Crucial Voting for Seattle School Board
It happens every single time there are school board races - that it is VITAL to vote and get the right people on the Board.
I will admit that last time, in trying to find good candidates for a couple of races, I certainly got fooled. I really thought that Sharon Peaslee and Marty McLaren were change agents. They did present themselves that way even as I realized they really didn't know the district well. My vetting of them found two fired-up women ready to come in and ask hard questions. Well, that really didn't happen (or it was piecemeal and uneven).
I read everything I could find online and attended five candidates forums.
Here are my picks for School Board, some with comments and some I just decided that I will let the candidates' words speak for themselves.
District 6 - Leslie Harris. (Public disclosure, we are friends.) Harris is the only candidate running against an incumbent.
Harris has gotten nearly all the endorsements that McLaren garnered in her first run. Indeed, Harris points out that she herself (as did I) voted for McLaren the first time around. But McLaren has shown herself to be more interested - it would seem - in working in a committee-style, "collaborating" than actually getting things done or showing real leadership.
That Harris has cultivated friendships that have led to her massive build-up of endorsements, both social and political, is a good thing. I'll go old-school and say she has a very big Roledex that she says she won't hesitate to use for the good of the district.
She will be the change agent that McLaren promised to be. It is deeply troubling to hear McLaren, at forum after forum, wistfully wishing for change, seemingly unaware that she IS in a position, right now, to make change. She is in the position to hold staff accountable and doesn't.
One telling example is at the Hale Forum where a student leader asked when the district is going to follow its promise of giving the ASBs the revenue from the district calendar advertising to backfill the loss of ASB funds from vending machines. This was a real promise made - out loud at a Board meeting to ASB leaders - a couple of years back.
McLaren sighed and said that that the Board "had been wrestling with this issue" and "made progress" but "change comes slowly." I can ask but I'm willing to bet the money from the advertising is probably no higher than $100K and more likely more towards $50K. That's pretty much chump change for the district and yet it would be a huge support to these students. And for schools like Rainier Beach and Cleveland and Sealth, it would truly be a lifeline.
Harris will hold staff accountable for the dollars and how they are spent. And make this district be transparent will all the money. Vote Harris.
District 4 - Rick Burke. There really isn't a whole lot to say here. Rick stands head and shoulders above Laura Gramer.
With each forum, it became apparent how his engineering and business background are valuable assets he would bring to the Board. His steady-state kind of being and expansive answers to questions shows that he has truly thought about the issues (but has the good grace to admit he has more to learn).
Gramar is a smart, passionate advocate for people with disabilities. But she is not ready for this position and does not know the district well. She may be a better candidate for a future Board election.
Vote Burke.
District 3 - Jill Geary. This is the most competitive race of the four. When you attend the forums, you see two smart, savvy women up on the stage. So why Geary over Lauren McGuire?
Simply put, Geary's skill set is the one we need for the time and place this district is in. With McGuire, you'll get a smart person who will not challenge staff at all. We have some smart people on the Board currently who don't challenge staff for oversight and accountability and look where we are. We do not need more of the same.
For example, Leslie Harris brought up FACMAC at one forum. Harris said it was a great group of people doing good work (I agree) and yet it just disappeared a year ago with no explanation. So then, McGuire says yes, that she was ON that committee and it did do good work. And then she stops. She doesn't say she knows why the committee stopped its work nor if she wishes the committee was still working. Why not?
Geary's legal background - plus her knowledge of education law especially around Special Education - make her the best choice. Like Burke, she's a calm, steady-state kind of person (and again, that may be her legal training).
District 1 - Scott Pinkham. Not good choices here but yes, there is a better choice between the two and that is Pinkham. He's a Native American, has children in SPS and is a UW lecturer in American Indian Studies.
Pinkham, like his challenger, does not know this district well. Both candidates admit knowing little about McCleary and seem to want to pass that off to some other Board member. Pinkham has not showed up at all the forums. It's a bit stunning.
