So the Board passed the Superintendent's raise last night and she's doing pretty well now. According to the article in the PI today, she will be making $264,000 a year (plus $700 a month car allowance and a $20,000 retirement annuity). Here's what Cheryl Chow said at the meeting;
"Dr. Goodloe-Johnson has demonstrated a clear focus on children, effective leadership, professionalism, energy and passion for the work. ... We are pleased, in fact we are very pleased, with her first year of leadership at Seattle Public Schools," she said."
I'll bet if I went back and looked in news reports of the past, I could substitute any other superintendent's name in that sentence and it would say the same thing. What has she done to advance this district besides visiting every school, reviewing programs (and again not even full reviews at least not in Advanced Learning) and setting up a 5-Year plan that is largely about management?
Then there was this:
"The superintendents' evaluation and contract extension were last-minute additions to the board meeting agenda, and Seattle parent and blogger Charlie Mas asked the board why it hadn't provided more notice to give the public time to review and comment on it.
He also criticized the board's summary performance review of Goodloe-Johnson, noting that it lacked detail, measurements or goals, and pointed out that the Web link to the document hadn't worked until less than two hours before the meeting started.
"Basically you completely shut the public out of this," he said.
Michael DeBell, the board's vice president, countered that the review had been in the works, and that board members wanted to get it wrapped up and not wait until their next meeting in August.
"We felt like there was some need for expediency," he said."
I like Michael de Bell but that's a lame answer. I think, as Denise Gonzalez-Walker pointed out in a previous thread, that there may have been something more going on here. Will we ever know for sure? Well, there can sometimes be loose lips at the district so we might.
The irony is that last part of the article where it is reported that the Board unanimously approved the budget but Don Kennedy, COO, says not enough revenue is coming in to support it and Steve Sundquist points out that they had to take $12.6 M from the reserves and that the next budget will be very tight. As Charlie pointed out, the Summary contained no Fiscal Impact statement which most action items generally do. Also, as Charlie points out, it's a summary; does that mean there is a longer, more detailed document and if so, where is it?
The pressure is now on Dr. Goodloe-Johnson. Just as there is no crying in baseball, there is no whining later about the difficulties in this district. We are paying her well, very well for a district our size, so we have the right to have expectations of major progress. We were told that our last Board was too contentious and lacked focus; well, here's a new Board that's all united.
Okay, District Leadership, this next year to 18 months, we want results. The Board as well as Dr. G-J have set up huge expectations from this superintendent because of this glowing review and nice raise. Let's go.
(One aside, I had phoned Jessica about this item on the agenda but she wasn't in. She monitors these things quite closely so I'm sure she already knew about it. I had wanted to let the Times' know but I think they may have changed education reporters. My point is that I have learned that being an education reporter is a fleeting job They change reporters with regular frequency so you have to try to keep up.)