Tuesday, March 01, 2011

Termination vote going on the Board agenda

Following an executive session, the Board has amended the agenda for tomorrow's Board meeting by adding votes for the termination of the superintendent and the appointment of Dr. Enfield as the interim superintendent.

From the amended agenda:
Approval of this item would terminate without cause the employment of Dr. Goodloe-Johnson as the District’s Superintendent.
See the Board Action Report here.

And this one:
Approval of this item would terminate without cause the employment of Donald Kennedy as the District’s Chief Financial and Operations Officer.
With it's own Board Action Report.

And finally this one:
Approval of this item would elect Dr. Susan Enfield to serve as Interim Superintendent and authorize the Board President to execute an Interim Superintendent Employment Agreement with Dr. Enfield on behalf of the Board.
With a Board Action Report as well.

All of them are for introduction and action at tomorrow's meeting. Immediate action is in the best interest of the District.

74 comments:

seattle citizen said...

Here's tonight/tomorrow's Seattle Times editorial: The mixed record of Seattle school Superintendent Maria Goodloe-Johnson

Guppy said...

Oh Lordy. Enfoeld will be as big a disaster as MGJ. No improvement there. But at least she'll just be an interim, and we can take our time to look for a strong super.

Guppy said...

Oops, I meant Enfield

peonypower said...

not thrilled about Enfield- but maybe DeBell is right and she has been under the thumb of MGJ, but Enfield's resume is telling. Never more than 2 years in any one place, and many jobs less. As long as she is only the interim.

seattle citizen said...

The above-mentioned editorial ends thusly:

"...Goodloe-Johnson survived longer than we thought she would."

Guess they know something we don't. So it ends.

mirmac1 said...

Looks like she's gonna get a pay off to go away. Oh well, good riddance.

Jan said...

Seattle Citizen: they started the piece by commenting that the average tenure is X months, etc. etc. I think their point at the end was, she lasted longer than that average -- though they think she needs to go. I thought it was a weak ending to an otherwise not horrible editorial -- they admit that things have been sliding (while they have cheerleaded sp? cheerled? -- whatever) from the side. I was hoping for more insight at the end as to what they thought had gone wrong, not so much with MGJ, but with the Board's, their, and the city's failure to get this right earlier. Well -- writing on deadline is hard, I guess. Maybe there will be a more reasoned assessment at a later date.

Melissa Westbrook said...

There is also a motion to exit Don Kennedy.

We would have to pay off both of them which would be quite painful.

Please understand, Dr. Enfield is interim and if she doesn't do well, she's back at CAO or gone as well. The Board seems to indicate that it will be January 2012 when they will start looking for a permanent superintendent. (Help me out if I misread that.)

THIS time, we won't get fooled again. I will not stand by and say well, maybe it will be okay. Or say, okay they picked her and I'll try to support that decision because it's the "right" thing to do.

Nope, this time if I think they picked wrong, I'm going to shout it to the rafters.

Because honestly folks, I can't tell you how many people have said to me that when they saw the videos of the superintendent candidates speaking, almost every single person could not believe MGJ was the one picked.

Part of me wonders if she will even come back and show her face publicly again.

Funny how the Times can't quite get there and admit they were wrong. They didn't think she would last this long? I was told a couple of times that I was wrong in thinking she would leave and now I find out that the Times editorial board didn't think she would last? Very funny.

seattle citizen said...

Maybe, Jan, or the Times could be insinuating that they thought she'd be taken down earlier by the dang rabble-rousers who just won't let anything get done.

It is a weakly written piece, but it is written as if she's already gone.

Lori said...

Without cause? Are they serious? They had better explain to the public, in detail, what would qualify as termination "for cause" in contrast to "without cause" because if incompetence and covering up problems is "without cause," then the public ought to demand a much, much tougher contract with all future Superintendents.

What in the world does it take to fire someone "with cause" in this district?

Josh Hayes said...

I'm with Lori on this: it's baffling that they aren't at least considering termination for cause. There's just no way they can fail to show cause, and this costs the district money. Is it just to avoid the extension of the angst the inevitable lawsuit would bring?

ConcernedTeacher said...

