In a Feb. 27 meeting led by Director of Schools Tori Jueds, employees did not learn significantly more about the University of Chicago’s upcoming review of the Laboratory Schools’ “current practices, programs, and policies” — first announced through a Feb. 24 email to adults in the community — but one source who attended the meeting said Ms. Jueds emphasized the review as “an opportunity for growth,”
According to Sari Hernández, a U-High English teacher who attended, the presentation by Ms. Jueds at the Ken Griffin Auditorium covered three themes. One addressed the political climate, referencing President Donald Trump’s recent series of controversial executive orders, including one that defines sex strictly based on biological characteristics at birth and one that reinstates a commission to promote patriotic education. Ms. Hernández said that Ms. Jueds did not explicitly connect the orders to the review, but they were used as background.
In another theme, Ms. Jueds attempted to answer the “who,” “what” and “why” factors of the review for employees. She reaffirmed Ethan Bueno de Mesquita, dean of the Harris School of Public Policy and a U-High parent, as leader of the committee and added he would be recruiting the rest of the committee. Ms. Hernández said Ms. Jueds repeated information from the Feb. 24 email about how the review will analyze whether Lab is aligning with university values. Ms. Jueds did not elaborate on a reason for the review, saying the motivation was nonessential and emphasizing that UChicago will be moving ahead.
The final theme emphasized the “good work” Lab employees are doing, reinforcing the message that Lab teaches its students “not what to think, but how to think.” Ms. Jueds used an example of lower school learning benchmarks that had been revised to help students to come to their own conclusions about complicated issues.
According to Ms. Hernández, Ms. Jueds said if she was instructed to bring an end to diversity and inclusion work at Lab, she would resign as director.
After her presentation, Ms. Jueds took questions from employees. Ms. Hernández said the questions ranged from challenging the credibility of the review to inquiries about metrics, a rubric and goals. They were not given much information, Ms. Hernández said.
Ms. Hernández said she and some other teachers were not satisfied by the lack of a “why.”
“Don’t spit on my cupcake and tell me it’s frosting,” Ms. Hernández said, referring to the UChicago committee. “To me, ‘the why’ is everything. Why are we doing this right now? Why should I listen to what someone who doesn’t have a degree in education gets to say over the quality of my curriculum? ‘The why’ matters. Why do we need to be reviewed right now? Is it because our students are suddenly doing poorly? What is the evidence for that? Why are we listening?”
