Cedar Rapids schools failed to read the room

Pathways will not succeed unless parents and teachers are on board

I want to give credit where credit is due. Under Dr. Grover’s leadership, the Cedar Rapids Community School District has had the courage to challenge the status quo and chart a new course for our district high schools. They have proposed the new Freshman Academies starting in the 2025-26 school year and Career Pathways following in the 2026-27 school year. Last week, around 1,000 people attended open houses at Kennedy, Jefferson, and Washington high schools, where the district laid out their plans.

Unfortunately, this is where the credit ends. In the first meeting, at Kennedy High School, members of the public were given Post-it notes on which to write their questions. I spoke to friends who attended the meeting and they said that people were not happy and wanted to ask questions directly to the superintendent. At one point, Dr. Grover said,

“If we cannot control the disruptions, we will just end the meeting, and that will be unfortunate for the people that came to listen tonight.”

I attended the meeting at Washington, and this time the district did a better job of keeping Dr. Grover from having to answer any questions in public. It seems that the district expected that once people heard about the program, they would be excited and immediately jump on board. What happened was a ‘failure to read the room.’ This program is scheduled to start next school year, and very shortly this year’s eighth-graders (the class of 2029) will have to make some important decisions.

So what is this program all about and what are the unanswered questions? Check out the district web page for an overview of the plan.

In short, the plan has two parts:

Freshman Academy for all freshmen at all district high schools starting next Fall. Freshmen will be in a designated separate wing of the building with their own entrance. Courses will be similar to current offerings with the addition of a Freshman Seminar class.

The second part of the plan seems to be the most controversial. Starting in Fall 2026, various career pathways will be divided between the district high schools. Jefferson will be home to the schools of Leadership & Public Policy, Aerospace & Engineering, and Environmental Science & Health Science. Washington will have the schools of Medical Sciences, Business & Media, and Engineering & Technology. Kennedy will have the School of Liberal Arts. Students can put their name in a lottery to attend a high school outside their regular attendance area, assuming the school is not at capacity.

Parents had many questions about the logistics of the program. For instance, how will students get to school if they choose a pathway offered at a different high school? The district’s response was that parents would need to transport their child to their home school in the morning, where they would then board a bus to the chosen school. This setup highlights a key issue: the program is not about students taking individual classes at another school but rather transferring entirely to a different school.

Additionally, students will choose their pathway during the second semester of Freshman Academy. This means they will spend their freshman year building relationships and becoming part of their local school community — joining sports teams, participating in music programs, and forming connections with teachers and peers. Then, as sophomores, if they win the placement lottery, they face the prospect of being uprooted from this carefully cultivated community to transfer to a new school.

Parents also raised concerns about the district’s capacity to support this initiative. With an ongoing shortage of bus drivers, how will the district handle the increased transportation demands? Similarly, with a well-documented teacher shortage, how will educators be trained to teach these new career-focused academy courses effectively?

Other unanswered questions include the impact on ELL (English Language Learner) students, who already face reduced support due to district cutbacks. What specific provisions will be made to ensure they are not left behind? And what happens to students who want to enroll in a pathway program but are denied because their chosen school is at capacity?

Conversations with district employees suggest that the lack of buy-in extends to staff as well as to parents. Few teachers or administrators are willing to go on record, and I have spoken to some who have expressed fear of retaliation if they speak out publicly. The ones I have spoken with are not necessarily opposed to the program, but they want more information and they feel like the implementation is being rushed.

Another troubling aspect of this plan is the lack of transparency about “magnet schools.” I listened at the open house and no one used the phrase, yet a significant portion of the funding —$15 million — comes from the federal Department of Education’s Magnet Schools Assistance Program (MSAP). The district’s website confirms that the grant, and presumably magnet school status, applies to Jefferson and Washington, but not Kennedy. According to the Department of Education, the primary goal of the MSAP grants is to “assist in the desegregation of schools.” No one from the district mentioned desegregation either.

While I support expanding choices for parents and students in public education, the use of MSAP funding raises concerns. State data shows that white students comprise 46% of the student body at Jefferson, 55% at Washington, and 73% at Kennedy. By accepting federal money tied to desegregation, the district may face pressure to enforce enrollment policies that limit student choices and prioritize racial balance. This could mean, for example, that a white student might be denied a transfer from Jefferson to Kennedy to avoid disrupting the racial composition of either school.

I don’t think Dr. Grover or anyone else at the district office has any nefarious intent. I am sure that they believe the Freshman Academy and Career Pathways will help the district achieve its goal of creating ‘Future Ready Graduates.’ However, it was a mistake to roll this program out on short notice without gaining buy-in from two key stakeholder groups: parents and teachers. The program has some merits, and if questions could be answered, I might even be convinced to support it. But the way it is being handled is demoralizing to teachers and confusing to parents and students; ultimately, it is a recipe for disaster.

David Chung is a Gazette editorial fellow. david.chung@thegazette.com