"I can't tell you how many people have said to me that when they saw the videos of the superintendent candidates speaking, almost every single person could not believe MGJ was the one picked."

I believe Shoreline teachers and parents said the same thing when their previous superintendent was hired. Lo and behold, that guy and his cronies made somewhere around $6-8 million disappear....
Interesting parallels.

emeraldkity said...

Ya know the school district takes on cases a lot less clear cut than cutting loose MGJ- without worrying about potential court costs if they lost- even racking up the money to appeal the decision.

If the board pays her because they were sufficiently cowed to grant her a new contract before her old one was up- they might as well assign her to drive a bus and get some honest work from her.

Michael H said...

@Lori: "They had better explain to the public, in detail, what would qualify as termination 'for cause' in contrast to 'without cause'"

It could be for legal reasons. Unfortunately, a buy-out may be cheaper than taking the issue to court. Same with DK. If they say it is not with cause that may limit the legal repercussions.

I would like to see whoever takes her place, either interim or permanent, get a MUCH LOWER salary. why they were paying her was obscene.

Anonymous said...

Thank You Beth,Melissa and Charlie, as well as all the readers and writers...I don't know any of you other than from reading this blog...you all ROCK IMHO!!....The 4 School Board Members better be done in November over this...Paying these crooks to leave?...SHAMEFUL!.....and "The truth shall set you free!"
............J.Shaft

Lori said...

oh, now I see the attachments, which give a little more explanation. So basically, the Board is scared of losing against her in court. Really? They are worried that a court would rule in the Superintendent's favor? So we just hand her $275K to go away?

And here's no surprise, from the Action Report: Mutual Termination. Efforts to reach agreement on a mutual termination agreement were unsuccessful. Gee, ya think? Why would she resign when she can get fired and still make $275K?

Argh! I think I need a new attorney to negotiate my business contracts, because I am not currently in a position with my own clients where I can be wholly incompetent, not deliver or meet my stated objectives, cover up scandals, and still get paid handsomely just to go away. Dang, that is some deal.

Maureen said...

Could there be an amendment to this to fire her (or at least Don Kennedy) with cause?

Can any of you parse out the financial difference between the two?

Meg said...

Kennedy's contract only has a 6 month buyout.

Even so, WV says that money was "lited" on fire

Jan said...

Remember, Melissa -- she wasn't "picked." The other candidate withdrew at the last minute. The Board had the choice of starting the whole process over, and they didn't have the heart, courage, whatever, to do that -- so they "picked" the only remaining candidate standing. I was unhappy at the time as well. It was clear to me, even then -- when she was trying to look good -- that she was all about top down, centralized control -- and I wondered (feared) how that would work out in "choice happy" decentralized Seattle. Well, now we know.

Word to the NEXT board -- IF your candidate pool somehow disappears at the end, it is NOT ok to pick the only remaining candidate as a way to avoid doing the hard, right work of reopening the position. Just go back and read what her former District parents were saying. This is NOT a case where Seattle just isn't happy, no matter who they pick. Yes, it is a hard job. No, not everyone will be happy. But -- it NEVER had to be THIS horrible.

Michael H said...

@Josh: "it's baffling that they aren't at least considering termination for cause"

You don't know if they didn't consider it. That's what executive sessions are for. To discuss and consider certain topics or issues in private, as allowed by law. From what I've read about Betty (duh?) and KSB, I imagine they would have been pushing for a dismissal WITH cause. But again, legal issues may have prevailed.

SeattleSped said...

I see Enfield will get nearly the same obscene salary WITH the car allowance. Only a SIX month severance, well that's an immprovement.

Well DR Enfield, we're not going away. Can you please show what those degrees papering your walls are for.

Those of us in the SpecEd community will be watching....

hschinske said...

Okay, I'm already disappointed. I think they have a case for firing her with cause, and I can't believe they aren't even discussing it.

But at least the severance pay is limited to twelve months (I was afraid they'd have to buy out the rest of her contract). Still a total rip-off.

Helen Schinske

dj said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
wsnorth said...

Melissa Westbrook said...

We would have to pay off both of them which would be quite painful.

