Saturday, July 30, 2011

Blog Endorsements

Historically Melissa and I have not made endorsements and we certainly haven't made them speaking as the blog.

I think this year we will. But we are just two of the dozens of voices on the blog, so I have made this thread as a place for anyone to make themselves heard. Please take one comment to list your endorsements. I'll make additional threads for people to discuss each election individually.

People have their ballots. Now is the time for endorsements.

14 comments:

Greg said...

We're supporting Sharon Peaslee (District 1, Peter Maier is the incumbent), Kate Martin (District 2, Sherry Carr is the incumbent), Michelle Buetow (District 3, Harium Martin-Morris is the incumbent), and Marty McLaren (District 6, Steve Sundquist is the incumbent).

John Dunn also seems quite good for District 3, but we haven't supported him yet.

The Stranger did their endorsements recently. They picked John Dunn in District 3 and Joy Anderson in District 6, but also liked Michelle Buetow for District 3 and Marty McLaren for District 6. Their reasons are interesting, but don't change my preferences.

Kathy said...

Greg,

Please contact me at KSmith1965@aol.com

John Q. Taxpayer said...

Anyone who is not an incumbent.

That Passionate Teacher said...

I personally endorsed to my friends (and linked their websites) the following:

District 1: Sharon Peaslee

District 2: Jack Whelan or Kate Martin. (I know and respect Jack a lot, but he's not drawing the attention Kate is. I like Kate too, so I put both websites on my endorsement list and let the friends decide for themselves.)

District 3: Michelle Buetow

District 6: Marty McLaren

I also laid out the reasons why NONE of the incumbents is acceptable in any case whatsoever and made sure to point out NOT TO BE FOOLED by the Times endorsements.

Let's kick it up said...

For those endorsing candidates that are NOT incumbents-please contact candidate and have your name added to their endorsement list.

Incumbents are running away with political endorsements etc. Candidates not in office need help.

MathTeacher42 said...

Vote For NO Incumbents -

unless you value managers and paper pushers and power points and tomes over programs which help our kids, in class and in school, day after day, week after week.

Here is an example of a program that my kids need, that they use, and that they benefit from - College Access Now. Check out this article from Danny Westneat in the Times discussing the program, on Sunday 16 April.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/dannywestneat/2014793958_danny17.html

My criteria for evaluating programs are very basic and very simple - will it help my kids by Tuesday, or, will it help me help my kids by Tuesday.

The incumbents have been mesmerized by the well pitched, well sound bited, well presented

NEW FLASHY FLASHY NEW NEW

stuff of the Bill Gates astro turfs organizations.

An outstanding example - About 18 months ago, all SPS teachers received the appx. 70 page teacher bashing tome in their school mailboxes from the ... ha ha ha ... National Council On Teacher Quality. These kind of tomes epitomize the kind of education fixes brought in by our ex-superintendent. If you really really believe that this kind of stuff helps OUR kids - get 1 of those fancy "education" policy degrees & go work for the astro turfs! Vote for the incumbents!

R. Murphy

Full Disclosure: There are 5 students from Franklin mentioned in the article. At one time or another, I've had 4 of them as math students in the last 5 years of teaching at Franklin. While I really like the program, it is soooooo great to see my kids doing well!

Anonymous said...

Yes, please do endorsements! Then we will know exactly who NOT to vote for.

Stew Dent

Anonymous said...

District 1: Sharon Peaslee or John Cummings
District 2: Kate Martin or Jack Whelan
District 3: John Dunn or Michelle Buetow
District 6: Marty McLaren or Joy Anderson

Persuade all your 18+yrs children, friends, neighbors, aunts uncles, grandparents, people driving by, to not vote for any incumbent. We need to make them lame ducks on Aug 17th!

ken berry

Linh-Co said...

We are supporting Shaon Peaslee, Kate Martin and Jack Whelan, Michelle Buetow, and Marty McClaren.

Stu said...

My two cents:

Marty McLaren
Michelle Buetow
Kate Martin
Sharon Peaslee

(I agree with "Passionate Teacher" about Jack Whelan; I think he has some appeal as well but don't feel his campaign is as strong. I think it's incredibly important that our votes are not just symbolic, i.e., anti-incumbent, but that we get people through who might actually challenge.)

I had such hope for Sherry Carr and Harium Marti-Morris, just a couple of years ago. (Always thought Peter Maier was a terrible choice.) Both seemed to be growing into the job and Harium seemed to question things a bit more than the others. He didn't always act or follow through on his concerns but at least he put them out there. Something terrible must have happened, though. Maybe when Mary Bass left he felt he had no choice but to "go along for the ride" with the "stronger" board members. Maybe he just gave up or maybe there was one negative comment too many on his blog but he went from being minimally engaging to just shutting down. No more challenges, no more questioning, no more independent thought, no more blog. He checked out long ago and I was genuinely surprised he even bothered to run again. It's been years since it's appeared he even wants to be there . . . we need to help this man leave!

Sherry Carr always confused me. At the start, it seemed as though she would look at the facts, consider things, ask some of the right questions -- though never went as far as I hoped she would -- and though I didn't always like where she was heading, I thought she would really grow into the job. As each year's gone by, I think she's gotten WAY worse; she doesn't even seem to ask the entry-level questions and ignores any evidence that might dissuade her from going along with her majority.

