Readers sent me links to articles that show how a new superintendent in Baton Rouge is systematically destroying public education there.
The superintendent worked previously in Grand Rapids, where he was put on leave and his contract was bought out.
Before that he was in Kansas City, a district that has been afflicted with a series of ineffective leaders.
First, read this account of his plan to remake the Baton Rouge schools by eliminating attendance zones and having schools compete for students, which is what has happened in recent years on Michigan.
Why he is closing Delmont Elementary School, which is in the midst of a federally-funded three-year turnaround and making great strides with an excellent staff, is a mystery.
After you read the link, be sure to read the discussion that follows in the comments. I quote two of the commenters because I know them both and know them as knowledgeable, reliable, and fair judges of what is happening.
Here is Mike Deshotels:
“16) Comment by mikedeshot – 03/24/2013
The slanted reporting continues in an effort to cover up the continued failure of the State Department of Education as they continue to experiment with children’s lives. The reporter starts off by telling us that these reorganizations are an effort to deal with stiff competition for students. This is not correct. The State DOE has failed miserably with their takeover of local schools to the point that almost half of the students attending takeover charter schools have left them to return to the regular public school system. The truth is that the State is continuing to threaten to take over more schools that in many cases are already well run and are showing progress. The best example is Delmont Elem. which now has a top notch staff of experienced teachers and is only in the second year of a federally funded turnaround effort. Its enrollment has increased greatly as parents have “chosen” to send their children where they know they are getting a good education. Yet this reorganization caused by the bullying of the DOE is going to close the school and send the students god knows where. This is destruction, not progress.”
Here is Noel Hammatt, expert researcher:
“It is easy for someone who isn’t cursed with the knowledge of what is really going on to pass over this article without ever seeing any key elements. Charles Lussier’s critique of the meeting, and his aggravation about what is being done by this Board and Superintendent on the orders of others, is almost completely invisible to anyone who hasn’t followed the situation closely. Let me spell it out for those who might have already given up on the school system. A couple of simple quotes to start. “Eight separate items the board approved Thursday had not previously been considered.” Let’s ponder that for a moment. For nearly 18 years or more, the Board has in almost every single case given the public details and two Board Meetings at which to raise any issues that might, if listened to, actually improve plans. Yet at last night’s meeting, eight separate items were seen by the public FOR THE FIRST TIME! With no details to debate, examine, or approve. The second telling item is actually contained in the subtext between two other statements. We have Craig Freeman, a “Deform” candidate (I am now calling the so-called “reformers” by the title of “deformers” as their intent is not to reform public education, but to destroy it and replace it with an ALEC inspired model pushed by the Prophets of Profit at places like ALEC, BAEO, and the Center for Education Reform, and by their local puppets at ABC, BRAC and BRAF and now BRAZ, and CABL, of course) heavily supported by all the “deform” groups says of the meeting “I was so excited for this board meeting, more than any meeting than I’ve seen since I’ve been on this board,” sounds innocuous enough, until you add it to the Superintendent’s (who has managed to get tax-funded buy-outs in his firing by the only two other Boards he served under and is now suing his last Board over his buyout) who says he has “made himself available to board members who sought him out, but not everyone has taken him up on that.” I know for a fact that many in the media have asked for more details on his plans, and been stymied at every turn. I went to meetings where none of these things were presented in enough detail for ANYONE to make a decision. If Board Members did have more details, it was in private conversations with the Superintendent to which no one else was privy. Is this what passes for “transparency.” Just as other deformers have done, this board and superintendent have taken to operating behind closed doors, and then passing what Freeman suggested were the most sweeping changes WITH NO PUBLIC DISCUSSION! There were no documents for the public to see! As democracy goes, it was a low moment for this board. More to come. No data, no details, a “trust me” mentality. Oh, and one final comment. Taylor said the board had this “Sophie’s Choice.” Either approve my plans, with no details, or let the state takeover. Like the threat of takeover just happened on Wednesday night. Shame on this community if this farce of democracy is allowed to continue unchallenged. Some of the Board Members went out of their way to defend this last minute, back-room hatched & hidden agenda. Shame on them. ”
Here is a link about the superintendent.
Sorry, off-topic, but I was wondering if any of you know anything about the Rand Corporation study of charter schools. I’ve seen it hailed as “non-partisan” and “middle of the road” because it found that charter schools don’t actually meet all of their claimed benchmarks, but on the other hand, it found that charter schools do have a number of advantages and that they don’t skim the top students from public schools. I read the Rand Corporation’s own posting about it, but does anyone know of any independent/critical analyses that look at the claims and the methodology? Thanks much.
No surprise to see an individual whose career includes disrupting education as superintendent in one or more districts hired in yet another district to continue bringing distraction and disruption to another school community. What was the School Board thinking? Frequently these choices come out of negotiations over candidates who would likely be more effective but the Board can’t agree, so they hire someone else, despite a questionable career path!
Isn’t it interesting how the same people get recycled and fail again to improve education, although apparently succeeding in their unstated goal of destroying public education. How many districts were damaged by Arlene Ackerman, by Brizard, by Paul Vallas? Why do we get Secretaries of Education who never taught in a public school, whose track record as Superintendents (Rod Paige, Arne Duncan) or total lack of even that experience (Margaret Spellings) is somehow supposed to qualify them? And then of course there is Michelle Rhee.
Other than being championed by billionaires like Michael Bloomberg, Bill Gates, Eli Broad, and Rupert Murdoch, what qualifications do any of these favorites of the deformers have to be running even a single school, much less a district or our national educational policy?