In fact, I think this would be one of the most painless things to emerge from SPS central admin for ages!

dj said...

I am no MJB fan. I am the parent of four kids and I have a really unpopular elementary assignment under the NSAP. Please explain to me, concretely, how my kids' experience is likely to improve under a new super, such that I would spend energy agitating for this.

Lori said...

thanks, Michael H. It makes sense from that perspective, but it's just so maddening. The whole point of two parties entering into a contract is to have acceptable terms to both. You don't sign any contract you can't live with, and this one apparently has very weak provisions around termination or an overly generous severance package.

Every time I sign a contract in my professional life, I have to think if I can live with the terms should a worst-case scenario come to fruition. A contract that forces you into a lesser option simply to avoid court costs does not seem like one that serves you very well. I hope the district leans from this experience and does a better job protecting itself in the future.

lassen said...

Now, make Phil Brockman Chief Academic Officer so Enfield can benefit from his counsel and experience, and don't replace Brockman's Regional Ed Director spot. Having 4, not 5, Ed Directors results in an immediate $150,000+ savings. Five Ed Directors was terribly excessive -- four is probably even still excessive.

Jan said...

Lori -- go back and think about Rick Neuheisel's case. He sued later for wrongful dismissal -- and won. Firing for cause can be much dicier than it would seem. In this case, IF the Board had put her on probation after the audit came out, and IF they had withheld contract renewal last June due to unhappiness with her management, and IF they had given lots of clear signals all along that her management of the District was deficient, then things like this just become the "last straw" (actually, they usually get people to leave -- which works great for me too) in a "for cause" firing. But in this case -- we didn't. People begged. The Board (five of them at least) refused to listen. And since none of those things can be done without a majority -- you can't really ding Kay Smith-Blum OR Betty Patu, either one. You either have the votes to act, or you don't. They clearly didn't. Even today (or yesterday), Martin-Morris was waffling.

Also, we will never know, but maybe the price of the termination votes among the wafflers was that they NOT push to make this "for cause."

At this point, I regret the money -- but frankly undoing just a FEW of the expensive Strategic Plan boondoggles she has us roped into will more than pay for the cost of getting rid of the person who brought them all here.

Also, paying the cost of getting rid of her, rather than negotiating a settlement means the Board does not have to agree to say nice things if anyone ever asks. As long as they speak the truth (and there is plenty of unpleasant truth to go around), they can say whatever they want. She has no way to silence them. She has no hold over them whatsoever!

WV says -- duunful. I told him he needs to wait until tomorrow night to be sure of it.

Intermediate Teacher said...

I know nothing about Enfield. Can anyone fill me in on what they know of her? How is she like/unlike MGJ? What has she done to cause doubt? Thanks!

Michael H said...

There was a section in MGJs contract about Board/Superintendent Communications that is not included in the proposed Interim contract. that section prohibited the Board from "giv[ing] direction to the Superintendent or any staff member regarding the management of the District..." See section C in MGJs contract.

Looks like the Board caught a clue and is taking back their power. Now lets see if they follow-through.

Anonymous said...

Sorry Lassen, you would have to prove that Brockman has his act together on the achievement gap. No sign that he does. None. A chief academic officer without a track record on the achievement gap. Think about it. On a different thread the point was made, he's part of the problem not part of the solution.

Bottom line

Michael H said...

@Lori: I agree.

Michael H said...

Sorry, but what is WV. I see that here a lot. Sorry to be clueless about that......

Lori said...

thanks, Jan, very good points. I love this blog for facilitating this kind of helpful and informative discussion. I'm starting to calm down, a little.

Rooster said...

Great idea Lassen !
Brockman has the most comprehensive view and practical understanding of the district and would be very valuabe in this type of supporting role. Eliminating one of the costly Regional director jobs would also help to reduce JSCEE bloat. A great first step toward restoring trust as well as showing fiscal responsibility.

Anonymous said...

Ya know, Enfield - MGJ ... MGJ - Enfield ... anyone want to be that we see no change in business as usual? Let's hear from ELL and SPED, and let's hear from SE Seatle. After a few months there will be no house cleaning. There will be no honest answers to difficult and challenging questions. That is not Enfield's way. She has her couterie. Do not expect anything but the current status quo. This was a desperate appointment by the board. They really truly do not know what they are doing or really what to do.

