Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Schoolboard Partners topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Union representatives urge Cincinnati Public Schools to cut ties with Schoolboard Partners, warn against portfolio model
Summary
Union representatives at the March 2 board meeting urged Cincinnati Public Schools to discontinue use of consultants connected to Schoolboard Partners, arguing the group promotes a portfolio model that prioritizes test‑based accountability, closures and charter expansion and risks harming neighborhood schools.
Brad Smith, a CFT field representative, opened public comments at the board’s March 2 meeting by criticizing a proposed policy to display standardized test scores on student report cards as an unfair single‑measure of student learning. “Standardized tests are not the end‑all, be‑all,” Smith said, arguing tests are only one data point and should not replace teacher‑assigned grades.
Michelle Dunn and Karen Imbis, both identified as CFT field representatives, used the public‑comment period to press the board over its engagement with consultants affiliated with Schoolboard Partners. Dunn said Schoolboard Partners is not neutral about charter expansion, calling that claim “just false” and urging board members to end affiliations with organizations she described as promoting a privatization agenda backed by philanthropic funders.
Imbis offered a longer account of her concerns, telling the board that Schoolboard Partners and related consultants are rooted in the so‑called portfolio model — an approach she said treats schools like investments, prioritizes standardized tests, and can lead to school closures and greater segregation. She cited national examples and alleged that consultants who worked in other districts had connections to charter‑focused reform networks and, in one Denver case, had been named in litigation about school closures.
Union speakers asked the board to rely on established local resources such as the Ohio School Boards Association for policy models rather than outside consultants they characterize as aligned with market‑driven governance. They warned that affiliate relationships could fuel community distrust and urged greater transparency about why particular consultants were selected.
The board did not take immediate action in response to the public comments; the meeting proceeded to presentations on the district’s strategic planning process and the five‑year budget forecast.
Ending: The public‑comment segment ended when President Craig thanked speakers and moved the meeting to scheduled presentations. Several board members later acknowledged the concerns and indicated the issue would inform forthcoming policy committee discussion.
