Editorial
Over at Bransford Avenue, someone may as well have just let out some eye-watering, stomach-curdling gas. Or perhaps a marriage metaphor is more appropriate: what’s happening at Metro schools headquarters is a bit like two people living in the same house after beginning nasty divorce proceedings. In any case, there are no champagne and roses in sight—just a bunch of dirty laundry and wretched breath.
For those of you unaware of the local schools version of Melrose Place, Nashville’s nine-member school board recently gave the man in their charge, the polarizing Pedro Garcia, a swift kick in the ass. Or five of them did, anyway, by voting as a majority against extending his contract beyond its 2007 expiration. Despite some spin to the contrary by some majority-voting members, only those suspending their critical faculties could conclude it was anything other than a vote of no confidence.
It’s not the first time the school board has been inclined to register its discontent with the brash 58-year-old schools director. As the Scene reported recently (“Pedro’s Last Stand,” Oct. 13), he was nearly fired two years ago after upbraiding an indignant school board during a retreat. Only his improved demeanor the next day saved him from getting the axe. The episode is one of a handful in which Garcia, who since July 2001 has overseen about 70,000 students and 4,900 teachers in 129 schools, has come close to losing his nearly $200,000-a-year job. In the days leading up to the most recent school board review of his performance, Garcia was nonchalant, telling the Scene he wasn’t “losing sleep over it.”
Well, maybe he should now—or, at least somebody should. What all this has created is uncertainty about the direction of Metro schools, doubt about both Garcia’s and the school board’s performance and, worst, fears that a dysfunctional relationship between the director and his oversight board will mean stunted results in learning achievement. The board’s most sensible voice, Marsha Warden, recently suggested that the pissing contest amounted to “putting adults over children.”
Exactly.
|
---------------------------Advertisement---------------------------
|
|
---------------------------Advertisement---------------------------
|
So no matter who’s more at fault here (see next paragraph), the two sides need to cease and desist on the grade-school politics (and we mean that any way you might happen to interpret it). If Garcia can’t soon reconcile with the school board, and vice versa, then he should announce his intention to move on or the school board should fire him. An executive who’s lost the confidence of the people for whom he’s supposed to be working simply can’t thrive. The school board probably should have thought of that before casting this vote in the first place. What’s clear is that everybody involved needs to learn some diplomacy.
Of course, if we absolutely, positively had to take sides, we’d take Garcia’s—even in the face of his controversial style, mixed results (see “On the Curve” on page 14) and take-no-prisoners approach to leadership. We’d rather a his-way-or-the-highway executive over a largely unqualified school board whose only experience handling a $500 million annual operation has been vicariously, through its staff.
In the meantime, if the school board finds itself searching for a new leader in 2007, they might have a look at City Hall, where there’s a short-timer in residence dying to raise taxes for schools.