Jacob Rigtr

ArchStanton said...

If the board pays her because they were sufficiently cowed to grant her a new contract before her old one was up- they might as well assign her to drive a bus and get some honest work from her.

I think that's an inspired idea, but I wouldn't want her driving my kids around. I wouldn't mind if she shuffled papers or took out the trash, though.

IF the Board had put her on probation after the audit came out, and IF they had withheld contract renewal last June due to unhappiness with her management, and IF they had given lots of clear signals all along that her management of the District was deficient, then things like this just become the "last straw" (actually, they usually get people to leave -- which works great for me too) in a "for cause" firing. But in this case -- we didn't. People begged. The Board (five of them at least) refused to listen.

The board should cover the cost of buying her out from their own pockets.

Rooster said...

Sorry Anonymous....
You have to prove that Ms Enfield has her act together on the achievement gap. No sign that she does. None. In addition, she has been doing MGJ's bidding !

Sahila said...

@Michael H...

WV = word verifier...

occasionally, it presents one with a combination of letters that one can use as a witticism, if one has one's wits about one.....

eg... WV for this post is mityrid...

I might change that to "we're Mighty Rid of MGJ/DK"....

Eric B said...

Does anyone have a link handy for MGJ's employment contract? I think I can dig it up from old Board minutes, but if it's easily available, it saves a bunch of time.

I noticed that Enfield's proposed contract has a clause about dishonesty as a cause for termination. If that is in MGJ's contract as well, then there is ample cause for dismissal. A man can dream, after all.

WV: lownw

Anonymous said...

Does it make any sense for the board to postpone the vote for a few weeks so there can be sufficient time to investigate whether the supe is responsible for even more blatant malfeasances, thus strengthening the “for cause” case?

If she’s put on administrative leave with a termination vote looming, would insiders be more willing to talk?

-Irate Parent

Anonymous said...

Eric,

It's linked through the Board Agenda

http://www.seattleschools.org/area/board/10-11agendas/030211agenda/GoodloeJohnsoncontract.pdf

and at the Seattle Times

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/flatpages/local/contract.html

Irate Parent

voloenti said...

I have worked with Enfield on a project involving community members. I found her straightforward and with the kids interest at heart. Privately I asked her some very tough questions and, people let me tell you, she never beat around the bush and crafted a pretty political answer. She could have-- I left the foor open for it because I wanted to see what she'd do. Instead she told me the rough and real truth, and confirmed my suspicions about something that was a small matter but symbolic to me. I do trust her. I think she's a good person. I think she's passionate about kids-- and that's a change from some managers down there for sure. I'd like us to give her a chance.

Guppy said...

What exactly does interim mean? Does it mean that Enfield will stay in the position of sup unless she does something wrong? If she does OK will the board appoint her the permanent superintendent position? Or will she only have the job until they find another qualified sup?

voloenti said...

Also, for cause issue: that's not something to spend energy on because if you have worked in business world you know that it's a high bar. The point here is to make the change not spend $500,000 in legal fees.

Anonymous said...

Well, is this a done deal... or not? Will there be discussion of this or not? Will there be public input at the board meeting tomorrow or not? There certainly should be other candidates besides Ensfield.

Inquiring mind.

Anonymous said...

What if Ensfield doesn't want the job? I can't say that it sounds too appealing. Everyone hates your old boss, the one you liked, the one that got fired, and now they want you as interim sup until they find somebody better and unlike the boss you liked. How is that good for Ensfield?

Inquiring Mind

Patrick said...

I'm looking on the bright side, the new board will get to choose the next Super. And trying not to think about us paying MGJ probably around $1.2 million in salary over her time here and buyout to leave the district much worse than when she came.

I can see that terminating her for cause would be hard. In spite of the list of causes that Charlie gave yesterday, if the Board didn't make an issue of them during her evaluation they can't very well come along later and say they were a problem. (Supervisors, this is why you should give warts and all evaluations, not cheerleading sessions...)

