Albuquerque school board establishes criteria for new contractor on heels of clashes caused by previous one

Following several weeks of tension between board factions caused by the contract the district had with the Washington, D.C.-based Council of Great City Schools, the Albuquerque Public Schools Board of Education met Wednesday to discuss criteria for a new vendor.

Among the most urgent needs laid out by board members were a vendor that is local and has experience in a large urban district, expertise on student outcomes-focused governance, cultural awareness that excels in diversity, equity and inclusion practices and has a transparent process.

The coaching services are provided to help board members stay on track with the student outcomes-focused governance model as they attempt to turn around academic performance in the largest district in a state broadly considered to be the worst in the country for education.

During the board’s first meeting in June, a lengthy discussion ensued around issues with the contract and coaching following the announcement that the contract with CGCS would expire at the end of the month. APS, like most urban districts in the country, remains a member of CGCS, despite the now-expired contract for coaching and professional services.

The board — except for one member — is divided into two factions. One consists of three members backed by the teachers union, and the other three supported by the business community, most notably the Greater Albuquerque Chamber of Commerce and the local chapter of NAIOP, a commercial real estate organization.

Those factions clashed throughout the last couple of months, with teachers union-backed members stating they felt the coaching provided pitted them against each other, and the business community backed members feeling that the coaching provided was beneficial to them.

“I think that they absolutely brought us a clarity to our work, they helped us to focus on what was really the work of the board and why we’re here, why APS exists, why school boards exist,” Board Vice President Courtney Jackson — who was endorsed by the business community during her initial 2021 campaign — said at Wednesday’s meeting.

Jackson also referred to a progress monitoring report delivered to the board by district administrators, which showed progress in the math proficiency of a group of middle school students, as an indicator that CGCS was “delivering results for our students.”

But for the teachers union-backed members, a lack of attention to minority students was cited as an issue in addition to their concern around rising tensions between members.

“They did lack creating unity on this board. Instead, it was more dividing,” Board Member Ronalda Tome-Warito said. “I also didn’t like their lack of trying to include tribes; they didn’t follow through on that specifically, so that was a big misnomer for me.”

Tome-Warito is the first and only Native American member of the APS board.

After discussing either the issues they had with the contract or its benefits, board members jotted down their criteria for a new vendor.

With that criteria established, the procurement process is expected to commence soon, and the board is likely to select a new contractor in September. CGCS did not respond to a question from the Journal about whether it would reapply.

“I know many of us have had an opportunity to reflect on criteria, to think of what we want, and some of us have heard from our constituents, and so this is an opportunity,” Board President Danielle Gonzales said. “We’ve had some time to reflect.”

CGCS’s proposal

For the past three years, CGCS provided coaching and professional services to the APS board for the cost of roughly $50,000 — in addition to the annual membership dues the district pays.

A copy of the proposal sent to APS for the CGCS that was anticipated to be renewed at the June 4 meeting was obtained by the Journal. The proposal was reviewed by Michael Ford, professor of public administration at the University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh, who researches urban districts and governance models.

“There’s a lot of good there, things like regular board self-evaluations, making sure you have dedicated time in the meeting so that you’re focused on looking at key performance indicators, focus on academic accountability, etc.,” Ford said. “That’s important stuff, because you want to set that foundation for success.”

But he said he “could see the roots of some of the conflict,” noting that the agenda set by the proposed contract “seems to be dominated by the consultant and the board chair.”

Ford also said that bringing in an outside consultant is fairly standard, but issues such as high rates of turnover among superintendents and political divides often lead to implementation challenges in larger districts.

“Oftentimes with these large urban boards, they’re so dominated by political elements, and oftentimes partisan political elements,” Ford said. “They tend to become battlegrounds for whatever the big partisan issues are of the day, whether they’re national or localized issues, which makes it really hard to stick to any of these reform plans.”

However, he noted he has yet to see in his research an urban district turn around the academic success of its students.

“I wish I could say yes, but my honest answer is no,” Ford said. “The result is you have a lot of tinkering and a lot of playing around with different governance models, or, like in the case of Albuquerque, bringing in this consultant or that consultant and then expecting some type of magical results.”