Brainwashing the School Board at Harvard
Listen and Subscribe on your Favorite Platforms
Welcome I’m Danielle Ford, former trustee of the clark county school district, the 5th largest school district in the nation.
In this episode you’ll hear about my experience visit Harvard University for school board training, some of the interesting people I met, and how I realized that all of the school board Trustees in attendance were being brainwashed.
Quick disclaimer: my feelings and opinions about this training does not reflect my feelings and opinions about Harvard itself. Everything I’m going to share with you is specific to the packaged program which takes place on Harvard’s campus. The details and history about how this program developed at Harvard, I am unclear about.
But here’s how the program which is called ABC: Accelerating Board Capacity is explained on Harvard’s website:
This governance program has been exclusively designed by CGCS and PELP for school board members and superintendents in member districts of the Council of the Great City Schools, the nation’s foremost coalition of large urban school systems.
That begs the question: what is PELP?
Here’s what the website says:
Taught by a team of faculty members from HBS, HGSE, and HKS within Harvard University, PELP Executive Education programs feature a wide range of leadership cases and materials curated especially for K-12 system leaders in partner organizations. Our two main institutes focus on system level leadership at the superintendent level as well as a customized program for governance in large urban districts developed in partnership with the Council of the Great City Schools.
You probably remember from the Diary of a New Trustee episode, that all of the training the CCSD board of trustees was receiving was from the Council of Great City Schools, and that their executive director was also advising Superintendent Jara in all the district operations and purchases, which is not only a huge conflict of interest but also super sketch. This storytime episode continues from there…
But first, this podcast relies on the generosity of supporters. If you’d like to make a donation you can visit UnravelingEducation.com/sponsor to do so! It’s greatly appreciated!
So the board and superintendent get invited to an executive training at Harvard which is put on by the Council of Great City Schools.
I’m super excited for it, mostly because I’ve felt like I was in this bubble for my first 6 months on the board, and being lied to about what my role actually is as a trustee, and I had so many questions, for board members in other states.
Up until this point I’d been repeatedly told by the board president, Lola Brooks, and our board attorney, MaryAnne Miller, that I was out of line, that I was trying to operate outside of my role, that I’m embarrassing the district and upsetting Nevada legislatures etc.
So in my head I was like I want to hear from other publicly elected experienced trustees whether or not that’s true. And if the consensus is that they’re right, I’m prepared to back off. And if it’s not, then that will be validating for me, and I’ll continue to fight for the board to get their power back.
We receive the training materials ahead of time. I read and highlight everything. Create folders in my iPad. Title all the pages so they’re ready for my notes.
Keep in mind I dropped out of highschool, and community college, so I’m not too sure how things work at Harvard, but if they give prizes out for “most prepared” and “best notetaker”, I’m going to win them both.
We flew in the day before and everyone was at a hotel near the campus and I was at a hotel downtown by myself. When my secretary sent the info of different hotels and pricing, I just looked at the cheapest few options and chose the coolest looking one of those. I hadn’t made any friends or allies on the board yet. Now I know that everyone talks to each other and goes where are you staying and what flight are you taking but this was my first big conference experience and no one asked me any of those things.
I’m not complaining. They all met up and went to a dinner with more than 1 fork. I walked around the arts district, listened to live music, checked out the salsa club in my hotel, I was living my best life. (clip)
My point in saying that is just to explain the board dynamics and how I was the lone wolf. Which is fine, I’m pretty used to it. But it really isn’t a great thing because in the wild, the lone wolf dies.
Next day we check into the dorms at Harvard. There’s a book with a map and the schedule of all 4 days and details of all the participants. Everyone is either a school board member or a superintendent. I prepare for introductory lunch and the first sessions that afternoon. Go through the sessions and prep notes for each. I’m ready to rock and roll.
I walk into class. Seats have been pre-assigned. I find my placecard. I’m in the front row. Great. When ADHD peeps are in the front row, we thrive, and usually annoy the teacher. When we’re in the back, we struggle and often annoy the other students in class. And that’s why ADHD students usually find themselves in the back row after every seating chart change. Needless to say, I was usually in the back of the class except for the few teachers who made me sit next to them at their desk so I could grade assigments when I was done with my work, or help keep an eye on the class and make sure everyone was doing what they’re supposed to be doing..
