There is an old saying that a good compromise is one that leaves both parties feeling equally dissatisfied. By that definition, we may have reached a good compromise.
No one enters a negotiation hoping to be disappointed at the end. We begin the conversation convinced of the validity of our respective positions, and our abilities to make a strong case for them. But, because we represent different constituencies, some of our fundamental goals and interests are not the same, and that makes reaching an agreement challenging.
As I have struggled to sort through the pluses and minuses of our (Indianapolis Public Schools) collaboration with the Indy Chamber, I have concluded that the positives ultimately, do outweigh the negatives. I am not, however, blind to the critical areas where we disagree. I would like to be clear about my concerns, my commitments and my hopes related to this agreement.
First, my concerns:
As has been previously stated by both my colleagues on the IPS Board, and our administration, I believe that the assumptions for savings are unrealistic, politically naive and potentially damaging to our community.
They are unrealistic because they assume everything will work exactly as planned and in short order. It never does, and everything in a large organization always takes longer than anticipated. Change in a large,publicorganization takes even longer.
The assumptions are politically naive because they ignore pre-existing institutional inequities and the strategies already underway to build a more fair and just organization. These strategies are the equivalent of our “platform” in seeking the support and trust of the public. IPS cannot intentionally build or allow ourselves to be satisfied running a system of second-, or third-class public schools, simply because we primarily serve low-income families and students of color. What has been suggested as appropriate for IPS, would never be suggested or accepted in Carmel, Zionsville, Brownsburg or any of the other surrounding districts serving more affluent families. This is politically naive, because the solution to structural racism and classism is, to a large extent, political. That is a big part of why school commissioners are elected representatives.
The assumptions recommend strategies that risk exacerbating the challenges already present in too many struggling neighborhoods. Kudos to the chamber for their work on inclusive growth. Now it’s time to walk the walk.
Second, my commitments:
I will keep an open mind toward any ideas that help us drive more dollars to classrooms and are consistent with our strategy to transform the role of the district, from command and control, to performance manager of educational assets. I will not shy away from hard decisions, if they are in the best interest of children, and consistent with our mission, vision and core beliefs.
However, I will not support recommendations that disproportionately impact those who can least afford additional hardships.
I will continue to press for greater equity in distribution of resources across our schools, based on the needs of students, not programs or adults. I will redouble my efforts to ensure that our students have access to high-quality materials, safe, well-maintained facilities and a talented teaching force that looks more like them. In other words, I will fight for conditions in IPS that mirror those of the most desirable public systems. Our beautiful children deserve that!
I will only support strategic and compassionate redistricting and facility decisions that engage stakeholders, follow a transparent and well-defined process, and are grounded in providing the best educational outcomes for kids.
Finally, my hopes:
I hope that IPS will continue to forge unprecedented partnerships and collaborations across sectors and throughout our community. I also hope that the major influencers in our city will join with us in transforming our schools to provide the best urban, public school experience in America. It is important that they will acknowledge their roles and responsibilities to be a part of the change, and not a dispassionate observer or critic.
I hope our partnership with the chamber and their advocacy for us will encourage the city government to step up their involvement in IPS. We need to know that our mayor supports us and will not sit on the sidelines for the referendum. If we can create a strong coalition of city government along with the business and philanthropic communities, we can move mountains and transform lives.
I hope the chamber’s substantial involvement in implementing these recommendations will give them a greater insight into our unique challenges and most pressing needs. And, in turn, I hope they will become advocates for needed changes in the state policies that will make these kinds of tough choices less likely in the future.
I look forward to benefiting from the collective contributions of our community’s business leaders, their investments of time, money and the development of new opportunities for our staff and students.
We can’t afford to live in an education silo. That is the way of the past, and it no longer serves us well. I hope that our relationship with the Indy Chamber will help us create a new model for achieving our vision: “IPS is a family of excellent public schools in which every student has the opportunity to succeed and the power to create their own future.”
Mary Ann Sullivan is an IPS school commissioner.