But when he has been present, he speaks clearly and firmly about two things. One is listening to parents and community and including them in decision-making. Two, he talks about building up community relationships and the strength it will give the district in doing so.
His challenger, Michael Christophersen, is a bit of like a box of chocolates - you never know what you will get. He is a software tech with three students in SPS.
(I note that both men seem either shy, withdrawn or both. Being elected to public office, especially an office that involves a lot of public interaction, seems a tough gig for two men that have a difficult time making eye contact.)
I believe that Mr. Christophersen does not have the temperament or maturity to be an effective Board Director. Here's some of the things he has said (and there are witnesses to all of them):
- got verbally abusive and loud at a Sped PTSA meeting to the point where it made others afraid and the president had to shout him down to get him to stop. (And I believe this is what The Stranger has been alluding to in its rejection of him and their endorsement of Pinkham.)
- Hale High Forum - He was teh first person to give an opening statement and he went on a tirade about The Stranger endorsement which was odd and confusing.
- Eckstein Forum - The question was round the "root causes of inequality in education for children of color." He said he was "uncomfortable with the question as you can imagine." He went on to say it was like that "dream where you are in your underwear in front of other people." H talked about his own childhood with a single mother and that the issue was "more socio-economic than a racial problem."
- Eckstein Forum - The question was about if, like in California, a bill is brought forth in the Legislature about reducing the personal belief part of the vaccination law. He said it's a "financial issue" and that the state would have to pay to educate the students. I can find no RCW that says that. There are services the state has to provide but not for full education of the student.
- League of Women Voters - When asked about views on facilities and capacity management, he said not to "throw stones at current staff" about being off on the current enrollment count. He said more buildings should be vertical (I believe there is a height limit for free-standing schools) or that the district should bring on "second shifts."
- League of Women Voters - Mr. Christophersen's special interest - which he says at every single forum - is Special Education. He said here that there is "injustice" for Sped kids and that it would be better to help "low-hanging fruit" like kids with dyslexia which would free up other "resources for economic injustice."
- Horizon House - There was a question from the audience about guns and school violence (this right after the Oregon community college shootings). Christophersen said he "didn't think it was a problem" and that, as a teen in Bellevue, he used to ride his bike around with a loaded .22 on his back.
Mr. Christophersen seems to be sincere but his actions - toward Sped PTSA as well as towards this blog - as well as his words out in public forums are ones I find troubling. (I note that he has scrubbed every comment he ever signed his name to on this blog.)
I'm going to end my endorsements with first impressions of the candidates from some Hale students whom I sat in front of during the forum. Some are funny, some are telling:
Christophersen - out there, opening statement - what was that?
Pinkham - like him, seems to care
Laura - a nice person
Rick - vanilla
Jill - overdressed but smart
Lauren - liked her but why did she keep going on about being student body president in her high school (shades of Suzanne Dale Estey)?
Marty - felt bad for her being attacked by all of them but she is elected
Leslie - aggressive but liked her/she has the experience.
I will admit that last time, in trying to find good candidates for a couple of races, I certainly got fooled. I really thought that Sharon Peaslee and Marty McLaren were change agents. They did present themselves that way even as I realized they really didn't know the district well. My vetting of them found two fired-up women ready to come in and ask hard questions. Well, that really didn't happen (or it was piecemeal and uneven).
I read everything I could find online and attended five candidates forums.
Here are my picks for School Board, some with comments and some I just decided that I will let the candidates' words speak for themselves.
District 6 - Leslie Harris. (Public disclosure, we are friends.) Harris is the only candidate running against an incumbent.
Harris has gotten nearly all the endorsements that McLaren garnered in her first run. Indeed, Harris points out that she herself (as did I) voted for McLaren the first time around. But McLaren has shown herself to be more interested - it would seem - in working in a committee-style, "collaborating" than actually getting things done or showing real leadership.
