The board of the Minneapolis Public Schools is in disarray not only because we have been unable to choose a superintendent despite a yearlong process, but because we lack a shared vision on how to move our district forward. Despite the majority of us voting for the district's strategic plan, Acceleration 2020, some board members seem unclear about what it means, while others do not support many of its premises and promises. Our disarray comes not from individual incompetence or lack of goodwill, but from unspoken, unresolved tensions about how to move forward.
In 2014, the board passed Acceleration 2020, a groundbreaking departure. It identified "schools as the unit of change" and sought to distribute power and authority to site teams led by principals, teachers and families.
Traditionally, districts operate with a "command and control" model. The superintendent is the supreme leader, directing a cabinet that enforces a vision down the chain to principals to teachers. People in central administration, rather than the people who work in our schools, decide how money will be spent, what the curriculum and the schedule will be, and what services will be prioritized.
By focusing on schools as the unit of change, Acceleration 2020 sought to upend the status quo. It calls for the district to support the school as the primary site of decisionmaking regarding teaching and learning. The goal is to help teachers, school leaders, families and community members develop the capacity to lead and govern their own buildings and to ensure that all children in their care succeed. Changes involved include the following:
• Currently, the central office identifies new initiatives — and expects schools to comply. With schools as the unit of change, the central office will offer training and support on new initiatives, but the schools will determine whether to implement them based on their students' needs.
• Currently, the superintendent and the school board determine a theme for schools — IB, Montessori, arts, dual-immersion. With schools as the unit of change, site teams would determine their themes and curricula.
• Currently, the central office builds the budget around projected class sizes. With schools as the unit of change, the money allocated by the state to the district would follow students to their schools, and the site teams would make staffing and other resource allocation decisions.
The board is in disarray because some of my colleagues want to stick with the traditional system of command and control, while others of us want to fundamentally change how we govern schools in Minneapolis. The argument for change is clear. For too long our schools have failed too many of our young people, particularly black and brown students, and we need to try something very different.