TEA of MN
Taxation & Educational Accountability of Minnesota
Rochester School Board
Links of Interest
Maple River Education Coalition PAC
School Board member Kim Norton's DFL campaign page (she's the only partisan on the board)
Minnesota Association of Charter Schools
Speak to your politicians! contacts page
What hath the Rochester School Board wrought?
March 1, 2002
By Frank J. Borchardt
The actions leading to the resignation of Rochester public schools Superintendent Mark Shellinger started the day he took office.
Mr. Shellinger was the sole candidate left standing from a field of three, and the school board opted to hire him despite the possibility of keeping Jerry Williams as the interim superintendent. Under pressure from the upcoming, once failed, excess levy referendum and approaching teacher contracts, the board felt it was imperative to install a person who would serve their purposes best.
The school board knew Mr. Shellinger came from a district that was one-tenth the size of Rochester's. By all public accounts, the interviews with Mr. Shellinger focused on the monetary accomplishments in his former district. Little issue was made public regarding his management or communications style.
No board member made a visit to Ely, Nevada, to see how Mr. Shellinger operated in his home territory. Citing cost savings, this board missed an opportunity to get the feeling of this person's style, or to investigate his obstacles and accomplishments.
Considering a candidate for a high profile position, and compensating them at $120,000 a year would certainly warrant even a shallow investigation. While Mr. Shellinger was congratulating the board for its accomplishments, the school board was patting him on the back, possibly feeling for a soft spot.
With the financial challenges being lightened for the school district, and the state mandate of a balanced budget for teacher contracts being met, the school board turned its attention to the other attributes of Mr. Shellinger. These were the qualities that were not given public awareness, either downplayed or not addressed. In an unusual but available deviation from standing practices, the school board evaluated Mr. Shellinger at the six-month milestone.
After a closed-door session of extraordinary length, and days of being tight-lipped about the evaluation, the school board finally released some information regarding this off-timed evaluation. Voicing a concern toward management and communication deficiencies, the school board declined to say anymore except that the next step is being prepared.
Upon his return from a conference and accompanying vacation, Mr. Shellinger resigned. Only then did the school board, in a prepared statement, disclose the reasons as a "divergence of opinion on leadership style, communication and the means of achieving the districts mission, aims and goals."
These are not small, insignificant opinions that magically appeared. In a mutual agreement, Mr. Shellinger has resigned because of a difference in style that, in the board's opinion, didn't meet the quality of the district. These are styles that people develop to live their life and conduct business. This is the same unaltered style Mr. Shellinger had when he was brought on board.
Declaring a mutual agreement in the professional world is akin to pleading irreconcilable differences in the personal world. Both are face-saving actions, both leave scars on all parties involved. Where were the school board concerns before July? Certainly not addressing his communication and management styles.
The action of the school board, the resignation of the superintendent, the frustration of the public and the uncertainty of the future gives this district plenty to worry about. The exiting of a superintendent, especially one who has served less than one year, has flagged this district as difficult. The unusual timing of the evaluation has labeled the school board as unpredictable. The set-aside of the excess levy money, although cautious, has been called a broken promise. November may change the composition of the school board and the priorities they address.
The present school board may take immediate action to place a permanent superintendent, or they may not. Over the summer they may better contemplate where to place the levy money, or they may not. They may make an attempt to be more public, more informative, more user friendly, or they may not. Before the November elections, this school board may try to get this district back into a better light, or they may not.
Regardless, the next school board will have the daunting and difficult task of conducting business and repairing the district. The next school board will have no choice.