This week, nearly 25,000 Madison schoolchildren will settle into the routines of a new school year defined by anticipation and anxiety about big changes to come.
After eight years as superintendent, Art Rainwater, 64, will retire in June. Last week, the Madison school board moved decisively on its new top priority by agreeing on key details for the replacement search and setting a half-dozen deadlines leading to the hiring of a new superintendent early next year.
Rainwater’s announcement in early January of his plan to step down has given his loyal deputies ample time to consider retirement or new jobs. In recent months, Rainwater has lost three top aides: chief of staff Mary Gulbrandsen, legal counsel Clarence Sherrod and budget director Roger Price.
Rainwater calls Gulbrandsen and Sherrod his “two closest advisers,” and tried to convince both to stay for his final year. “I honestly talked to Mary probably 15 times a day,” Rainwater says. “There probably hasn’t been a thought that went through my head in the last nine years that she didn’t react to.”
More high-level retirements are expected at the end of this school year, leaving in place as few as three of nine department heads with significant time on the job. The brain drain is coupled with a relatively inexperienced principal base, especially at the city’s four major high schools, and departures in other administrative positions.
9 thoughts on “Opportunities and Risk with the Departure of Madison School District Superintendent and Staff”
Comments are closed.
The school board agonized over who to included and decided to nix “targeted sessions with clergy, private and parochial school representatives, district “critics” and the police.”
Isn’t it nice that those of us who helped elect Lucy, Maya, and Lawrie aren’t invited to the party? Bunch of ingrates so full of themselves that they don’t need our input!
I’ll never vote in another school board election! I’ll never vote for a referendum!
There are sessions the public can attend to provide input into the process. One can choose to participate, or not, but the opportunity is there.
I encourage people not to participate. They’ll be wasting their time.
The board is neither responsive nor responsible. And it shows no interest in being either.
For example, Laurie Frost has asked time and time again for help trying to ferret out what’s going on at West. What has the board done? Nothing! her a bit.
As another example, the super has thrown away more than a half million dollars in the last six months (refusing to take $250,000 from Bob Queen and forgetting how to save $229,000 on busing). What has the board done in response to this pathetic performance? Nothing!
How about the small learning community grant that the super submitted? The board had no involvement whatsoever in shaping the proposals in the grant, that is, the propsals that the super wants to implement to shape high school education for years to come. Nothing again from the board. Nothing!
The public participation amounts to nothing more than going through the motions of seeking public input.
Dear Ed,
It is unfortunate that you have gone to the dark side and can’t seem to find your way back to reason.
Jason is a very clever writer, and what he wrote is technically correct. There are some 34 listening sessions being set up, with three for the general public and the rest devoted to groupings of interest groups. It is my understanding that the invitations are going out now, and that the “critics” will be among the invitations targeting educational advocacy groups. I may be wrong, but I also believe that ACE and SIS are on that list.
As for don’t participate, that is indeed an individual choice. However, if you choose not to participate, please remember that when you choose to take swings at the board because we aren’t doing what you want us to do. Were I not on the board, I would be working very hard to make sure that people participate in the opportunities to identify the qualities of a superintendent and the district they would like to see.
Finally, when I receive belligerent messages, I read them to get the content but I don’t reply because I am working to get past the nastygram to a place where I can try to help the person who sent it. While you are entitled to your opinions on the above sins of the board, I would point out that a) Bob Queen was more than aware that there was no real money behind the check and that it would get really interesting if we took him up on his offer, b) the private school busing deadline problem was an administrative issue that the board would be involved in only if it were in Doyle each day and handling the paper for district employees, and c)how do you know that the board had no role (and by extension no interest or on-going discussion with administration) in the SLC grant? Is there a reason why you are so very certain that no one has challenged the board on the models, assumptions, and long-term implications for our high schools?
I don’t expect to change your mind, but I do hope that people who read these posts will take the anger and bitterness with a grain of salt.
Clarification on my earlier post when I said “Were I not on the board, I would be working very hard to make sure that people participate in the opportunities to identify the qualities of a superintendent and the district they would like to see.”
I clearly am working to get people to participate. I am just mindful that I would likely be doing so in a much more partisan and directive manner if I were acting as an individual member of the community.
I’ll be waiting for my invitation to participate, Lucy.
Did you have a long conversation with Bob Queen on whether his offer was legitimate? The board and superintendent just blew him off.
The board never took any action on the small learning committee grant application. Offhand remarks, don’t count. If the board doesn’t like the model, then take some action!
What have you done to help Laurie Frost’s effort to understand what’s going on at West? You had a pleasant lunch with her and brushed her off. Good job!
I don’t expect the board to administer the district, but I expect the board to hold the superintendent accountable when he failed to follow through on the budget passed by the board. Will the board be putting a letter or reprimand in his personnel file for forgetting about the $229,000? Not likely, and he still gets his $250,000 if he leaves next summer.
I’d like to see the board members elected by high school attendance area, so then the board members might feel some pressure to be responsive to voters. Not like the current broken system, where board members don’t have to be responsive to anyone and can brush off any and all voters.
Lucy, Would you be willing to tell us — preferably with some substance and detail — how the BOE has been involved in the development and submission of the SLC grant? What role have you played? What on-going discussion has there been? What impact have you had? And so forth. I confess, it’s a mystery and a concern to me, as well. Thanks.
To make the issue even simpler, Lucy, do you support the direction of high school reform outlined in the grant application?
If yes, say no more.
If no, go back and answer Laurie’s questions.
I have criticised the Board in the past, but there have been improvements. Board members are taking a more hands-on approach, becoming more of a governing board than a rubber stamp. Administrative initiatives still slide through without adequate questions and discussion, amendments or outright defeat, but there is improvement.
I know from experience it is very difficult for a Board of Education to quickly change how the district bureuacracy operates, especially with an entrenched administrative team in place. With the terribly dysfunctional and lazy boards MMSD has had in the past, the administrators became their own sources of power, used to making decisions on their own and able to hide or release information in order to get the decisions they want.
That’s why these retirements allow the board to get a functioning administrative team that looks at the board as team members and the ultimate authority, parents as partners and community members as stakeholders and not people to be snowed, lied to and used just to get referenda passed.
But I do agree with Ed that a change in how the Board is elected (to geographically districted seats) would encourage better representation.