Even superintendents who should know better seem to tilt towards the deform agenda to advance their own careers – that is true of my last two superintendents, who just happened to be John Deasy and William Hite. Of course, both are products of Broad’s efforts to reshape public education to his ideas and to hell with anyone who might point out the lack of success of that approach.
I am a retired teacher, in part because of what has been happening to public education. I spent much time and energy beyond my commitment to my students trying to make a difference in the direction of educational policy. But I am not a billionaire or a think tank with an agenda, so the fact that my students and my immediate administrators and my fellow teachers and my parents supported me, my voice – and the voice of hundreds like me – simply was ignored.
our superintendent was fired and now was rehired to represent administrators. one reason he was fired was b/c administrators hated him. does this make sense to recycle people who have lost their job to a vote of no confidence? (prior to being superintendent, he was a principal. he was fired as a principal and then became the superintendent!)
A warning from Michigan?
“What a disaster you have on your hands. Dr. Taylor was bought out here in Grand Rapids on terms that were equal to the dismissal clause on his contract. His leadership style is authoritarian. He is a narcissist – not able to collaborate or take constructive criticism (an example is when he made a 4th grade student and their parent apologize because the student took the initiative to write a letter to him questioning the calling of a snow day and then chastised them on spelling). His record of achievement in GR is a sham. New scores have been released showing a significant drop in schools meeting AYP. Grand Rapids lost thousands of students during his reign of terror. Good staff was quick to leave the district. Dr.Taylor surrounded himself by underqualified administrators that would follow his direction. Relationships with members of the Board of Education where awful – not speaking to some for months on end. The only bright spot is we can possibly get out of some of the parachute release cost we incurred to dismiss this man. I feel for your district as there is a history in GR and in Kansas City that was easily searched that could have avoided this mistake on the part of your Board. I would suggest making his contract intolerable if you can to avoid him accepting and if nothing else make sure you can get out of it easily without too much cost. It won’t be long and you’ll be looking for options. He is a great negotiator and will try to get a multi-year contract with a large dismissal insurance – I recommend an “at will” contract so you can get out of this once your eyes are open.”
I agree with Teacher Ken. I am amazed at the recycled incompetence.
And BESE’s not publicizing agendas? That’s a product of this purchased BESE (October 2011 election) and the positioning of John White.
By the way, Diane, Mike and Noel’s comments were removed from the end of the article. I am glad you reproduced them in full here.
I put Noel’s and Mike’s comments back in. 🙂
Mercedes, if the paper deleted Mike and Noel’s comments before, I wonder if they will leave them alone now? Let us know.
Diane, the link took me to a different article this morning– it took me to an April 2012 article about Taylor’s appointment. This time, the link took me to the correct article. the comments have not been removed.
Taylor is nothing different from any other top-down, sketchy details reformer. He is producing a chaos that is unfortunately increasingly commonplace across our nation.
This guy is trained to destroy.
@Diane: Thanks for re-printing these. What’s happened at Delmont is concrete proof that “Turnaround” schools were created–through great disruption– with the underlying belief that schools in deep poverty in Baton Rouge could NOT be turned around, but the Board was willing to take the SIG money anyway, and let the chips (read: kids) fall where they may.
Delmont is the turnaround school I’ve been writing about in my blog, periodically, for the past couple of years. I know the teachers and principal, and have seen first-hand how the school has slowly, painstakingly changed direction, offering hope in a neglected community. Changed the lives of kids and families–and teachers, too. Here’s the first of that blog series: http://blogs.edweek.org/teachers/teacher_in_a_strange_land/2011/08/teach_em_until_they_learn.html
You sent me an e-mail once reminding me that the turnaround process outlined in RTTT was deeply flawed and writing about a successful turnaround might lead to the false belief that it was a valid strategy. I think what happened in Baton Rouge was that the Delmont parent satisfaction and upticks in student learning, combined with strong, articulate teachers and leadership, was frightening to a Board and administrators used to power plays and extracting federal dollars for pet projects.
Delmont was actually succeeding! How could that happen? It was so alarming they had to shut it down, a year before the grant ended. Only fear would trigger that reaction.
Frankly, after reading a little about the storm in Grand Rapids, it’s surprising he waited till now (since last June) to “pull the trigger” (his words).
I noticed the final paragraph of Lussier’s account: “The board also agreed unanimously Thursday to create several new alternative schools, each to be known as a “Superintendents Academy.” Students older than their peers and in need of special help and accelerated classes would be “invited” to attend theses special schools.” Sounds like a mechanism to segregate and ultimiatley push out un-productive or needy students (SWD, anyone?) to me. Am I paranoid?
Bernard Taylor was hired as EBR superintendent a year ago. He is still involved in a lawsuit over his severance package ($330,000) in Michigan. Michigan is refusing to pay, citing false or misleading statements at the time of the original agreement:
http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2013/02/former_superintendent_bernard.html
How they do business in the RSD…the state auditor’s report. Sixth year in a row with problems.
Click to access 00031396.pdf
GR settled with Taylor for 280,000 last week.
It certainly sounds like a disaster, but until you critics of these abuses stop using profit as the root dirty word your efforts to save good schools won’t bear fruit. All public funding originates in profitable business. The reformers are doing damage. But the cause of the damage is not profit. To claim so is to show that your thinking would prefer actual government ownership of all business. That is not in the true American grain. It will not persuade those who pay the taxes to join you.