Several current and former Amherst Regional School Committee members are maintaining the narrative that former Superintendent Maria Geryk had no choice but to leave her post, due to an atmosphere of bullying created by specific members of the committee.
For several members of the Amherst and regional community, this narrative is inaccurate and ignores key facts.
For many of us, the larger issue is Geryk’s deficient leadership. There are four major areas where she failed the district.
One: She has a record of not honestly engaging with people who voice constructive criticism. Members of the ARPS community who have attempted to raise concerns or questions have found themselves vilified by her and her supporters.
Geryk’s over-dependence on legal advice from Gina Tate, the district counsel, discouraged collaboration and transparency. We believe she denied many students with disabilities basic special educational services. Rather than make use of free mediation, she repeatedly sought to silence parents with legal threats, restricting parental rights to advocate or make decisions for their children.
In 2010, the leadership of the Special Education Parents Advisory Council convinced a previous Amherst Regional School Committee to no longer use attorney Tate. However, a succeeding regional committee rehired Tate in 2012.
During a community forum held on the Amherst Town Common in October of 2014, two recent graduates spoke on-air with WHMP about their experiences as students of color at the high school. No one from the district showed up, though repeated invitations were emailed to the superintendent’s office.
Two: Geryk’s decision-making style was neither inclusive nor transparent. The school building committee charged with overseeing the renovation or rebuilding of Wildwood School consisted of 21 members. Eighteen were town employees or current and past elected officials. Geryk made strategic decisions with limited outreach to many segments of the community that would like to contribute to basic decision-making.
Three: Geryk failed to build a consensus with the community about the district’s future and goals. She unilaterally made decisions which impact many constituent groups in the district. Many teachers never supported her adoption of the “Workshop” model of teaching. During Geryk’s tenure, 15 principals and administrators left the district.
She advocated plans that make it more convenient to administer the district, but these plans are not supported across the many sub-groups in our community.
These plans include combining the high school and middle school and closing Fort River and building a mega-elementary school on the grounds of Wildwood School. In lieu of meeting with parents in person, a quick online survey about the proposed mega-school was conducted. She pushed a plan for regionalization that has started and stalled, leaving many of us confused about the risks and benefits for our collective towns and our children.
It is clear that we are not one Amherst Regional community. Many of us have felt that our voices or opinions will never be considered. That narrative must change.
Four: Geryk spent considerable money hiring several consultants to direct her. It is ironic that one of Geryk’s primary goals and visions for the district was said to be equity.
Unfortunately most of her policies on equity failed.
For example, the Family Center did not provide adequate services for families who sought help for academic support for their kids, despite the fact that ARPS receives federal Title 1 funding to address the achievement gap.
In spite of the vilification of Trevor Baptiste and Vira Douangmany Cage, the only two current school committee members of color, many whites offered critiques of Geryk’s performance.
The leaders of the opposition to the proposed mega-school are white parents. School committee member Steven Sullivan voted against paying the $309,238 settlement to Geryk and Pelham School Committee member Dan Robb wrote a less-than-positive performance evaluation, referencing some of the same points described here.
The larger issue was a failure in leadership. That deficiency led to growing resistance to her administrative style from many quarters. No wonder she left.
The authors wrote on behalf of the We Support True Community Schools Group.