by David Safier
In September, 2008, Dennis Bakke, founder, President and CEO of Imagine Schools, sent an email to all his School Developers, National Principals and Regional Directors as well as some other individuals connected with the company. He made it clear that, when it comes to the relationship of an Imagine School to its students, parents, board and community, it is, in his words, "our school, not theirs." The local groups can help out and make suggestions, but the headquarters in Virginia has the first word and the last word, period.
Bakke has a corporate view of schools as local stores which are part of a larger chain, where the corporation owns the schools, runs them by corporate rules and thinks of the parents and students as customers who pay for a service with their the state's money. The student is the consumer of education, and the company is the provider. That philosophy runs counter to the concept that a school should strive for participation from its community, and the more ownership the community feels, the more successful a school is likely to be. One of the ideals of the charter school movement is for parents and students be active participants in the schools where they have chosen to enroll, making Bakke's vision is even further from the spirit of these schools.
In light of what's going on at 100 Academy in Las Vegas, where Imagine has fired principals against the wishes of the community and where parents are voting with their feet by pulling their children out of the school (If you haven't been following the 100 Academy situation, scroll down through today's and yesterday's posts), Bakke's attitude is being put to the test.
Before I excerpt this mouth dropping — for me, anyway — email, let me make one more point. A non profit in Las Vegas obtained the charter to open 100 Academy, not Imagine Schools. Then Imagine's subsidiary bought the land and built the school building. Imagine hired the staff. The non profits rents the building, the furniture and the textbooks. And Imagine manages everything about the school, all the way down to the curriculum.
But Imagine doesn't "own" the school. It contracts with the non profit which received the charter. That's the arrangement.
Now for excerpts from Bakke's email. I've added bold type to emphasize certain passages.
Bakke begins by saying this is a "DRAFT (for internal Imagine discussion purposes only)," so it reflects his philosophy, not Imagine's written policy. Then he goes into purpose of the email — to discuss the proper role of Imagine Schools' local boards.
. . . I do not mind them being grateful to us for starting the school (our school,not theirs), but the gratitude and the humility that goes with it, needs to extend to the operation of the school.
. . . most people believe that Boards are "governance" boards. In other words, they are "in charge" of the school. Without you saying anything to them, they will believe that they are responsible for making big decisions about budget matters, school policies, hiring of the principal and dozens of other matters. This is the way most nonprofit boards work, so no one should be surprised by the assumptions held by the board members you select for an Imagine School.
I suggest that Imagine boards and board members have two significant roles. The first is to "affirm" (vote FOR if legally required) significant items like our selection of the Principal and the budget (if you "need" to give them veto power over our proposed principal, then that would be okay although I don't think in most cases it is essential that they be given that power (check the State law).
Legally, I believe "affirming" is the same as voting "yes". The difference is the assumption that we have made a "recommendation" or decision and want the board to agree formally with that decision. . . . in non legal issues of judgment, we expect them to argue the issue vigorously, but if they can't convince us to change our position, we expect them to vote for our proposal. It is our school, our money and our risk, not theirs.
[Bakke recommends that the people running the school ask the board's advice "on ALL significant decisions before the school," and that will usually keep the board members contented.]
None of this will protect you from the person who starts out as an "advisor", but becomes a major problem, thinking he/she are crucial to the success of the school. Sometimes you can protect yourself from board members that you chose, by getting undated letters of resignation from the start that can be acted on by us at any time would also help. Some states allow "founding" boards that can be changed once the school starts. That is a good idea if we can control who stays and who goes. Maybe you make all terms one year (if legal) so that we can re-nominate who we want. Make it clear that we will propose all new board members.
. . . Probably the most important concept that needs to be grasped by potential and sitting board members for our new schools going forward is that Imagine Owns the school, not just the building.
Repeated regularly is the idea expressed in the last line: "Imagine Owns the school, not just the building." Bakke is clear and eloquent in enunciating the corporate model used by many proponents of the "free market education" model.
Discover more from Blog for Arizona
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.