So back to Harvard. I’m in the front row. I’m raising my hand. I have all the answers… I’m barely aware that there are other people in the classroom. I turned around for a full classroom view once or twice, made note of where other board members were, noticed where Superintendent Jara was and that he was sitting next to someone who’s name I did not remember from the list of attendees. Made a note to check my booklet when returned to my dorm room. We’ll call this person “the mysterious stranger” for now.
I crush the rest of the session. I’m in the zone. It’s just me, the professor, the screen, my ipad, and my questions and opinions. I am a force. I am unstoppable.
Get to class the next day and start to pull out my chair. Wait, that’s not my name. There had been a seating change, and now I’m in the back. Like as far back as possible, like I only had to scoot back 2 inches to rest against the wall.
But I have a clear view of the classroom and even though everyone was in different seats, Jara is once again seated next to the mysterious stranger, and they seem pretty chummy. This was clearly not their first time meeting.
So every day the sessions would end and then there would be personal time and then dinner. There were 4 sections of dorms and so if you weren’t in that section you’d have no reason to be there in the mutual quarters like the kitchen and lounge area. Lola Brooks was not in my grouping THANK GOD.
So I start to talk to some of the other trustees. Ask them advice. Start explaining all the things I’ve tried to do that I’ve been told no about. Asking to pull items from the consent agenda for separte discussion or vote. Wanting to discuss the superintendent’s decisions and behavior either in private with our attorney or in public on the record and being told it’s not possible at all and if I keep pushing it will become harassment and Jara could have a case against the whole board. That I was told not to post online because my business is online and I have a brand, and it could look like I am grandstanding about school district stuff to get attention to myself and my personal brand, which I could personally benefit from and then that would be an ethics violation.
They look at me like I’m crazy. They’re like “No that’s not possible. You’re still new right? I think you’re understanding wrong.” I’m like “I don’t think I am”.
Then they start teaching me the role. “Your job is to oversee the superintendent”. “Your job is to oversee the spending of large purchases that are put into the consent agenda.” “Your job is to communicate with voters and parents and the community and if your method of communication is social media, then that’s that. As long as you’re not promoting your business with your trustee social media then there’s no problem.”
I’m like “I know. I said all these things. I’ve been fighting for 6 months. Constantly “in trouble”. They just say don’t do any of that of you’ll be going against the advice of your attorney and then will be personally liable, etc”. They were just like, “No that can’t be right”.
So I’m feeling rather defeated. And a little crazy. I had to think back like I am understanding it right, right? Then tell myself: Yes, I know I am.
So the next night after our sessions when we return back to the dorm, the women I had spoken to like swarm me. They’re going “Omg what you told us is true. We started asking around and everyone agreed you have no power. Over the past few years your board policied itself into a box.
That’s fucking great, so everyone knows this except for our community?
So now I’m like pissed. Now I want to know what governance everyone else is using, who trains them and how they evaluate their superintendent. So during the dinners and free time, I’m meeting everyone. I’m not a fan of pleasantries or small talk anyway but I’m on a mission so I become a social butterfly. I’m Flittering around.. “Oh Hi! I’m Danielle. I love your shoes… and how do you evaluate your superintendent?” I’m taking notes on my ipad, taking down their referrals for consultants…
BTdubs, the entire time, anytime I was in the wild aka not in the dorm area, Lola was never more than 4 feet away from me. Super sleuth in her mind. But I did not care even a little bit.
So our dorms were on the 4th floor and I would always take the stairs instead of the elevator. The next morning I was walking down the empty stairwell alone, or so I thought, on the way to the breakfast hall, when a man emerged from the shadows. He had been waiting for me, he was there to deliver a warning.
Ok it was slightly less cryptic than that. So this dude was a superintendent in my same dorm group and in my working group and we’d chatted a bunch. He was heading down to breakfast and saw me coming down the hall so he took the stairwell instead so he could relay some information without prying eyes or big brother.
Obviously I won’t be mentioning his name and here’s why.. He’s like “Hey, Hey just between us.. you have your work cut out for you”. He goes, “I don’t usually attend these things but my board really wanted to attend. This isn’t my usual scene.” He did a lot of head-shaking. He says, “I know about your board and I would never treat my board like that. I couldn’t even if I wanted to, and I wouldn’t want to.” By then we were at the bottom of the corridor and he waved me through first and waited a minute to come out so that no one would know we had spoken.
Now let’s talk about sessions at the ABC Executive Training at Harvard.
The lessons were produced and selected by the Council of Great City Schools. A handful of the sessions were part of PELP, and were specific to school board governance.
The rest of the sessions were more conceptual, using case studies, to take us through ways of thinking.