Kennedy, on the other hand, should have been a no-brainer to terminate for cause.

Stu said...

Why, why, why, why, why, does the board feel they need to appoint an interim superintendent immediately? Couldn't they wait, say, one week to think about what direction they'd like to go? Just take one breath . . . one pause . . . look at the district, see if there's someone who can just work on the administration stuff for a while.

On the other hand, since this board's pretty much rubber stamped everything the staff and MGJ has presented, perhaps choosing Enfield is the perfect choice . . . for them! They've approved the direction the district is going; they've agreed with the top-down style and decision making. Enfield ensures continuity of message . . . something we all might hate but something that shows, at least in their minds, that they've know what they've been doing all along.

Sigh.


stu

ArchStanton said...

Will there be public input at the board meeting tomorrow or not?

I hope and pray that they don't cancel the public testimony portion. That's going to be the best show in town tomorrow.

Besides, they should all "man up" - er, have the fortitude to take their medicine. They're going to have to get used to hearing "we told you so" over and over until the next board elections.

Anonymous said...

Let's keep our eyes on the prize. Getting rid of MGJ is only one small problem. The downtown offices need to be gutted. That place is rife with indifference, incompetence, and sloth. It's run like the stereotypic DMV office where bureaucrats look down their noses at you like you're bothering them.

And, try to get a paycheck corrected and you are looking at a three month ordeal.

They lose documentation of teacher continuing education with wonton zeal.

The technical staff in the maintenance department will find any excuse not to make a simple repair. I saw one electrician walk by an arcing light switch saying he did not have a work order to fix it.

Lunches can run up to two hours.

Personal business is done on the public's time.

The computer databases are in shambles.

Need I go on...it's a nightmare in there!

Remember folks, the real prize in a complete overhaul of the main office, not just re-roofing the building.

- Be here now

Guppy said...

Good question enquiring mind. Will Enfield even want the job? Interim super does not offer much stability. She may be offered the permanent position, but she could just as easily be let go if/when they find someone else. Then what? Does she go back to her old position of CAO, or is she toast. If I were her I might opt to refuse the interim super position, and stay in my comfy and stable CAO position.

Sahila said...

I dont know why they need an interim super right away either....

why cant they just have someone sit in the seat, make sure the bills are paid and the lights are turned out each night while everyone takes a deep breath and thinks things through....

There's nothing so urgent on the boiler that it cant wait a couple of weeks...

So what if enrolment etc gets pushed back a bit? Its not as though we havent been living with total confusion for the past three years - a bit longer wont make a difference....

Besides, all of those changes should be held over until someone looks them over too... everything done under MGJ's watch should be reviewed, amended, rewound or scrapped altogether...

And De Bell has already stated publicly that he thinks the Strategic Plan should be put on hold, if not scrapped altogether...

Aside from firing MGJ, DK and anyone else that ends up being identified as having been involved in shady doings, the Board needs to take its time, and not cave to any pressure from within or without to get a move on to make it seem less bad....

Anonymous said...

It would be great if the board could learn (from past experience) NEVER to give the interim person the permanent job. It just doesn't bode well. Olchefski. Manhas. Need I say more.

Charlie Mas said...

A couple answers to a couple questions.

1. Why not have her drive a bus or carry trash or...

Her contract is to serve as the superintendent of the district and it cannot be used to assign her any other role.

2. Do we need an interim superintendent?

Yes, we do. The role of district superintendent cannot go un-filled. The superintendent has legal responsibilities as the secretary of the Board and the Board cannot meet without a superintendent.

mirmac1 said...

Remember, it's not too late to join the hundreds of others who have expressed their disgruntlement by signing this no-confidence/dump MGJ petition:

http://www.petitiononline.com/NC_MGJ/petition.html

Herb said...

Yeah, I'm starting to feel the "let her stew" vibe. If the board has enough to can MGJ and Kennedy today, why not take a deep breath, put on your poker face, and see what other goodies come out of the woodwork? I think we all have a feeling the show's just beginning.
They might not think they have cause today, but wait a week...

Josh Hayes said...