That Harris has cultivated friendships that have led to her massive build-up of endorsements, both social and political, is a good thing. I'll go old-school and say she has a very big Roledex that she says she won't hesitate to use for the good of the district.
She will be the change agent that McLaren promised to be. It is deeply troubling to hear McLaren, at forum after forum, wistfully wishing for change, seemingly unaware that she IS in a position, right now, to make change. She is in the position to hold staff accountable and doesn't.
One telling example is at the Hale Forum where a student leader asked when the district is going to follow its promise of giving the ASBs the revenue from the district calendar advertising to backfill the loss of ASB funds from vending machines. This was a real promise made - out loud at a Board meeting to ASB leaders - a couple of years back.
McLaren sighed and said that that the Board "had been wrestling with this issue" and "made progress" but "change comes slowly." I can ask but I'm willing to bet the money from the advertising is probably no higher than $100K and more likely more towards $50K. That's pretty much chump change for the district and yet it would be a huge support to these students. And for schools like Rainier Beach and Cleveland and Sealth, it would truly be a lifeline.
Harris will hold staff accountable for the dollars and how they are spent. And make this district be transparent will all the money. Vote Harris.
District 4 - Rick Burke. There really isn't a whole lot to say here. Rick stands head and shoulders above Laura Gramer.
With each forum, it became apparent how his engineering and business background are valuable assets he would bring to the Board. His steady-state kind of being and expansive answers to questions shows that he has truly thought about the issues (but has the good grace to admit he has more to learn).
Gramar is a smart, passionate advocate for people with disabilities. But she is not ready for this position and does not know the district well. She may be a better candidate for a future Board election.
Vote Burke.
District 3 - Jill Geary. This is the most competitive race of the four. When you attend the forums, you see two smart, savvy women up on the stage. So why Geary over Lauren McGuire?
Simply put, Geary's skill set is the one we need for the time and place this district is in. With McGuire, you'll get a smart person who will not challenge staff at all. We have some smart people on the Board currently who don't challenge staff for oversight and accountability and look where we are. We do not need more of the same.
For example, Leslie Harris brought up FACMAC at one forum. Harris said it was a great group of people doing good work (I agree) and yet it just disappeared a year ago with no explanation. So then, McGuire says yes, that she was ON that committee and it did do good work. And then she stops. She doesn't say she knows why the committee stopped its work nor if she wishes the committee was still working. Why not?
Geary's legal background - plus her knowledge of education law especially around Special Education - make her the best choice. Like Burke, she's a calm, steady-state kind of person (and again, that may be her legal training).
District 1 - Scott Pinkham. Not good choices here but yes, there is a better choice between the two and that is Pinkham. He's a Native American, has children in SPS and is a UW lecturer in American Indian Studies.
Pinkham, like his challenger, does not know this district well. Both candidates admit knowing little about McCleary and seem to want to pass that off to some other Board member. Pinkham has not showed up at all the forums. It's a bit stunning.
But when he has been present, he speaks clearly and firmly about two things. One is listening to parents and community and including them in decision-making. Two, he talks about building up community relationships and the strength it will give the district in doing so.
His challenger, Michael Christophersen, is a bit of like a box of chocolates - you never know what you will get. He is a software tech with three students in SPS.
(I note that both men seem either shy, withdrawn or both. Being elected to public office, especially an office that involves a lot of public interaction, seems a tough gig for two men that have a difficult time making eye contact.)
I believe that Mr. Christophersen does not have the temperament or maturity to be an effective Board Director. Here's some of the things he has said (and there are witnesses to all of them):
- got verbally abusive and loud at a Sped PTSA meeting to the point where it made others afraid and the president had to shout him down to get him to stop. (And I believe this is what The Stranger has been alluding to in its rejection of him and their endorsement of Pinkham.)
- Hale High Forum - He was teh first person to give an opening statement and he went on a tirade about The Stranger endorsement which was odd and confusing.
