It's been a while - 17 years - since Maryland chose a new Superintendent of Schools. Since there has been a good bit of talk about the "politicizing" of the process, I thought it might be instructive to look at what took place the last time leadership changed at the top of MSDE.
Based on news clips and sources from that time, here's the story:
It's 1989. Governor William Donald Schaefer is annoyed. Dr. Joseph Shilling has been named Superintendent by the Maryland State Board of Education, replacing David Hornbeck, who resigned after 12 years.
"Mr. Schaefer, who had other candidates in mind, was furious with the school board for promoting Dr. Shilling from deputy superintendent to superintendent." (Baltimore Sun, 12/22/91)
The Board had bypassed his choice, Dr. Nancy Grasmick - "... part of a relatively small circle of trusted friends of the governor. Her husband, developer Louis J. Grasmick, is one of Mr. Schaefer's closest advisers and supporters." (Sun, 9/3/91)
"The governor was so furious he at first refused to invite Dr. Shilling to cabinet meetings." (Sun, 5/23/91)
But upon taking office, Dr. Shilling surprised people. Although he was described as "as a low-key deputy," he began an aggressive effort to boost school accountability: "... rushing to implement the Maryland School Performance Program - a state plan to revise school curriculums, make test scores and school information public through annual report cards, and more comprehensive testing programs ... As part of the five-year reform plan, individual school information will be released for the first time, including test scores, attendance and demographic reviews." (Sun, 5/23/91)
However, despite these reforms, Governor Schaefer continued to seek Dr. Shilling's removal, still angered by the Board's actions: "The snub prompted the governor to expand the state board and fill it with his own candidates." (Sun, 9/4/91)
Legislators fought the Governor's effort to "add four members to the 9-member school board and shorten the members' terms, in addition to removing the board's ability to choose its own president," (Post, 12/13/88) to allow Schaefer to handpick its leader. His actions were "decried by some lawmakers as politically motivated." (Education Week, 3/15/89).
Ultimately, Governor Schaefer mostly succeeded - packing the state board by increasing its membership from 9 to 12 members. Then he made his move, letting Dr. Shilling know it was time to move on. Shilling quietly bowed out.
Dr. Shilling's sudden resignation led to this May 23, 1991 headline in the Sun: "Shilling surprises local officials; County school leaders puzzled by state superintendent's resignation." The article continued: "Many teachers and administrators wondered who would replace Shilling and questioned why he left one of the state's top-ranking jobs to head Queen Anne's school system - one of the state's smallest, with only 5,400 students," and just eight schools.
Another article in that paper provided some explanation: "The governor, who fumed over his exclusion from the search that brought Dr. Shilling, expects to be 'cooperatively' involved this time, said a spokeswoman, Page Boinest. Mr. Schaefer is scheduled to meet with Mr. [Robert C. Embry Jr., School Board Chair] next week, she said." (Sun, 5/23/91)
Weeks later, on September 3, 1991, a Sun headline telegraphed what was next: "Mrs. Grasmick likely pick for top Md. schools post." Dr. Grasmick, who at the time was serving on the Governor's staff as the head of his Office of Children, Youth and Families, told the reporters what would happen next: "Mrs. Grasmick said last night that she had Gov. William Donald Schaefer's support in her move from one Cabinet-level position to another."
The next day's Sun finished the tale: "Dr. Nancy S. Grasmick succeeds Dr. Joseph L. Shilling, who resigned in May to become superintendent of Queen Anne's County... Dr. Grasmick also was the first choice of Gov. William Donald Schaefer several years ago when another board instead named Dr. Shilling." (Sun, 9/4/91)
So that's what happened the last time Maryland got a new Superintendent of Schools in 1991. I'm shocked, shocked...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
This is of course is no surprise—political appointments tend to involve politics, no? What is a surprise is Grasmick’s feigned indignation, when she herself knows well that her own appointment was prompted by campaign contributions and the fierce loyalty of her husband to a former Governor. There is a stench of hypocrisy, to which politics is no stranger, but perhaps more offensive is the utterly disingenuous and intellectually dishonest argument that she—admittedly a cunning force—and her supporters continue to use with impunity.
Recycled from my posts elsewhere, but relevant here:
Supt. Grasmick earned respect on both sides of the aisle, but she crossed the line when she announced the planned state takeover of the 11 Baltimore schools eighteen months before the fact for no good reason other than a failed attempt to inflict damage on then-Mayor O’Malley.
She could have waited until the day after the election, or the week after the election, to make the same announcement with the same time frame for takeover. The fact that she did not revealed her move was politics, not policy.
Of course opponents say,
“Maybe Dr. Grasmick made the announcement when she did instead of waiting for a political moment was because she has an interest in the children.”
But they're wrong:
On March 29, 2006, without any public discussion, she announced her decision to take over the 11 schools, effective EIGHTEEN MONTHS LATER. The date of her state takeover would have been September 28, 2007.
She could have made the same surprise announcement on Wednesday, November 8, 2006, the day after Gov. O’Malley defeated Gov. Ehrlich. Even better, is she believed her reasoning was so compelling and in the best interest of the children, she could have waited another week or two, to make her case to the governor-elect, whether Ehrlich or O’Malley.
There is no evidence that the timing of her announcement had any relation to the process of the takeover she envisioned or served the interest of the kids in any way. There was no reason for her not to make her announcement after the election. THE TAKEOVER SHE ENVISIONED COULD HAVE BEGUN ON THE SAME DAY SHE ORIGINALLY PLANNED.
So it was about the politics, not the children.
The timing of her announcement served the interest of Gov. Ehrlich’s re-election campaign, as he featured it in his ads and ranted about it in both televised debates.
Having crossed the line, having used the children in a blatant political ploy, she should have resigned the day after the victim of her failed ploy won the election. She should have left when the governor-elect suggested she should leave. She should have declined to seek a contract renewal last month. She should leave quietly as soon as the legislature gives her the boot.
The Baltimore City Schools takeover attempt was definitely a low point in her career. Reinforcing the theory that it was politically motivated was the fact that she presented the plan at an embargoed background briefing with reporters before informing the City Schools Superintendent, the Mayor, and key members of the legislature. The Legislature especially felt blindsided—and reacted swiftly to kill her proposal.
Very good research
Post a Comment