2 of those sessions were about learning how to make good decisions. And those are the 2 that I’m going to walk you right now, in the same way the school board members were taken through them.
The 1st session I’ll be explaining was called “The Art & Science of Decision Making”, the material was a case study named “Carter Racing”. The Professor who taught the session was Francesca Gino, author of Rebel Talent, which I read a few months later and really enjoyed.
This was a 2 session, half-day workshop led by Professor Francesca Gino.
We were given a case study about car racing to review, and then were going to be asked what we would do in this situation. Here’s the short version…
There was a huge car racing competition happening, the biggest of the year which was very important for an up and coming race car driver and his team. It was an hour before start time, and the driver was 2nd guessing whether or not he should race. His engine had failed during 7 of the 24 races he’d done that year. The engineers couldn’t figure out why, but the last few races had been fine.
Well, 2 days before this big race, the driver had spoken to one of the engine mechanics who expressed concern about this big race because he felt like the gasket issue was due to low outside temperatures.
The racing team was $80k in the hole and were counting on the $800,000 sponsorship they’d acquired, in which the driver just had to participate in the race at all to earn.
But if a failed gasket were to blow up the engine, during the big televised race, his racing career would be over with and the team would be permanently out of business.
If he chose not to race, the sponsorship would still be good for next year’s competition but they’d be out that $80,000 and all eating ramen noodles for a while.
Additionally, there had been talks with a 2nd sponsor and the team could be looking at $2 million dollars or more annually in future sponsorships, if he were to place in the top 5.
Ultimately it was the drivers decision to make. He asked the lead engineer his opinion about the engine mechanic’s opinion that low temperatures were affecting the gasket. The lead engineer sent him a graph of the 7 engine failures they’d had and the temperatures of each race, which showed that there had been engine failures both at low and high temperatures.
Today, on the biggest race of the year, the temperate was the lowest it had been.
The question presented to us was “Should the driver race, yes or no”. We were broken up into 14 small working groups of 7 people, each from different school boards, and the group should choose a leader, discuss and arrive at at a yes or no decision, and then explain to the class why that decision.
We grab our materials and information and all the groups go into 14 different conference rooms in multiple buildings. Like it wasn’t 1 big room and we’re all working in our own space, and can hear eachother, it was like we were juries. No devices, and no outside communication with other teams. We were given like 40 minutes to discuss.
Everyone sits down and another board member is like “I’ll be the leader if we’re all good with that.” Yeah, sure. He asks “Any ideas of how we should do this, does anyone want to start? I guess we’ll take turns.. Pop in whenever…”
I had already made my decision but I’m not sure how to explain my reasoning, so I’m hoping someone else will say it first and I can be like “Yes, I agree with that. That’s exactly what I was about to say.”
The others start sharing their decisions. Someone’s like yes we race because this data shows that the temperates were X on these days which could cause the gaskets to blow but …
Yes we race because the $2 mill sponsorship isn’t a sure thing yet, and if he doesn’t race at all they wouldn’t offer it for next year. He should participate in the race but take easy and not overdo it
He should go for it, there’s always going to be someone or something saying you shouldn’t do something. There’s always risk involved. You can’t just change your mind on something in the 11th hour that you already made a decision about and committed to
Every single person was a yes and then he asks me “and I’m like No, it’s obviously a clear no. I’m trying to figure out how to explain it but no”
He’s like well should we take a vote, everyones like “Yeah” I say just give me a few minutes to explain…
I say, “I get all of those reasons if you’re going off of the information you used to get there but more of the things you’re considering as information are assumptions, opinions and personal beliefs. And those are fine to take into account but they’re being presented as facts and they’re not facts.”
They’re not impressed. I’m trying to think of a comparison or experience or anything to explain why they’re not facts. I’m stalling…
“There’s actually not much information here. Like there’s a lot of context and numbers but none of this is relevant. And the only true information we have shows that there’s a lot of risk.”
Then an analogy comes to me…
Let’s look at this like a poker tournament. Dude’s made it far in the tournament but he’s not in the money yet. He’s short stacked and now in the big blind so he has to put chips in regardless of whatever cards he has, which doesn’t leave him with very many chips.
He looks at his cards and they’re 10, 5 os. That is objectively a bad poker hand.
Action goes around the table and everybody’s calling so now it’s becoming a decent sized pot. He’s hoping everyone just calls so he can see the flop before making any more decisions with his chips. But then small blind to his right raises. If he calls this raise he’ll be all in and risking his tournament life if he loses.
