This may only be a partial list of reasons; please, add anything else in the comments. The deadline to file to run for the Board is May 19th. Entire Board Majority NOT vetting the Superintendent in any way, shape or form. Even the Seattle Times thought that was wrong. It was just absolute hubris and it was wrong. For the second time in just over a year , board members voted to negotiate a superintendent contract during a special meeting with no opportunity for public comment. This time, they showed an even deeper disregard for their responsibilities as public servants: Aborting a national search for a new superintendent and denying Interim Superintendent Brent Jones a chance to show students, parents and taxpayers that, indeed, he is the best person for the job. Government bodies can’t fast-forward through transparent processes just because they think they know the right answer. One other odd thing about the hiring of Brent Jones - most permanent SPS superintendent contracts ar
Comments
"MGJ is here to take names and kick butt."
Retrospectively, this is HILARIOUS!
Now we get to take names regarding the scandal and MGJ's butt got kicked!
...we might be better off making a different set of choices than setting someone up for failure.
Like ... Making all schools charter schools with no central school district at all. Going entirely to vouchers. Privatizing the schools. Turning them over to Bill & Melinda Gates.
No idea is a bad idea, except continuing on the same futile path.
Um, no. Some ideas are patently fricking idiotic ideas. "No idea is a bad idea" got us the MAP test.
WV says we shouldn't sphent
That's of course ridiculous.
But I think the gist of the article was that no superintendent will ever be good enough for Seattle. We inherently do not trust. And we oust them like hot potatoes.
*************
I wonder how much the Seattle community owns the K-12 mess that we are in? I acknowledge that I own part of this.
Across the country, there are urban districts with better academic results than Seattle while having more challenges than our community. I've observed our community swings back and forth on the type of Board members we elect who then in turn hire their Superintendent of choice. Back and forth the pendulum swings. Centralize vs.decentralize; standardize vs. no standard; alignment vs. freedom and flexibility; CEO vs. Principals. I've heard that "This too shall pass" is a common saying in our Seattle community.
WE (Yes,I am one who have waffled)are fond of the latest and greatest, the "shiny new toy". We, as a community are fickle or have unrealistic expectations of our leaders and of ourselves. Longevity is the key! Educators know that patience is virtue. We allow for mistakes; it is a valuable part of the learning process.
I agree with all the comments regarding compentency, transparency, accountability, etc. However, does the Seattle community truly care about K-12? If so, why is it that such an affluent city, full of educated, talented people can't seem to put the right leaders to run our district. Surely, it can't be due to corporatate conspiracy or simply politics.
I wonder how our community can help recruit and retain good leaders. What structures do we need inside and OUTSIDE of the District......
A friend to Seattle
Michael:
Nobody gets it...that's because there are a thousand camps set up and no unifying voice. It's like the Battle of Agincourt...every knight thinks that single-combat will produce a grand victory.
Knute Berger is the scribe...he is viewing the battlefield and making strategic observations...like the rest of us. A unified field theory will require collaboration unlike any that has come before. We all know few great leaders still reign in Seattle. Remember, we live in the Age of Skepticism and meme. And yet, in some leaders we can still look for hope.
To recreate Seattle Schools into a viable institution, worthy of one of the most progressive cities in the country, a coalition of great minds must come together.
It's like that age-old party question: If you were going to throw a dinner party for ten people who could fix Seattle Schools, who would you invite.
Me: Norm Rice, Charlie Mas, Rick Burke, Knute Berger, Jim Parsley (fmr. Vancouver Schools Supt.), Richard Mellish (fmr. Schmitz Park Principal), Raif Esquith (Teacher, LA Unified), Mike Lowry, Lloyd Hara (fmr. Seattle Treas.), and Ram Dass.
Who would the rest of my friends invite? Make your list here.
I don't think the national Ed Reform, union-busting, blame-the-teachers campaign has done enough yet. They're capable of so much more.
Maybe we can turn all the buildings into condos and have kids "attend" classes via computer. That would free up a lot of cash to go into the pockets of the Ed Reform crowd. We wouldn't have to feed them either! Imagine the profit margins!
Charters? Hey Knute, maybe we could hire the staffs from the 6 Charters in L.A. that were just shut down for falsifying test scores. Again. Yeah, privatization sure is efficient!
