51ºÚÁÏ

Borishade’s path to becoming superintendent wasn’t exactly a typical one: She was brought in from out of state to fill a generously paid deputy superintendent position created just for her by an old pal who’d been hired as superintendent. When that pal, Keisha Scarlett, was fired for what amounted to cronyism, Borishade was elevated to replace her despite having been, by most accounts, Scarlett’s chief crony.

Borishade was installed in that post despite having been caught up herself in the spending controversy that toppled Scartlett. An audit identified more than $10,000 in questionable district spending by Borishade, including a trip to Japan and extravagant restaurant and entertainment spending.

There were also questions about her professional certification status and her performance in a previous education administrative post. When she was hired, Borishade had no superintendent certification in Missouri and had let her certification in two other states expire.

Then there was the “no confidence� letter from teachers at a Washington state school district where Borishade had been chief academic officer. The teachers alleged she violated student privacy, demeaned staff and contributed to the “dysfunction of our current leadership.�

In her 51ºÚÁÏ position, Borishade created a “dysfunctional, chaotic and hostile environment,â€� in part because of her lack of knowledge about 51ºÚÁÏ, a former district employee told the Post-Dispatch’s Blythe Bernhard last year. Indeed, the issue of Borishade’s lack of knowledge about the district was acute enough that the board last year considered hiring a $185-an-hour consultant to assist her.

Again: Why was this particular hire so important that the board didn’t apparently even consider someone with less baggage and a stronger resume? We’ve yet to hear a good answer.

As Bernhard reported last week, the latest no-confidence vote against Borishade was by the American Federation of Teachers Local 420. Two-thirds of the union’s membership signed the petition decrying “numerous and troubling concerns� under Borishade’s leadership. The union delivered it to Board President Karen Collins-Adams on Monday.

The petition cites Borishade’s lack of communication with the union in the aftermath of the tornado that ripped through the district in May, shuttering some schools. More broadly, it cites Borishade’s presentation of a consultant’s report calling for closing more than half the city’s public schools.

School closures, we would argue (and have), will be necessary in some form in the near future because of city population loss. But the teachers’ problems with Borishade clearly go beyond that single issue.

“We’re making our feelings absolutely clear that Borishade does not show the leadership necessary to steer the ship in the right direction,â€� AFT local President Ray Cummings said in a statement. “Supervision of the superintendent is the sole responsibility of the board, and we believe this petition makes an emphatic statement that our schools need a more enlightened leadership that understands the needs of all 51ºÚÁÏ students.â€�

The union’s petition wants the board to better “manage� Borishade but stops short of calling for her removal. We would argue, though, that her removal should be on the table. The still-unexplained decision to hire her despite multiple reasons not to was always legitimate cause for the current board to revisit the issue. The union’s no-confidence vote now strengthens that hand.

Normally, removing a superintendent would be a potentially litigious issue, but there’s a silver lining in the contract that the previous board signed with Borishade in December: It allows the board to fire her without cause at any point, provided she’s offered six months’ severance.

That strikes us as a fair price to get a clean slate. The current board members should at least consider the questions their predecessors, for whatever reason, didn’t: Is this the best candidate for this difficult and important job?