Citizens League

When “great” isn’t good enough:
New superintendency solutions for Minneapolis schools
By Sean Kershaw

Theory of Science Pop Quiz! What do you do when your experiment goes exactly as planned, but the outcome fails to prove your hypothesis? Answer: You begin to question the validity of the hypothesis. Maybe it’s wrong—and almost certainly is if you keep repeating the process with the same results.

Public Education Pop Quiz! What do you do when a superintendent does “a great job,” but still fails to achieve any real progress in improving student achievement? What happens when several superintendents in Minneapolis have the same result? Answer: Reexamine the hypothesis that a superintendent can solve the achievement problems in the Minneapolis School District’s current structure. Maybe the model is broken.

By most measures of process, Minneapolis Superintendent Carol Johnson’s term has been a huge success. She’s hired smart and talented people (e.g. David Jennings), significantly improved community relationships and trust (the recent Sanford incident notwithstanding), brought additional resources to the District, and negotiated difficult political circumstances. The goodwill surrounding her term seems genuine.

But by almost every standard of achievement and student performance—what really matters—the progress has been miserable. For example, at the current rate of improvement, the overall achievement gap between white and black students won’t close for another generation!! Is this really our standard for achievement?

This isn’t just inadequate, at a certain point it becomes insane! Where else would we tolerate such minimal progress. And this is the single most important social justice issue of our day!?

We complain about the ethical and economic impact of Enron and other corporate scandals. Aren’t the economic and ethical consequences here more troubling?

This is not a sideswipe at Superintendent Johnson, administrators, or teachers. Far from it--it is actually an acknowledgement of their talent and hard work as individuals. But it is also an acknowledgement that we have to stop looking for individuals (teachers, parents, and especially superintendents) to save a bad system.

If the key outcomes that matter didn’t improve under Johnson’s high-caliber leadership, what makes us think that a) we can find another person as talented as she has been; or b) If we do, that progress won’t continue to be as inadequate? The job may simply be undoable!

The last thing the students in Minneapolis needs right now is a long search for a highly compensated and then short-termed leader that won’t improve student achievement and learning. We’ve seen it happen in dozens of other cities – including Minneapolis. Now is not the time to settle for the status quo here either. Don’t “find better people for a bad job.” Find a better job for the right person. Don’t expect an individual to save a system that is broken. Let’s fix the system before we waste more time, more money, and more lives.

So what am I proposing?

1) Slow down, before we make a mistake. The District is in good hands with David Jennings. What would be lost by taking time out to consider the fundamental role and responsibility of the superintendent?

2) Consider potentially dramatic changes to the fundamental governing structures in the District. We need a new organizational relationship between the chief executive and the school system. The Sept. 3 issue of Education Week includes an excellent article by William G. Ouchi, author of Making Schools Work, that links “deep and revolutionary” decentralization to improved student achievement. Give parents, teachers, principles and individual schools much greater authority-and accountability.

Within the Minneapolis schools, there seems to be no consequences for poor performance, and no adequate incentives for improvement. In fact, Superintendent Johnson leaves with a generous financial package, despite the poor performance of her students. We must restore both accountability, and incentives to the system.

We must thoughtfully examine other models and systems for governance, accountability and performance – and be prepared to demand and support their implementation in Minneapolis.

(Before people ask: I’d argue that Peter Hutchinson’s term was an alternative entity essentially trying to do the same job. It wasn’t a fundamental change in the structure of the position, or the District.)

3) Keep in mind several key principles: improving student outcomes should matter more than preserving the existing system; choice and flexibility must be preserved; teachers, parents and the community must be expected to, and allowed to, play a greater role; incentives and accountability must be built into the system; and, the focus must be long-term sustainability and success.

4) Don’t wait for the District to make this decision for themselves. One potential next step is to establish a State-sponsored commission to review existing data on new models for school district governance, leadership and organization, and make recommendations on restructuring to the State. The commission would include stakeholders from the District, State government, parents, students, business, etc. Ideally, they could make recommendations that allow a Superintendent to do a better job – at a better job.

Why should the District support this proposal? With the legislative session coming soon, appeals for more funds from the District are almost certain. However, given the poor performance of the District, and the genuine concerns about the cost of this performance, on what grounds could the District ever appeal to the Legislature for more money? If the District does not demonstrate a real effort to change--not just develop10-point plans – why would this Legislature and the Governor help them out with additional funds? Why should they?

Of course we should be careful with these efforts – ‘fadish’ attempts at reform can be very dangerous. But we are losing a great deal now – thousands of lives a year. Too much is being lost by our in ability to see what’s obvious. It is time to say, “the Superintendency has no clothes!”