In general, I feel the school board "majority" thinks it's more important to be unified than accurate. They offer no oversight of the administration and they don't take the shareholders into account; so, why should we let them stay?

stu

lassen said...

In two of the posts here, I am hearing good things about Jack Whelan. People seem to be leaning toward Kate Martin primarily because she is better known. I don't think that's a good reason at all. If Jack Whelan is the better choice, after the primary is over, he will become better known. So who is truly the better person for the Board? That should be the criteria for the vote, not whose campaign is better run at this point. I don't know either candidate, but from what I'm reading and hearing, I am intrigued to know more about Jack Whelan.

Also, I am inclined to support John Dunn. I think it would be great to have an actual teacher's perspective on the School Board. I think it was the Times that commented (paraphrasing here) that Dunn was not qualified because he was only a teacher and not a manager. That's pretty insulting.

Anonymous said...

I think Stu's analysis of Sherry and Harium is good, although lately Sherry seems to be trying to ask the right questions again. I don't know whether it's because she is growing or its campaign season. She wouldn't be the worst of the 4 to stay, but I like Martin and Whelan better. I am voting Martin. A lot of people don't like her because she has an activist rep. I think we could use an activist on the board. Not a whole board of activists. Just that viewpoint to counter the Maeir and Sundquist Business Drone. After 4 years of that I'm-above-all-the-rifraf-even-if-I-don't-have-a-clue drone - the Times calls it professionalism - give me a break - I am going stir crazy. Give me one or the other of them but please god not another four years of both because together they are damaging our district through their unity with too many staff recommendations that have proved faulty. So for district one, I vote Peaslee. She came out of nowhere to rally the troops against Martin Floe's firing and she also seems smarter than the Times gave her credit for, although I also think she'd have the most learning to do as a new board member. She has older kids in SPS I think, which I consider a plus.

Harium needs to go because he became too fascinated with national education reform issues to stay focused on local ones. And halfway through his term it seems he decided a close partnership previous superintendent was more important than dealing with parents. Oopsies. He's not a bad man but he does not deserve to be a board member anymore. In this race I support Buetow because she seems to have a good grasp of the whole district and not just district 3 which I like. No offense district 3, but you've got the snooty factor MO to live down and I want someone who helps you all but the rest of the district too. Buetow seems engaged and indpenedently intelligent. She has little kids in SPS I think. Whoops, maybe this does make her nutso or at least masochistic. Dunn seems fine too, but a little less prepared than Buetow and maybe a little too affiliated with teachers union. I almost always support labor's point of veiw but I don't want an ex-SEA insider on our board, even if he was a more embracing leader in his day than Olga Addae who always appears to have bitten into a lemon before she speaks. I want SEA partnering with the board like all the other labor organizations the district works with. But I also like the idea of a teacher on the board, so I will vote for McLaren in West Seattle. She seems a bit more independent of the SEA than Dunn. Anderson is a kick in the pants but McLaren's quieter style seems better for a board position. She comes across as a little old lady, but she's one smart cookie, and less likely to be steamrolled than Citizen Sundquist.

That is a ramble for a sunday morning but I am sending out my ballot recommendations to friends tomorrow. Most of them have no clue about who to vote for, but they know they don't like the headlines of the past year. Use my thoughts or someone else's you trust, but definately vote.

Voter with a Rolodex

Charlie Mas said...

In the primaries, in which two candidates will advance, I will endorse two candidates per election.

In District I I endorse Sharon Peaslee and John Cummings. Everything I have heard from or about both of these candidates has been positive and encouraging. I don't believe that the incumbent, Peter Maier, has performed well and I don't have any reason to believe that his performance will improve. Either of the challengers is sure to perform the duties of School Board Director better than Mr. Maier.

In District II I endorse Kate Martin and Jack Whelan. I like Ms Martin's passion and Mr. Whelan's resume. I have nothing against Mr. Webber and would welcome him as a challenger to the incumbent, Sherry Carr. Ms Carr has not taken any meaningful lessons from the disasters she and her Board colleagues have fostered. She continues to serve the staff and ignore the public. She lacks any sense of duty or urgency.

In District III I endorse Michelle Buetow and John Dunn. I have every confidence that either of them could and would perform admirably as school board director. They each bring the experience and expertise that would allow them to be effective immediately. I cannot endorse Mr. Blomstrom because I do not share his perspective. Same for Mr. Martin-Morris.

In District VI I endorse Marty McLaren and Joy Anderson. They have both demonstrated the inside knowledge, critical reasoning skills, and moral courage that a school board director needs. Mr. Sundquist has not shown inside knowledge, critical reasoning skills or moral courage and he needs to be replaced. Mr. Esparza is a promising challenger and I hope he continues to be a vocal member of the community.

Christina said...

This morning I ventured out of my introvert comfort zone and told four District 1 voters how the last four years had gone, what organizations outside Seattle funded the incumbents and what school funding levies the organizations' directors voted against, what math curriculum options were chosen, how much-needed money was lost due to poorly researched decisions.

I was surprised how attentive my audience was, and the quality of questions they had--they were polite and energized. But I did speak to four District 1 voters this morning with the stated objective of informing and persuading them.