@Michael H, back a few posts, sez:

"@Josh: "it's baffling that they aren't at least considering termination for cause"

You don't know if they didn't consider it. That's what executive sessions are for...."
[snip]

You're absolutely right, and I was shooting off my mouth without thinking first. Often a very bad idea. My concern was about throwing good money after bad, but it appears SPS will have to pony up some money either way, so whichever is cleanest and neatest is the way to go.

I have to wonder, though, how attractive the job of Supe of SPS is: would someone effective want to come in after this mess?

Jan said...

I agree with Charlie. We need a Superintendent. Now. Personally, I know of some behind the scenes efforts by Enfield to restore Garfield's curriculum, etc. that make me want to give her some time to get some work done. I don't think that tarring her with actions under MGJ's regime is a fair statement of anything.

That being said, I doubt if I will like everything she likes. but that is not my criteria right now. I assume that contract would not be there if she hadn't been asked, and agreed, to step in. While she will be well compensated, this may NOT in fact be a job that thrills her to her toes, and she may be doing it because some body has to step up, and the Board trusts her more than others.

She is NOT a Broad Superintendent. I have never gotten the sense that she is only here for a short resume burnishing whistle stop on her way to much more important ed reform jobs in DC or NYC. Nothing I have ever seen in her suggests that she would charge a $7,000 retirement party with $100 party favors, live music and a carving station to the District's account, or spend the entire board meeting twiddling on her Blackberry.

I am thankful beyond words that the Board removed the offensive language that the prior Stepford board allowed in MGJ's contract. If the Board is willing to back her up in straightening out District management, cleaning house, etc. I think a reasonable interim superintendency could happen. If they don't push for it -- and back her up by getting her resources to get it done, well then -- there is not much likelihood that secretly, hiding within Enfield, is a non-profit corporate turnaround expert. They are a fairly rare breed, though I suspect that there are some out there who would fit this task to a T, if we just knew who they were.

MGJ leaves behind an absolute cesspool. It will take a LONG time (even longer with no money) to dig out. If we start carping because she has mud on her shoes, and her fingernails are dirty -- it isn't fair to her.

Lots of people thought Kay Smith-Blum would not be a good director, based on whatever -- her background, her wealth, I don't know. I would hazard a guess that while she still needs a boat to cross water, she has exceeded the expectations of many, as has Betty Pat simply by showing up and doing their best. Let's hope the same for our new Superintendent.

Trapped inside said...

Interesting that the Urban League is hiring Cathy Allen to do publicity and image shaping for them. She certainly has experience.....when SHE WAS FIRED BY KENDRICK (actually General Counsel Mike Hoge delivered the notice then went to work for the firm that did most of the District's legal work) FOR HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS OF UNAPPROVED PERSONAL SERVICES CONTRACTS, she probably learned a lot.

Her contracts were to pitch levies to voters and make the then SSD Facilities Director (Craig Donald) over into a candidate for office (with District funds). It was a scandal but hey, how quickly we forget.

Somebody should ask her about that whole thing.

Copies of supporting documents can be made available to this blog upon request.

Go back to Alaska Cathy, they have probably forgotten your scandalous behavior there by now also.

Melissa Westbrook said...

First, I love the John Shaft references.

Second, yes, MGJ was picked. One person left out of the three and it was her and a guy I liked from Philadelphia.

Third, I agree the district has gone to court with less but maybe better to get her gone. We all know (and she knows) she should have resigned and not done this to our district. She knows she's taking dollars out of the classroom.

As Maya Angelou said, "When someone shows you who they are, believe them." We know her for who she is and I'm thinking it will follow her wherever she goes. Good luck with that next job.

I like that Phil Brockman as CAO and dropping his job.

We do have to have an interim and no, there usually isn't discussion over who the Board chooses. I'm okay with this.

Dr. Enfield can apply for the permanent job if she wants to when it becomes advertised.

Trapped inside said...

Enfield=business as usual.

Change we CAN'T believe in.

Maureen said...

Well said Jan!

Dorothy Neville said...

Taking her to court would have meant keeping the scandal fresh and in the public eye all Fall as we vote for the Families and Ed levy. I bet the city council and mayor would very much not like that. Bad for the future of family support workers, after school enrichment, teen health centers and targeted support for students.

