In a Crosscut article published yesterday, Two big shockers for Seattle schools and cops, David Brewster, Editor-in-Chief at Crosscut and chair of the board of Crosscut Public Media, revealed his true anti-democratic sentiments.
He claimed - in the absence of evidence and, in fact, contrary to Dr. Enfield's specific statements - that Dr. Enfield's decision to withdraw herself from consideration as the long-term superintendent for Seattle Public Schools "almost certainly stemmed from the surprising fall election".
He referred to the two new Board members as "insurgents".
He suggested that the new board, which he characterized as having a 4-3 anti-reform majority, might mean "a descent into bickering, micromanaging by the board" in the absence of any evidence or rationale. Why, exactly, would this Board cross the line into micro-management? What suggests this?
He wrote that the take-away lesson from the recent school board races is that "Seattle School Board races have to be treated like Seattle City Council races, complete with consultants, polls, and a budget of several hundred thousand dollars." He writes this despite the fact that the winners of two of the races, Marty McLaren and Sharon Peaslee, spent only $26,000 and $14,000. How can he conclude that money is key when the results show that money didn't matter?
He wrote that the Sundquist Board "may have given Dr. Maria Goodloe-Johnson too much autonomy." Ya think?
Funny that he didn't recognize himself and Education Reform movement types among the "adults" "egos" and "politics" referenced in Dr. Enfield's letter.
Mr. Brewster's article isn't particularly unique - look at what Chris Korsmo has been writing - but it is a comprehensive collection of all of the worst presumptions and un-supportable conclusions.