- Eckstein Forum - The question was round the "root causes of inequality in education for children of color." He said he was "uncomfortable with the question as you can imagine." He went on to say it was like that "dream where you are in your underwear in front of other people." H talked about his own childhood with a single mother and that the issue was "more socio-economic than a racial problem."
- Eckstein Forum - The question was about if, like in California, a bill is brought forth in the Legislature about reducing the personal belief part of the vaccination law. He said it's a "financial issue" and that the state would have to pay to educate the students. I can find no RCW that says that. There are services the state has to provide but not for full education of the student.
- League of Women Voters - When asked about views on facilities and capacity management, he said not to "throw stones at current staff" about being off on the current enrollment count. He said more buildings should be vertical (I believe there is a height limit for free-standing schools) or that the district should bring on "second shifts."
- League of Women Voters - Mr. Christophersen's special interest - which he says at every single forum - is Special Education. He said here that there is "injustice" for Sped kids and that it would be better to help "low-hanging fruit" like kids with dyslexia which would free up other "resources for economic injustice."
- Horizon House - There was a question from the audience about guns and school violence (this right after the Oregon community college shootings). Christophersen said he "didn't think it was a problem" and that, as a teen in Bellevue, he used to ride his bike around with a loaded .22 on his back.
Mr. Christophersen seems to be sincere but his actions - toward Sped PTSA as well as towards this blog - as well as his words out in public forums are ones I find troubling. (I note that he has scrubbed every comment he ever signed his name to on this blog.)
I'm going to end my endorsements with first impressions of the candidates from some Hale students whom I sat in front of during the forum. Some are funny, some are telling:
Christophersen - out there, opening statement - what was that?
Pinkham - like him, seems to care
Laura - a nice person
Rick - vanilla
Jill - overdressed but smart
Lauren - liked her but why did she keep going on about being student body president in her high school (shades of Suzanne Dale Estey)?
Marty - felt bad for her being attacked by all of them but she is elected
Leslie - aggressive but liked her/she has the experience.
Comments
Melissa is absolutely correct with "McLaren is in the position to hold staff accountable and doesn't".
She pretends to me a supporter of better math. Is she fooling herself or us?
She is on the Curriculum & Instruction Policy Committee.
On Oct 12 was she baffled by central staff nonsense in regard to the still undisclosed changed in Elementary Math "Scope and Sequence"?
Check out the last page of the Agenda of Oct 12 meeting.
Elementary Math Status Report
Goal: Ensure Educational Excellence & Equity for Every Student
Strategy: Commit to early learning education as the foundation for future academic success.
Objective: Implement an early learning mathematics plan aligned to CCSS
This is apparently code for abandon Math in Focus "scope and sequence" and replace it with Central Staff's preferred still under construction jumbled mishmash elementary math "scope and sequence".
Note: Parents had not been informed of the new scope and sequence. The Board, superintendent, and central staff have still not informed parents of this huge change.
==============
more here including links =>
Objective: Implement an early learning mathematics plan aligned to CCSS
Surprize Surprize - The Scope and Sequence from Seattle's one year old adopted text has been secretly trashed
How did that happen?
I would find it impossible for the following to change like that:
1: Burke
2: Geary
3: Harris
(ranked in order of most unlikely to morph into "Koolaid sipping supporters of all things Central Staff")
-- Dan Dempsey
Teach Everyone
The only prohibition against a write-in is that the write-in candidate cannot have run in the primary.
If the "write-in" is for District 1 the write-in would need to reside in district 1.
-- Dan Dempsey
"In the past four years I have played a leading role on these important initiatives:
- adoption of a leading-edge K-5 math curriculum"
So, she's taking credit for the adoption of the curriculum, one that she is calling leading-edge, but where is she a year later when admin is busy dismantling and ruining the implementation of that curriculum? Do I hear...crickets?
