10 Comments
User's avatar
⭠ Return to thread
Angela's avatar

It would be interesting to see applicants for district admin jobs by race. It appears that the vast vast majority of hires since Horton are not white. I wonder if that’s because they aren’t applying or not being hired? I would get it if the districts student population wasn’t 50% white but it is so why wouldn’t leadership reflect that.

Expand full comment
Angela's avatar

Further to my question above, I am guessing that any good principal or admin knows to stay away from D65 given the myriad of problems so understanding the applicant pool would be interesting. I would guess it’s a lot of candidates that want a high paying job but aren’t cream of the crop. I am also guessing that the candidate pool by race is fairly to diverse unlike the hiring.

Expand full comment
Anonymous's avatar

I think this comment is bordering on distasteful since it's implying that candidates of certain skin color are less qualified.

I don't think thats what you're trying to say but I think you're opening yourself up to misinterpretation if you aren't really precise in wording around this topic

There's too few admin, especially principal, positions to try to draw a representative sample from.

And of course don't forget that there's always going to be a skew in who applies - e.g. The majority of teachers are female because the vast majority of applicants are female

Expand full comment
Angela's avatar

You are right - that’s NOT what I was trying to say. We need to talk about the obvious. And the obvious if that white admin/principals simply have not been hired since 2020. I truly believe in the power of DEI abut this is not normal. Shouldn’t the admin/principal be diverse enough to reflect the student body? I get the rebalancing to make up for past discriminatory practices but to literally not hire anyone who’s white because they are white in a community where students are 50% white, well why?

Expand full comment
Pablo's avatar

Is it possible that white people have less "skin in the game" to strive for more equitable outcomes across racial lines? I'm interested in that type of data you suggest too, but what's the connection between your comment and this article? Simply that a non-white principal was hired and has some kind of faux controversy following her?

It's worth considering that hiring practices historically haven't necessarily been done primarily to mirror the student body vs. with some level of personal bias by those with the power to hire. Based on that, it stands to reason that more non-white people are hired (or voted) into those positions of power...they're probably going to end up hiring more non-white people! It also goes the other way -- it's easier to interview for a job where your potential boss is someone you can easily relate to.

Expand full comment
Angela's avatar

All good points. But one of the concerns I have is that if they aren’t open to filling positions with anyone who is white then their talent pool is far more limited. The connection between my point and the article is that I can’t remember the last time they hired anyone in a leadership position that was white and quite frankly, that’s just weird and suggests exactly what you imply which is the whites can’t deliver equity which I think is total BS. the last time the district delivered any educational gains for black and brown kids was under a white Superintendent. Since Goren, the board and admin just talk about equity. The results are dismal at best and disastrous at worse. Maybe we should be focused on a more balanced view of leadership in D65 and not one that automatically rejects a large percentage of the population based on race alone?

Expand full comment
Pablo's avatar

Yeah -- I'm not sure if it's a matter of being "not" open vs. "less" open to hiring a white person in those positions. I think there's probably concern it "sends the wrong message" or feels like going backwards. I also think there's likely a lot of people who felt Goren and previous admins didn't make "enough" progress towards equity, regardless of how the people since have fared.

I think the more recent results are some combination of poor strategy/implementation, a board that's too homogenous in viewpoints (and light on humility/accountability), and mostly that the issues people are purportedly trying to address are deeply ingrained in society -- and it unfortunately is going to take quite some time to figure out what works. COVID feels like such a crutch, but you also can't deny the impact it's had on the students, teachers, staff, and parents...and that likely set us back a matter of years. Sure, cue the "we should have reopened school faster" rhetoric, but there's little we can do now about that beyond recognize the impact it had in potentially inhibiting progress. We're still digging out of a hole here.

Expand full comment
Angela's avatar

I world argue the problems are a direct result of the board and admin starting with Horton. I feel like there is too much data to suggest otherwise. You don’t lose 20% of your students in a few years if you are hitting it out of the park. Other districts with similar Covid closures are not in the state of total financial and operational dysfunction as ours. Yes, learning loss is directly related to how long kids were out of school but the other stuff? The sooner this board gets voted out the better. Until then, it will be bad decisions and zero accountability

Expand full comment
freinkel's avatar

There were about 40 candidates for the Evanston library

Expand full comment
Karl's avatar

It is safer to run for library positions clearly. Less mud slinging and toxic pathetic women calling people racists.

Expand full comment