First we have the story in Crosscut about the survey results that not only mis-reported the results (seriously, how do you get the numbers wrong in a story about the numbers?), but also grossly mis-interpreted them. The numbers in the story have been corrected but the editorial content remains mis-directed. The Crosscut story suggests that Dr. Enfield's 37% favorable rating in the survey suggests that the City loves her but that the Board's 33% favorable rating suggests that the City thinks they stink. Let's remember that the survey has a margin of error of five percentage points so these two results are, statistically, the same. Let's also note that Dr. Enfield got a 56% neutral rating. So way more people responded "Susan Who?" than proclaimed their love. And if a 37% favorable rating means love, then what does the teachers' 81% favorable rating suggest? Adoration, I suppose. Dr. Enfield, despite the focus of the story, actually finished a distant fifth - Michele Bachman territory - behind teachers (81%), schools (62%), the PTSA (60%) and the district as a whole (60%). Behind those numbers her 37% looks like something you would scrape off your shoe.
Then we have Publicola also, bizarrely, getting the numbers wrong.
The news story in the Times has it right. Good job, Brian Rosenthal.
Worst of all is the column in Crosscut by Anthony B. Robinson. This is a guy who, during the election, acknowledged that he didn't really pay much attention to the school board races. Now he says that we should have done a better job of supporting and following the past three superintendents. Really? Did he meet them? Was Dr. Goodloe-Johnson such a prize? In a bizarre self-contradiction, Mr. Robinson says that the 2010-2011 school board was one of the best ever, and it was the one that fired her. Raj Manhas was called out by his own blue-ribbon committee, the CACIEE, as having failed to fulfill any of the executive duties. And as for Joseph Olchefske, was it poor support from the community and the unions that caused him to overspend $32 million? I don't think so.