In early February, more than two months ago, the administration posted two job listings: one for assistant director of safety and security, and the other an administrative position called dean of student success, a role that would consolidate responsibilities that currently rest on the shoulders of many other administrators. U-High administrators described the dean position as being reinstated rather than added, and maintained that it would improve the quality of education for U-High students. These administrative positions are being added without widespread community consultation at a time of budget cuts, program cancellations and employee layoffs.
This reflects a broader pattern: many schools and universities have succumbed to administrative bloat even while they raise tuition and cut programming, and many members of Lab’s community have recently noticed the administration announcing important hiring decisions while both obscuring the reasoning that led to these decisions and sowing mistrust among relevant stakeholders.
Members of the community have a deep investment in Lab and deserve to understand how and why these decisions are being made, especially if the school and the university are strained financially. Though faculty members did receive an explanatory email, administrators have provided no announcement or explanation of the new positions to parents or students. Also troubling, the decision to hire a new dean comes less than a year after significant program cuts — among them, an entire language course, sports and library aide positions. U-High’s tuition was raised 5% this year — those paying it have a right to know how it is being allocated.
We understand that schools are constantly evolving, and that all educational institutions must safeguard resources and balance competing priorities. Some private planning and strategizing will of course have to take place within an organization’s leadership before any public announcement of a new initiative. It also makes sense that decisions at the university and the Laboratory Schools may be taking shape under new pressures, especially given the difficult climate for fundraising and the federal government’s assault on institutions of higher learning. Though some of the blurriness in recent budgetary decisions may not be an intentional lack of transparency, it still provokes alarm, confusion and distrust when it seems the administration is failing to seek consensus or at least buy-in on major hiring decisions from parents, students and faculty.
Perhaps the review of the Laboratory Schools launched by University of Chicago president Paul Alivisatos and led by a university dean who is also a Lab parent is a chance to institutionalize such transparency. We are encouraged that the review committee solicited feedback through email and a community survey and offered open meetings with teachers, students and parents. Hopefully, the results of the review will be similarly open and accessible to the community, and the administration will take advantage of the opportunity to demonstrate their commitment to clarity and open dialogue.
Clear communication and consultation with all stakeholders — especially when it comes to significant hires and cuts — are essential to maintaining trust and fostering a sense of shared responsibility. The Lab community deserves to understand not just these decisions but also the thinking behind them and how resources are used to ensure the continued success and wellbeing of students and faculty alike.