Trapped Inside, I would love to see those supporting documents. My email address is in my blogger profile.

Enfield made sense as an interim, it would have been challenging to overlook her obvious next in line position and go for someone else. I am hoping we can work with her to slow down the chaos. As interim, her job will be to restore order. Her career could be made or broken on this gig. If she does manage to slow down the chaos and restore teacher and parent support she will be very attractive candidate as super for another city.

And yes, if I were in her shoes, the very first thing I would do is find someone with utmost integrity and experience as a business manager, CFO.

Bird said...

I don't have cable TV. Where's the bar I can go to watch the termination in action. ;)

Guppy said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Melissa Westbrook said...

Again, I truly appreciate some of sly asides here (Bird, I'm talking to you - a bar with the School Board meeting on!). Arch, we've missed you.

A little laughter keeps you sane.

all sorts of errors said...

Told my brother in Atlanta the woes of SPS, and here is his reply, complete with a catchy phrase we might use here:

We're having problems here, too. It's mainly the School Board itself that is the problem, and now many yards have signs saying "Atlanta School Board:
Step UP or Stand DOWN".

all sorts of errors said...

Told my brother in Atlanta the woes of SPS, and here is his reply, complete with a catchy phrase we might use here:

We're having problems here, too. It's mainly the School Board itself that is the problem, and now many yards have signs saying "Atlanta School Board:
Step UP or Stand DOWN".

Maureen said...

I actually had planned to go to the LEV/Wendy Kopp talk tonight. I still think it would be interesting to watch the faces of the true believers, but now I feel like I have to go watch the MGJ drama play out. Is anyone planning to go see Kopp talk about TFA? Can you report back?

ArchStanton said...

@Melissa: I'm sorry that I don't have it in me to contribute here to the degree that others do (you know who you are). They deserve the real kudos.

That said, I'm glad when I can offer something meaningful and provide the occasional snarky comic relief.

Sandy Blight said...

GROSS PAY - $125,000
Superintendent MGJ relied on Holly Ferguson to write and revise all Board Policies.
Small Business Works was a stale board policy that Holly Ferguson needed to revise.
Holly Ferguson did not do her job.

GROSS PAY - $110,000
Second: Superintendent MGJ relied on Roy (Ronic) Lirio to clean up financial records. Ronic failed in his job and he was rewarded with a new job that whose title was obscure at best - Strategic Management Manager. Ronic should have reviewed the role of the Small Works, but did not. Ronic did not do his job.

GROSS PAY $130,000
John Harman Duggan was expected to provide reliable financial statements. To this day, Seattle Schools does not have a set of reliable financial statements. John Harman Duggan did not do his job.

(These numbers are close estimates and maybe more if you includeded benefits. )

Charlie Mas said...

Given the top-down hierarchy at SPS, it is difficult to know which of Dr. Enfield's statements and actions were from Dr. Enfield and which were from Dr. Goodloe-Johnson and spoken through Dr. Enfield.

I have seen Dr. Enfield at the Curriculum and Instruction Committee meetings speak in strong support for alternative education and I believe that the whole "innovation school" compromise was her invention. It is a very clever compromise; one that found a fertile crack in the curricular alignment wall. You may think it a weak effort, but that was an administration that did not tolerate anything that even resembled dissent. You should have heard Cathy Thompson talking about the need for wall-to-wall standardization in those meetings just a few months before.

On the other side, I think Dr. Enfield is antagonistic towards APP - and probably Spectrum as well.

One other thing. I spoke with Dr. Enfield about the high priority that the District should put on providing early and effective interventions to all students - K-12 - working below grade level, and she agreed with an inspiring conviction.

I don't think that Dr. Enfield, with the title of interim superintendent, is going to feel like she has license to institute sweeping reforms.

Nor do I think that Dr. Enfield has the skill set to be the superintendent, which is more of an administrative job than an academic one. The Superintendent needs to be an effective executive, not an effective educator.

Trapped inside said...

Dorothy

I will make those documents available to Melissa and she can send them to you.

Just can't go "public" as administration is desperate enough to harm me and my family unless I keep "covered."

Hope you understand.