Terence Bolden and former Sen. Jim Argue are no longer co-chairs of the community-based strategic planning commission that has recommended ways for the Little Rock School District to improve student achievement.
Their decision to step away from the process is, though not described by them in interviews this way, clearly a reflection of continuing tension between the planning work and Superintendent Linda Watson. From the beginning of the year-long process, Watson has viewed the work as either a criticism of or threat to her leadership. Indeed, the School Board has a diversity of views on how successful she’s been, reflected in the decision this year not to automatically add a year to her contract. It runs through the next school year.
The strategic plan begins with an assumption of strong, effective leadership that can trim wasteful jobs while concentrating efforts where it will produce results, particularly in the classroom. The question of the moment is whether the School Board will press for it and measurable results from Watson or, failing that, a change in leadership.
The decision wasn’t announced. I called Argue about it after receiving a tip and a hint in internal School District e-mails. Argue says he doesn’t characterize his and Bolden’s decision as a “resignation.” But he said they’d been frustrated by the administration’s slow movement in beginning work on communicating the outline of the strategic plan to the public. Bolden said much the same thing.
“We felt more like more hindrance than resource and so decided to not have any further involvement,” Argue said.
Argue said the committee had completed its assignment of producing a strong plan for improving the district. Now, it’s up to the School Board and leadership. “If it’s not effectively implemented, we’re wasting our breath,” Argue said.
UPDATE: I obtained a copy of the Argue/Bolden letter to Watson, which went to Board members. You’ll find it on the jump. She has not returned my call seeking a comment. Though Bolden and Argue had not released the letter — and had been diplomatic in their remarks to me — it makes clear the tensions I have already described. It’s a tough letter that depicts Watson as an obstacle to major change.
What will the Board do?