If the Jackson Public Schools Board of Trustees decides that it does not want Superintendent Lonnie Edwards to return next school year, it will have very little time to find a replacement.
Edwards requested a public hearing to appeal the board's Dec. 7, 2010, decision not to renew his three-year contract, which expires this summer. After the first day of testimony Friday, March 25, however, the district had only gotten through two of its 13 planned witnesses. With 35 potential witnesses on Edwards' side, the hearing could take a full week to complete, said Edwards' attorney, former Jackson Mayor Dale Danks.
Complicating matters further is the fact that all parties—Edwards, Danks, attorneys for the school board, witnesses and hearing officer Nathaniel Armistad—must schedule additional hearing days around their regular workdays. Armistad scheduled the next day of testimony for April 18, which means that the JPS board will likely deliver its final decision on Edwards' contract no earlier than late April.
Only after that final vote would the board decide to hire a consulting firm to search for JPS' next superintendent, should the vote go against Edwards, said JPS board attorney Dorian Turner. JPS would then have only a few months to conduct a nationwide search.
"Searches are relatively long-term, usually last for months and are usually fairly expensive," Turner said.
At the hearing Friday, Danks pressed board President Kisiah Nolan and board member George Schimmel about documents that the board received in June 2010 advertising the services of three different search firms. Cross-examining the two separately, Danks asked whether the board had begun seeking a replacement for Edwards that early.
Schimmel downplayed the significance of the documents, calling them "standard pamphlets," and said that the board did not formally vote to request proposals from the firms. Both said, however, that they had reservations about Edwards' performance by June. In fact, Schimmel told Danks that he made a motion to terminate the superintendent's contract at a March 2010 board meeting, less than four months after his appointment to the board. The motion died for lack of a second.
"I began to sense that Dr. Edwards did not provide the leadership the district needed," Schimmel said.
In June, though, the board dispatched Nolan to discuss the end of Edwards' contract with him and broach the possibility of his not seeking a renewal of his contract, allowing the board to avoid an outright vote not to renew his contract. Nolan and Schimmel testified that Edwards initially asked for more time to think. Nolan approached Edwards again in August, and Edwards again demurred, saying he wanted to focus on the start of the school year. When they spoke again, later in the fall, Edwards rejected the proposal.
After learning of the board's Dec. 7 non-renewal vote, Edwards and Danks brought their own compromise offer to the board. Edwards offered to decline an appeal, in exchange for a two-year renewal of his contract, with the added stipulation that he would submit his retirement letter in advance, guaranteeing that the additional two years would be his last as superintendent. The board, at a meeting with new board members Linda Rush and Timothy Collins, declined the settlement offer.
Danks' questions focused on allegations of micromanagement by the board and turnover in board members, which, Danks suggested, kept Edwards from implementing his plans.
Schimmel told Danks that the board's concerns about Edwards' performance were primarily about his lack of leadership in academic matters. Under Edwards, the district has seen an increase in the number of schools rating less than "Successful" on the state's academic rating system, even as statewide trends have moved in the opposite direction, with more schools reaching grades of "Successful" or above.
"The problem that the board is seeing is that we are not making any progress," Schimmel said. "In fact, we are moving backwards. We don't have time to see how long it might take (to turn around). If we continue to move backwards, we jeopardize the future of over 30,000 kids. This is not about Dr. Edwards; this is about the 30,000-plus kids and how well we prepare them for tomorrow. We, as a board, feel that we are not fulfilling our responsibilities. We are then obligated to search for someone who then can lead us forward."
Schimmel said that he was keeping an open mind about a second vote on Edwards' contract and "looking forward to being proven wrong."
"No one is arguing that Dr. Edwards is not a likable individual," Schimmel said. "As I've mentioned before, he has done a wonderful job in the community, healing wounds. We appreciate that contribution. What the board is now facing is looking for someone with more depth in academic skills and administrative skills."
More stories by this author
Support our reporting -- Follow the MFP.
