Not to mention there were probably more third-party/write-in voters among that group of activists (which, that's their prerogative, but ironic to call everyone else MAGA). They also did this type of deflection during the Haven issues when a group of parents wore red in support of teachers to a school board meeting (newsflash, "red for ed…
Not to mention there were probably more third-party/write-in voters among that group of activists (which, that's their prerogative, but ironic to call everyone else MAGA). They also did this type of deflection during the Haven issues when a group of parents wore red in support of teachers to a school board meeting (newsflash, "red for ed" is a thing and not just for the GOP). It's also neither here nor there because none of the self-described equity-focused candidates achieved better outcomes for marginalized populations in Evanston and now they're all leaving the board, while many of the incoming group will probably pull things in the other direction toward cost controls and improving test scores. If we'd had more of a balance of interests on the board over the past 6 or so years we could have possibly had more oversight of finances/Horton's admin while advancing some of these other programs, collaborating with the city, NU and other community organizations. Compromise is not easy, but that's generally how elected bodies have to work.
How we got here is kind of on us - we're lucky to have this wide of a slate to choose from this cycle, and the current momentum is probably going to push things a certain way like you said. I don't think the answer is putting four people with an exemplary financial background up there simply to get us out of the red and I'm concerned about the notion of us going too hard in that direction. You want your board to be unified, but they should be a great blend of
...competencies, vision, ideas, and most importantly, willingness to clearly define criteria through which we should hire and evaluate a superintendent - and the administration they assemble.
I totally agree. I think having different competencies including education backgrounds, financial understanding, and management/ hiring experience are all helpful. An equity lens is key across the board, yet they also have to be pragmatic (if our finances are mismanaged, all kids suffer and disadvantaged kids suffer the most!) and be willing to probe things from admin on the behalf of constituents. Obviously there's no perfect equation, but I thought some of the current board campaigned differently than they presented on the board (at least publicly) – there was a lot of moving in lockstep. I am empathetic to the stress that was brought on by our district being brought to national attention for certain things (like the pandemic reopening) and Chicago media (Haven, Bessie Rhodes) that exacerbated local tensions as well. (I'm cool with people using the media to get stories out like parents did, I just know personally it would cause me stress to be making decisions in that spotlight.)
Agree with a lot of this. I think we need to have more clarity on what we mean when we say "an equity lens". It's impossible to serve an entire population of kids with a goal of having all kids reach their full potential and have every initiative or offering materially close the gap. It seems like the e-word has been thrown around so much so that it's become performative instead of it being implied that it's simply woven into our areas of focus.
I also think we have to be clear how we're tying initiatives or programs explicitly intended to improve equity to some vision for what "success" looks like. Then we can identify which efforts are having the strongest impact and continue/grow those, while moving on from ones that cannot clearly demonstrate the desired impact. This doesn't mean we're "moving away" from an equity mission. It just means we shouldn't simply be blindly throwing resources at a major issue without any idea of how to determine if it's having the ROI.
I think a good example of equity lens is the City's stupid leaf blower ban. They passed this ban a few years ago and gave people requirements to upgrade all the leafblowers. Some big vendors invested serious money - more than $50k in electric leaf blowers, chargers, etc.
Then the deadline comes along and there are all these solo operation guys that didn't upgrade, so the City starts giving out last minute grants for people to buy this equipment, citing equity and racial concerns. But now the people who spent $50k to be compliant are like "what the hell."
If they had just frontloaded all this stuff by using their equity lens and doing outreach to the little guys early on, they could've avoided this kind of situation and saved money.
You don't think the big guys would have been just as mad if the grants were offered from the beginning but they weren't eligible because it was prioritized for the little guys?
The grants were not prioritized for either the Little Guys or the Big Guys. Evanston-based companies qualified. Many of the companies that have made a stink have been willfully belligerent and wantonly defiant.
One of the ring leaders of the "racism" angle was contacted by a billionaire and a representative from a leaf blower company. He admitted that he was being coached and that he was being told what angles to take by these out-of-towners.
Interesting. Like one of the companies like Ryobi selling the electric blowers you mean?