MGJ got booted not just for Potter's Shenanigans. 17%-Gate blew whatever remained of her credibility. The latest scandal blew out what remained of a long-flickering flame.
Helen Schinske
Extremely interesting @1 hr. raw video on Seattle Times site from just-done interview between Enfield, Sundquist and Times editorial board.
I'm only a few mins in, but I'm going to pause, get a sheet of paper and really digest their candid quotes.
I also heard Joni Balter (of Times editorial board) say on KUOW today that the ed staff had been impressed by Sundquist's professionalism -- or somesuch -- re: that same interview.
Knute is wrong about the solution though. They are all far fetched and likely hypothetical. The solution should be simply telling the truth. The board can agree or disagree about various policies and decision as they will. They will get voted in or out based on those votes. But at the end of the day, you don't lie to the board. That is a fatal error and it should be.
--parent
The best decisions often come at the end of sessions in which many different viewpoints are valued and put on the table for consideration. When one set of viewpoints is labeled as "complaining" or "non-trusting" you often lose valuable information that could bring something better together in the end.
I don't think it would actually be that hard for the majority of parents to trust the district enough - if the district put individual children first, rather than ideas, strategies, politics, etc. The change that happened under MGJ's regime was too fast, too dictatorial and seemed more interested in pleasing some far-off group of constituents than the students in our schools.
Yes, we needed to close schools, but it would have gone much better if more time and careful study had been taken. And - if we had put services in place for the disrupted students.
We could certainly have district approved curricula - while giving schools freedom to innovate as long as they could show students were learning.
It's debacles like "Pottergate" that earn the mistrust of parents and citizens. Spending money on strategic initiatives rather than proven programs (Everett graduation rates?) earns mistrust.
Being nice and trusting of people who are making poor decisions? Trusting people funneling SPS money to their own private groups?
As parents, we have to be accountable too - and if we just smile and act nice when we suspect someone is harming our kids and district, we wouldn't be responsible parents at all.
Another Seattle Parent
Things have been forced on because there was no effort to solicit their buy-in.
There was no effort to solicit their buy-in because those in charge either A) didn't think they could get it or B) didn't think they needed it (see for reference the ability to force things on people)
They didn't think they could get it because either A) the idea wasn't very good and couldn't be sold or B) the people are so self-absorbed that they are only concerned with their own immediate and narrow self-interests.
They didn't think they needed it because they (erroneously) thought they could make the idea work without the cooperation of the participants who were charged with implementing it. Yeah. That's messed up and stupid.
So... if the district leadership came forward with an idea that had real merit they probably could sell it to the people who had the job of implementing it, and those people would probably implement it successfully thereby building trust.
Instead, they tried to force people to adopt bad ideas, the people resisted, the implementation failed, and trust was lost.
Trust isn't hard, but it has to be earned. Want people to trust you? Be trustworthy. Say what you mean and mean what you say. Keep your commitments.
It's not hard.
I wish it was just MGJ, but it's not. Remember that we ran Manhas and Olschefski, the two superintendents before MGJ off too. The very same people that bash MGJ for playing musical principals, love playing musical supers. The average tenure for a superintendent of SPS is 18 months. EIGHTEEN MONTHS!
Seattle will never find a super that we are satisfied with. Watch, we'll be pounding Enfield very soon (some have started already). Then we'll pound whoever replaces her. It's the Seattle way. Call it finicky if you wish solvaygirl, but it is what it is.
Ironically in running our supers off, we again get the very thing that we pounded MGJ for - turmoil and unrest.
We have fewer minorities than many cities ( Like Bellevue) & more middle class white kids attending public schools ( albeit with a big chunk attending private) & we still want our public school district to be a place where middle class minorites/FRL recent immigrants/well to do whites & any combination thereof- can sit side by side & learn.
Other areas of the country- don't necessarily look like Seattle.
We want the district to be all things to all people. We don't want middle class families to move to the suburbs- whether they be black or white. We want schools reaching high #s of challenged families to offer AP courses as well as job training skills.
It isn't that we are too hard on superintendents- to get paid more than the governor- you are gonna have to meet a high bar- it is the superintendents we hire ( & it has been a while since we did a search- if you don't count the last one)have to be able to hear the community & to do that- they have to listen.