So he starts thinking:
It’s not a good hand, but there are worse hands. And I could get lucky. Theres 5 more cards coming. I could flop a full house. I could catch a straight on the turn or river. Or a flush. I could even end up with my 10 as part of a royal flush. There’s actually a lot of ways he can win when he really thinks about it. And those things do happen. And then everyone at the table goes “thats poker”.
And if any of those things were to happen, he would be positioned to easily get to the final table of the tournament which would bring out at least 1 sponsor deal for next year.
Plus he already put chips in with his big blind so he’s down that much already.
Plus there’s risk to everything.
He’s using beliefs and assumptions to justify his decision because he wants to win. Poker is all about calculated risk, but in this case the reward is not worth the risk.
And it’s the same with the race.
Racing is an all in move. If he burns out on the track, he would for sure lose the things he has right now. And those are his current sponsorship, his reputation, and career.
The 80,000 he’s spent in costs and entry fees is just the price to play. It’s a big blind. That is no longer his money and should not have any relevance on his decision to go all in or fold the hand and wait for a better one.
The sponsorships he’s scared of losing, just like the chips in the pot, and all the chips that might be added to the pot by other players calling the raises, are not his. By folding or not racing he’s not “losing” anything.
So knowing that the odds or the mechanic, are clearly saying you are going to lose if you race or go all in, and there’s zero risk to not racing or folding, why wouldn’t you do that?
That’s risking everything for nothing. The talks of future deals are not tangible things and should not be considered, when everything is on the line and you’re probably going to lose. Not worth taking the chance.
They were like “Yeah, you’re right.”
Leader says: that makes so much sense but you have to explain that to the class. I’m like “Gladly”
So we go back and as we walk in she says group leader, write your team # under your decision. On the board there’s a line down the middle and she’s written yes on one side and no on the other
A few groups had returned before us and they were all on the “Yes” side. Leader looks at me. I’m like “Do it”. He writes our number under no.
We take our seats and watch as the other groups return and 1 by 1 write their number on the yes side. We were the only no.
Our group leader and I look at each other like eh.. I’m kind of 2nd guessing myself.
All the teams have to explain. Same reasons as members of our group said. She calls on our team leader and he’s like “Danielle’s gonna explain it”. I’m like “If this was a poker tournament”.
Then the professor says “It’s now 5 minutes before the race and some more data just came to the driver.”
She hands out another graph of the temperatures which looks similar to the other, except instead of using the times the engine failed as data, it has the times the engine did not fail. And every single time the engine did not fail, were in warmer temperatures. So now we knew that while the engine did fail a couple times when it was warmer (which could have been for any reason), there was not 1 single instance of success, not one time did the engine make it the whole race, when the temperatures were lower.
Now she says “Talk to your teams for a few minutes and if you want to change your decision you can go write your group number on the other side.”
Our group members look at each other from around the room like “Now we’re feeling good. No reason to get up. We’re sitting back comfortably.
A few groups switched to Dont race. But most were still Yeses.
Then she tells us that the driver chose to race, a gasket blew and the engine failed. Also surprise! This was a real case study but the details had been switched. The real event was the Challenger explosion.
Everyone was like “gasp:: I was like “Oh snap”…
She also revealed that when groups are presented with that last piece of data at the same time as everything else, usually 100% decide not to race.
There were a couple lessons to take from this.
First, the driver should have valued the opinion of the mechanic because he was the one working with the car and that had the experience for his gut feeling to have mattered. Instead the driver listened to the person in management with the fancy title who delivered incomplete data as a way to sway the driver’s decision.
Second, people are often more comfortable with doubling down on a bad decision, even when faced with evidence, than recognizing and admitting that they made a mistake.
I thought this was a fantastic lesson and not just because I absolutely dominated. But I have witnessed both of these scenarios play out many times, especially within CCSD where the educators who actually work with kids are continually ignored, the higher the title the more your opinion is valued, and huge decisions are made based on data that is never confirmed to be accurate or complete.
So the next day I’m still coming off my high of absolutely crushing the lesson yesterday. I may have been a little gloaty about it. I can be kind of an asshole sometimes ok, this isn’t news. But I’m feeling good and ready for the next sessions. Like I’m hoping there are more trick questions coming. Let’s go…
The 2nd session I’ll explain was called “Making Important Decisions Strategically”. The material was a case named “Finding a CEO for Philadelphia: Searching for a Savior”. The professor who created the material and taught the session was John Kim, co-founder of PELP.
