Charlie and I (and at least a few other readers) wrote to the editor to complain. One of our main complaints was that Professor Payzant did not disclose in his article that (1) he knows Dr. Goodloe-Johnson, (2) was brought out to conduct her Board evaluation and (3) that he and Dr. Goodloe-Johnson are both professionally affiliated with the Broad Foundation. That might have given some readers pause had they known those facts. The editor, Angela Pascopella, in her e-mails to me seemed to have not known these facts and had suggested they might have some letters to the editor in next month's issue.
Alas, not so. In fact, in the title story this month, Superintendent Staying Power, she quotes Payzant again (but only the part about how great she did in the job, not the final straw that pushed her out). Payzant and Pascopella both know the data the Broad Foundation put forth only showed that Seattle moved ahead marginally but just enough to be able to claim it moved faster than other urban districts. Not much as an accomplishment but hey, when you are trying to make a specious claim, anything will work. Shame on them for not wanting to get it right.
This month's article about superintendents' staying power is based on the Council of Great City Schools' annual report on superintendents. (The CGCS has 65 member districts across the country.) Interestingly, Seattle didn't participate in it last year (so is not included in the data) despite being a member of the group.
Their findings include:
- tenure has gone up 56% from 2.3 years in 1999 to 3.6 in 2010
- 91% of superintendents in 2010 still have K-12 education backgrounds
- the percentage of supers who don't have an educational background is greater in cities
- there are more female superintendents than there have been in the past decade with the largest increase in white women from 0-9% from 1999-2010