Not just be waiting for their turn to talk.
I think you're wrong on the 18 month average. I've heard that stat too- but I don't think it's accurate, here or nationally. I think Olchefske was here '99-'03, Manhas '03-'06 and then MGJ. Not that 3 years is a good average, just wanting to stop the myth.
--WV suggests I sign hearryw.
I think there is majority agreement, on the blog and elsewhere, that people (parent/guardians, students, educators...) want resources put into schools and not put into central operations and contracts let outside.
Poeple, nearly ALL of them I believe, want to be rid of the bloated non-classroom spending in the district. Recently we have seen just a small piece of this waste, the Pottergate money. Their are other piles of money that are being sent offshore to pay for suspect tests, suspect contracts for ill-equiped "teachers" (TFA), suspect funds spent on palaces in Sodo (you know we're still paying for that one, right? The move from modest headquarters on Lower Queen Anne to the massive JSCEE is representative of this bloat)...
There IS consensus that all such suspect, non-school adventures must stop and we must return to the basics, not only for fiduciary responsibility, but because these adventures are ill-thought out and most probably are of little benefit to students, the district's core mission.
If the district reduced itself to that mystical 6% admin cost, and cut the wildly extravagant and ineffectual non-classroom "initiatives" ("reforms") it has been following under the Broad/Gates mandates, trust levels would, I have no doubt, soar.
One point to be made is that you can't expect to make everyone happy, but it was quite an accomplishment for MGJ to alienate as many communities as she did in such a short time.
My other points were the requirements: we don't lose superintendents because they aren't perfect enough. We lose them because they can't keep track of money to the nearest million dollars. We lose them to leukemia. You don't have to be wildly popular to last - Stanford might have lasted despite imperfections.
My history doesn't go back past Stanford, and I was otherwise occupied with young child during Manhas. (So help me out here, please) I suspect Manhas was run over/paralyzed by politics. So perhaps the tougher requirement is that you have to be able to stand up to the powers-that-be here. In that regard, Enfield might be just the ticket.
Skeptical
Helen Schinske
The Board we elect seems to often hire Superintendents to impose an agenda on the District, rather than looking at Seattle as a District and Seattle as a city with its own individual character to be appreciated. This was true of even Stanford. Olchefske seemed to be hired mainly to sell the real estate deals that led to the Stanford Center. Manhas always seemed like a place holder to get control of the financial reporting and tracking of funds as mentioned before and then was tasked with closing schools with no real plan regarding what parents and communities wanted and needed.
It is perhaps optimistic to hope that Enfield will really get back to the basics, shelve some of the new initiatives, and manage the resources and people to deliver to the students. And, will she genuinely respond to questions and concerns? Under the current Board can any Superintendent focus on the schools and not on impressing outside influences? The Board has to focus on the District too. Will they? Have they?
There are many outside influence in Seattle already, each with an agenda. Few of these influences would really support a Superintendent who was willing to work with communities and educators to determine the needs and who would insist that philanthropist respond to those needs rather than the agendas of the philanthropists. The Superintendent should then manage the resources and people to accomplish the goals from needs and desires of those in the schools and communities and neighborhoods. (This is especially true if we continue to move to a neighborhood model.) Yes, a superintendent should be knowledgeable about various and models and outcomes, they should be able to decipher and understand statistics and yes, all should be accountable. They should not be hostage to all the various outside agendas. Joanna
Doing the same thing in a different way might. How about allowing the community more of a say in the next superintendent? That would be different.
Very funny, Louise.. Good one. Also, this blog isn't about a unified vision - we're about discussion. I'm sure if we all had a thread about a unified vision, we would find common ground.
Guppy, we "ran off" Olchefske because he screwed up $32M. Sorry, that had to be done. Raj was a great guy but not superintendent material. I'm not even sure his heart was in the job.
Go look it up - superintendents in this country leave just as often as they are ousted. It's a two-way street and Seattle is not alone.
Charlie is right; it's about trust and creating trust. That it appears, time after time, that supernintendents in this city seem more interested in what the Alliance says than parents/teachers, then something is wrong.