So John Kim opens up by leading us through the materials which explains what the Philadelphia school district was like at one point.
There were crazy teacher shortages, school violence was out of control, budget shortfalls, low test scores, high poverty… it was a mess!
Then a search for a new superintendent, a savior, ensued. The board had received a list of superintendent candidates and then narrowed it down to 3, but they couldn’t agree on one.
Now our task was to read through the information about the candidates and determine who was best for the job.
1st was a superintendent of a small district.
2nd was a military general with no education experience.
3rd was a superintendent of a very large district.
The materials included the background and experience of all 3 candidates, but I’m not going to go into that because it doesn’t really matter.
What matters is the last paragraph, which says “Even though the finalists were all strong leaders, none was the perfect candidate. As they moved through the rating process, they realized there were risks associated with each of the finalists and that no matter whom they chose, as a governing body, they would need to create an environment of support for their new CEO.”
Hmmm ok…
Professor John Kim asks the class “So, who is the right choice for CEO?” and opens it up for discussion. Several hands go up including mine, I’m thinking “Another trick question. My specialty.”
Someone answers they think the 1st is best because they’re young and there’s room to grow. Someone else likes the 3rd because they have experience in a large district. More votes for 1 and 3. Nobody supports number the military general.
Finally I get called on. I say, “Actually, I don’t think they should choose any of them. You see, the right criteria isn’t being considered. They’re working off of this of qualifications which include “Most qualified ‘as is’, able to assemble a team quickly, ability to produce midterm results in 2 years, potential for long-term results.”
They should start over by first re-evaluating the criteria. For instance, the potential to adapt and continue to grow in the role and not just be good enough ‘as is’, the care and concern for the people in the schools and community, the skills to build and grow a strong team and not just assemble one as quick as possible, the ability to make noticeable, impactful positive changes to the district and not just produce arbitrary results via numbers spreadsheets years later.
This is too big of a decision to settle on a superintendent that isn’t a Heck yes” by the whole board.
John Kim then says, “Well, I have a surprise. This was a real case study but some of the names and dates were changed…
I’m thinking, “Another point for Danielle.” I’m planning my acceptance speech.
He continues… and many of you got it right! The correct choice was number 1…
I’m starting to raise my hand again, I’m ready to defend my honor.
Then he turns to another attendee… “and that superintendent is sitting right here and has been amongst you this whole time! It’s William Hite, the superintendent of Philadelphia!”
Everyone’s like, “Whoa cool, you’re a case study…
I’m like, “Cool. cool cool cool. Yeah this isn’t at all awkward for me.”
So Superintendent Hite stands up and explains that the district is thriving now and they have lots of money, no teacher shortage, and 0, yes zero, school violence. I listened intently. I liked everything he was saying.
I find Philadelphia superintendent William Hite after the session and ask him a lot of questions. I hadn’t really talked to him because he was with Jara most of the time. I literally had to step in front of Jara to get any face time with him. And I was impressed. He’s a super nice dude, charismatic, logical. I’m thinking “how can we get this guy to be our superintendent? Like can we trade?”
Keep in mind I was going off of limited information until months later, when I was in major research mode trying to figure out why Superintendent Jara is destroying the Clark County school district and why board president Lola Brooks was not just letting him get away with it, but helping and protecting him.
In research mode, I’m watching a documentary called Backpack Full of Cash, which is available on Vimeo for $10 fyi. Matt Damon, who’s the narrator, is explaining to me how Billionaire Eli Broad has a superintendent training academy that teaches aspiring school leaders a set of ideals that are anti-public education and pro-big business, and then gets them placed in large school districts as superintendent, or I’m sorry “CEO”. And sure as shit, there’s Philadelphia superintendent William Hite, Jara’s buddy, as one of the graduates from this academy.
Then I think back to this lesson, read through it again, looked for more info about the superintendent search process referenced, and learned that the other superintendent referenced, #3 was from Clark County, Pedro Martinez, who also was a graduate of the Broad Academy. So of the 3 choices the Philadelphia district had, one was a joke, red herring, #2 the military guy and the other 2 were fellows of the same program, and buddies.
Omg right? So much more coming about this and we will be connecting dots very soon. So, make a note of this..
So… one day we had been put through this intense 4 hour session in which we learned that it’s not good to make important decisions without enough information.