I will say, as annoying as the sound is inside of a house while the gas ones are going I cannot imagine the dudes who have to operate those things up close all day, between the fumes and noise.
Not to mention there were probably more third-party/write-in voters among that group of activists (which, that's their prerogative, but ironic to call everyone else MAGA). They also did this type of deflection during the Haven issues when a group of parents wore red in support of teachers to a school board meeting (newsflash, "red for ed" is a thing and not just for the GOP). It's also neither here nor there because none of the self-described equity-focused candidates achieved better outcomes for marginalized populations in Evanston and now they're all leaving the board, while many of the incoming group will probably pull things in the other direction toward cost controls and improving test scores. If we'd had more of a balance of interests on the board over the past 6 or so years we could have possibly had more oversight of finances/Horton's admin while advancing some of these other programs, collaborating with the city, NU and other community organizations. Compromise is not easy, but that's generally how elected bodies have to work.
How we got here is kind of on us - we're lucky to have this wide of a slate to choose from this cycle, and the current momentum is probably going to push things a certain way like you said. I don't think the answer is putting four people with an exemplary financial background up there simply to get us out of the red and I'm concerned about the notion of us going too hard in that direction. You want your board to be unified, but they should be a great blend of
...competencies, vision, ideas, and most importantly, willingness to clearly define criteria through which we should hire and evaluate a superintendent - and the administration they assemble.
I totally agree. I think having different competencies including education backgrounds, financial understanding, and management/ hiring experience are all helpful. An equity lens is key across the board, yet they also have to be pragmatic (if our finances are mismanaged, all kids suffer and disadvantaged kids suffer the most!) and be willing to probe things from admin on the behalf of constituents. Obviously there's no perfect equation, but I thought some of the current board campaigned differently than they presented on the board (at least publicly) – there was a lot of moving in lockstep. I am empathetic to the stress that was brought on by our district being brought to national attention for certain things (like the pandemic reopening) and Chicago media (Haven, Bessie Rhodes) that exacerbated local tensions as well. (I'm cool with people using the media to get stories out like parents did, I just know personally it would cause me stress to be making decisions in that spotlight.)
Agree with a lot of this. I think we need to have more clarity on what we mean when we say "an equity lens". It's impossible to serve an entire population of kids with a goal of having all kids reach their full potential and have every initiative or offering materially close the gap. It seems like the e-word has been thrown around so much so that it's become performative instead of it being implied that it's simply woven into our areas of focus.
I also think we have to be clear how we're tying initiatives or programs explicitly intended to improve equity to some vision for what "success" looks like. Then we can identify which efforts are having the strongest impact and continue/grow those, while moving on from ones that cannot clearly demonstrate the desired impact. This doesn't mean we're "moving away" from an equity mission. It just means we shouldn't simply be blindly throwing resources at a major issue without any idea of how to determine if it's having the ROI.
I think a good example of equity lens is the City's stupid leaf blower ban. They passed this ban a few years ago and gave people requirements to upgrade all the leafblowers. Some big vendors invested serious money - more than $50k in electric leaf blowers, chargers, etc.
Then the deadline comes along and there are all these solo operation guys that didn't upgrade, so the City starts giving out last minute grants for people to buy this equipment, citing equity and racial concerns. But now the people who spent $50k to be compliant are like "what the hell."
If they had just frontloaded all this stuff by using their equity lens and doing outreach to the little guys early on, they could've avoided this kind of situation and saved money.
You don't think the big guys would have been just as mad if the grants were offered from the beginning but they weren't eligible because it was prioritized for the little guys?
The grants were not prioritized for either the Little Guys or the Big Guys. Evanston-based companies qualified. Many of the companies that have made a stink have been willfully belligerent and wantonly defiant.
One of the ring leaders of the "racism" angle was contacted by a billionaire and a representative from a leaf blower company. He admitted that he was being coached and that he was being told what angles to take by these out-of-towners.
It's the stupidest scandal of all time
Interesting. Like one of the companies like Ryobi selling the electric blowers you mean?
I will say, as annoying as the sound is inside of a house while the gas ones are going I cannot imagine the dudes who have to operate those things up close all day, between the fumes and noise.
BIG BLOWER STRIKES AGAIN
😂