Oh, the Alliance and the district sure want our PTA dollars (and, in fact, would have very hard time without them at this point) and they want our teachers to change course every couple of years, now we're testing this way, now the curriculum is that and yet we are all supposed to sit down, shut up and let them make the decisions.
How about trying it our way just once? You might be surprised.
Seattle Times
Friday, September 6, 1991
Paula Bock
ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT: C-
Kendrick set out this year to improve academic achievement and reduce the gap between white students and students of color.
The district's record, particularly with students of color, is not good. Last year, African-American students scored an average 33 points lower than white students on standardized reading, math and language-arts tests.
But the superintendent should be given credit for being honest about what has and hasn't been done.
The district made the most gains in reading, with students in 28 of 50 targeted schools improving. Only 21 schools improved in language arts, 15 in math. The district has 90 schools.
-- COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT: B+
Kendrick and the community should take a bow for getting innumerable businesses, volunteers, parents and social services involved in the schools at all levels.
Large local corporations contributed more than $1 million over two years to revamp the district's computer and communications systems and develop long-range plans for the district's curriculum, buildings and staff.
At the grass-roots level, the use of volunteers increased by more than 25 percent in 17 schools with low participation the previous year. Some gains were stupendous. At T.T. Minor Elementary, 131 people shared their time, a twelvefold increase over the previous year. Middle College High, a program for teen parents and students who have not done well in traditional academic settings, saw 176 volunteers last year, more than three times the previous participation.
That's particularly heartening because those youngsters are most in need of real-world role models. The number of parents attending parent-teacher conferences increased an average 31 percent in 15 schools with low parent participation.
I wonder if we are keeping track of this sort of thing anymore?
- LEADERSHIP: C
Last winter the Interhigh Council, a group of student representatives, proposed that students sit in on the district's contract talks with teachers. Kendrick told the students he'd respond to their request within a week. He never did.
Last spring, Interhigh proposed that each high school be allowed to decide whether to dispense condoms through an in-school health service.
"He wouldn't take a stand," said Shannon Carey, an Interhigh representative who graduated from Garfield in June. "He said he'd get too much flak. He said he'd find out about the decision process for us, but he never got back to us.
"He doesn't look at the students' needs," she said. "He looks at things from a political perspective."
Kendrick has been accused of being too political, and of not being political enough.
Do we still have an INTERHIGH council?
Both Manhas & Olchefske fell into the position .
Before Stanford, Kendrick was superintendent for 9 or 10 years before he decided to retire.
Stanford also left his office honorably- however it is true that our last three left in disgrace, but only MGJ was originally hired as superintendent.
Seattle really isnt that tough.
As for ideas and wants, we don't need to brainstorm. We've all seen what works at the school & classroom level. We don't need to pigeonhole confetti, as some seem to suggest. We need a handful of adjustments and an organizational attitude adjustment at JSCEE that ensures everyone shares in the pain of austerity and understands the concept of shared sacrifice.
It is ridiculous and insulting that the Central Admin has re-classified and hung onto so many positions while cutting dollars to the schools and classrooms so severely. Several problems are so obvious they are beating us upside the head.
Fairness, trust, honesty and integrity are not rocket science. They are basic values. It is not that complicated. The main reason matters got complicated over the last few years is because the SI was pushing all the elements of the national ed reform agenda in Seattle, trying to get every aspect of it embedded in our infrastructure, but would not admit that was her true goal.
Liars and propagandists make things unnecessarily complicated. You can't hang that on the community.
Answer: "It is LouiseM's way."
- Red Herring Rediret for dinner conversation tonight
I support the independent voices of Melissa, Charlie, Meg, Dorothy, and many others to provide the check and balance. They don't have to agree, but the voices here on this blog gives me hope that at least for SPS, there is one place that won't stop asking tough questions, for a forensic audit, and can distinguish rose colored glasses from a pair of transparent one.
I support the independent voices of Melissa, Charlie, Meg, Dorothy, and many others to provide the check and balance. They don't have to agree, but the voices here on this blog gives me hope that at least for SPS, there is one place that won't stop asking tough questions, for a forensic audit, and can distinguish rose colored glasses from a pair of transparent one.
Happy with many voices
I use the example of how over in Bellevue they took a budget survey and used the results to guide their budget. There was zero evidence that anyone in SPS used the budget survey in shaping our budget this year.