having an effective plan, and admitting the true problems. Their plan failed miserably, despite whatever best intentions they may have (or, as some think, may not have) had.
I do believe that Mr. Jackson has the best intentions for all children of the SLPS, and especially (rightly so in his case as an African-American male role model) our African-American kids.
(I am not as certain for other members of the past majority and those in the political and business community who I believe were involved in manipulating the the past majority.)
But even Mr. Jackson admits that their plan failed.
However, (and I know some of my friends and colleagues will think I'm crazy) Mr. Jackson, Mr. Archibald, and Mr. Fowler do deserve the respect of being included in decision-making discussions, despite the fact they themselves may not have granted the same courtesy to the past minority. The new majority still has the controlling vote, and the three gentlemen are still current board members...at least for now.
The new majority must put themselves above the crap pulled upon them in the past. That is what many of us worked so hard to help get them elected for.
You know..."Do unto others as you would have them do unto you".
p.s. I wonder where we would be now if we had all worked towards changing the government's spending priorities 5 or 6 years ago instead of slashing the hell out of education budgets, while at the same time, demanding impossible results from those we slashed.
TGIF everybody.
Friday, September 15, 2006 11:13:00 PM
I do not think Mr. Jackson has a realistic grasp of how inept Williams was.
Bourisaw has a guaranteed majority, no matter what happens in the next election. She will have had more time to establish whatever direction she is trying to go in than Williams.
A real work of genius on her part would be to win over Jackson and Archibald and have their fellow board members supporting them for re-election. I doubt if it happens, but i could see that before i could see her winning over Slay. Slay probably would rather see Blunt take over.
Saturday, September 16, 2006 12:21:00 AM
Spiro,
I agree. Don't forget about Flint Fowler.
Saturday, September 16, 2006 7:35:00 AM
Jim Heger and all, what Jim wrote can't be improved upon. His postings are worth reading, heeding, and then leading upon.
All elected board members deserve respect from the others even if there is disagreement. Perhaps Jackson will have a change of heart if he is treated better than he treated others.
Saturday, September 16, 2006 1:31:00 PM
Unfortunately when trust is lost, it is practically impossible to regain it. Jackson and Archibald would do their cause the best service by not running again.
Saturday, September 16, 2006 10:53:00 PM
I was more impressed by Mr. Jackson during this interview than at any time thus far in his service as a Board member. I wish he had been more forthcoming and accessible to "common people" earlier in this whole thing. Unfortunately, with where we are now I have to agree with the writer above.
Monday, September 18, 2006 11:14:00 AM
where were you guys when Ron and his group were having meetings without the other three at the History Musuem? They deserve respect put they need to treat people with respect. Be fair folks Ron and Archibald and their bundies treat Haas, Hilgeman and Moore like dogs. Ron is a fool.
Heger is out of touch. where were your Heger in the past?
Tuesday, September 26, 2006 9:08:00 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home