I’d be fully supportive of this:
- IF the Board & 440 had a history of being more REFLECTIVE than DEFLECTIVE.
- IF it wasn’t a result of another multi-year, multi-million dollar outside consultancy contract assessing local needs.
- IF school-based & community-based stakeholders..
...weren’t treated as an afterthought in the planning process (again!).
- IF there was a pattern of investment and funding going directly to the benefit of students and families.
- IF assessments of racial equity were truly independent of influence of district leadership.
- IF leadership was held appropriately accountable for past injustices.
- IF community voices were truly heard and valued during public meetings.
- IF this District had a history of being adaptive in their initiatives (rather than pushing through school-based concerns or...
...abandoning plans at the first sign of trouble).
- IF this truly meant more holistic approaches to educating students in areas experiencing severe poverty, rather than more cheap “magic bullet” reading & math intervention programs that cause fatigue/burnout for students.
- IF district-level macro administration in US education wasn’t a pattern of ineffective bureaucracy & reactionary tendencies not based on logic or (real) research.
- IF students had a fully-inclusive seat at the table, with influence in decisions that directly affect them.
- IF that conversation around “local control” included a transparent plan for transition to a publicly elected Board.