And then the next day there’s a session literally called “Making Important Decisions Strategically” and the lesson we were supposed to take from it was that the Board of Trustees should just choose from a group of superintendents presented to them, even if they don’t think any of them are good enough. Because they just need to choose someone to be CEO to manage everything in the district, including all the money. And everything will be fine as long as the board members blindly support their CEO no matter what.
When looking back at this lesson, it became very clear that the intent was to brainwash the board. That is how it’s done, little by little.
Definition is “to cause (someone) to think or believe something by using methods that make a person unable to think normally.”
Taking people through thought processes that do not end with original ideas or encourage creative thinking, and instead have only 1 answer, is brainwashing.
To be clear, taking people through a thought processes which opens their mind and leaves the answer up to them = not brainwashing/ encouraging critical thinking. A series of questions or facts that lead to 1 answer = not brainwashing/ informing or educating. Taking people through a thought process, and it only leads to 1 answer = brainwashing.
While at harvard, board business is still going on as usual and our secretary sends us the draft agenda of the upcoming board meeting, as usual. I open the agenda to review and there’s something very unusual listed as an action item, meaning a vote will be taken. Scheduled for that meeting by Lola Brooks is a major change to how the trustees govern which would completely disrupt the board and school district even more.
I’ll tell you exactly what that was in the next storytime episode and share some shocking findings about it.
I am livid about this item. But I don’t want to cause a scene. I think through my options and decide I’ll talk to Linda Cavazos about it. Not only is she the Vice President and supposed to be involved in the agenda-setting process, but I’ve also started to like her and feel like her intentions are good and her beliefs about public education similar to mine, based on how she’d voted, and the things she said in closed sessions and what not.
And I had been feeling like she was warming up to me based on her responses to things I said in closed session and whatnot. And I knew for damn sure that she was not happy either about the constant chaos Superintendent Jara was causing throughout the school district and how limited the board was.
So I decided to take the chance and ask her what was going on and trust that she wouldn’t respond by teaming up with Lola or telling me not to mention it again or anything.
The next morning I approached Linda Cavazos, pulled out the agenda, and asked, “Linda can you please explain to me what this is?” She seemed genuinely as confused and unhappy as I was about it. She says she’ll inquire and get back to me.
After morning sessions and lunch Linda updates me, and tells me that she found out this has to do with the mysterious stranger, and that she’s having an agenda briefing that evening with Lola and Jara will try to find out more and try to have the item changed to informational only and not have a vote yet.
I’m like, “Linda, I want you to know that I am trying to be a good trustee, and I will hold off on fighting Lola about it and follow your lead, but if this comes to the meeting and gets approved as is, I will lose my shit.”
She’s like, “I get it”. Ok we’re on the same page. Her and I chat a little throughout the following days which we hadn’t really done before, so that was nice.
We finish the final session, everyone from my district leaves, I guess they had all coordinated their flight together. Mine and some trustees in other districts flights are a little later so we kill time by hanging out in one of the recreational areas. That’s when I realize that I didn’t get any Harvard swag.
I’m like “Anyone want to go hunt for free swag with me?” They all said, “No, I’m too cool to hunt for swag”. At least that’s what I heard. So I venture off through the halls and discover an administrative area that I’m not allowed in. So I go in and ask super nicely “Hi umm do you have any free things I can have? They hook me up. And yes everyone that was too cool to hunt for free swag happily accepted it. (clip)
I get to the airport and board the plane, and there’s Linda Young on the same flight. She gets to airports a million hours early and I get to airports as they’re closing the doors. She’s seated near the front with an open seat next to her. Score.
She says “lets get to know each other”. We had a fantastic conversation. Laughing the whole time, I learned so much about her and from her. She tells me “I had you all wrong”. Not too sure what to think fo that but I’ll take it
I showed up in Boston a lone wolf, but left feeling like maybe I have a couple allies. And I was right. Over the course of the next 18 months, it got real. Real bad. It was the superintendent and his 4 trustees vs me and the Linda’s . Also that would be a sweet band name. Me and the Lindas.
The next Storytime episode will pick up from here. You’ll find out about the sneaky move Lola Brooks made regarding our governance and what happened when she was confronted about it. It’s gonna be a fun one.
If you enjoy these episodes and want to help support the continued production of the show, please visit UnravelingEducation.com/sponsor to learn how to become a supporter.
Before you go share the episode out and make sure you’re subscribed for the next one!
Keep stringing along! Also, if you have suggestions for catchy sign off phrases, leave them in the comments because I’m clearly running out.