Also she states in no uncertain terms that she knows what we need to do to close the opportunity gap. Don't keep us in suspense, Marty! If you have the solution that has stymied educators and administrators for years, please share it!
She spearheaded the School Board Code of Conduct, y'all. Now you officially know who thinks her colleagues are out of control and need to be reigned in so everyone has to do the ineffective "Seattle Nice" song and dance.
She seems to really believe she's going to win. That's how out-of-touch she is with parents/voters. Bye bye, Marty -- we gave you a chance (yup, voted for her too) and you've been a big disappointment.
McGuire's upside:
Knowledge and understanding of the capacity issues. I don't think any of the other directors, sitting or candidate, understand capacity as well as McGuire. For all intents and purposes, FACMAC was dissolved for asking too many hard questions and going public when we didn't get answers.
Ability to lobby in Olympia. While I appreciate Harris' depth of experience, I don't think that the fire breathing types are very effective lobbyists, especially for people who aren't inclined to agree with you.
McGuire's downside:
I agree that McGuire probably won't be as forceful holding staff feet to the fire. However, I don't see that as a huge issue because of the future makeup of the Board. Right now, we have three directors who will basically go along with staff on most issues, and two who tend to swing toward the staff position. Peters and Patu are standing alone much of the time, and even Patu's vote can be peeled off at times. With the new Board under my vote, we would have one director going along with staff (Blanford), one who may tend to favor the staff position depending on the issue (McGuire), three revolutionaries (Peters, Burke, and Harris), and two who tend toward the revolutionary side but may be convinced one way or the other. I think we would see a much different dynamic in Board voting with a 3-vote plurality favoring change with 2-3 swing votes than we do now with the opposite situation.
I admit this is tactical voting, but I think the upside of voting for McGuire is pretty decent even if you think she may align more with staff.
I don't think McLaren is sure she's going to win. At the Hale forum, she looked beaten down and did not challenge Harris' description of McLaren's record on several issues. At the closing statement, she went first even though it was clear that Harris was going to tear her record up. Finally, I beat it out of the room pretty quickly, but she was right behind me. She may have had someplace she needed to be, but she didn't have the demeanor of a person who thinks the night went well. Maybe other forums were different, but she just seemed beaten down at Hale.
Yes, you can put in a write-in. If you have a good candidate, let us know. I think at this point, anything is possible.
Eric, if McGuire cares/knows about capacity so much, why not a peep about the obvious FACMAC dissolution?
I think you mistake passion for firebreathing with Harris; she would not have suceeded at her job for as long as she has if she didn't know how to hold her tongue.
And why the word "revolutionary?" How about freedom fighters?
I think you may be right about McLaren but she is stubbornly sticking to her talking points that are not serving her well.
In regard to past (2011) voting for McLaren and Peaslee remember this:
McLaren ran against Steve Sundquist and Peaslee ran against Peter Maier.
No need to vote against Sundquist this time as he is not running for School Board.
Reminder of what happens to "Big Money" backed losers =>
Peter Maier is on the Washington State Board of Education (elected 2013 , five of 16 members are elected. Voting is done by eligible electorates)
Steve Sundquist chairs the Charter School Commission (no election required)
-- Dan Dempsey
Geary has been a high level education advocate for the past 17 years. She is the only candidate with experience in education law, and has served as an administrative judge for OSPI- and one of the few candidates in the state with the skill set to do so. She has worked on issues regarding discipline, teacher certification and supported early learning. The district has been out of compliance on a variety of issues and Geary is the only candidate to assure the district stays in compliance. We need this candidate on the board.
McGuire is supported by Democrats for Education Reform; an organization that promotes charter schools, Teach for America and other highly controversial corporate backed reforms. McGuire, while serving on the PTSA, is on record as stating that she didn't think parents cared much about Teach for America. Really? McGuire doesn't have the ability to take a tough stance. Families about lunch and recess were upset, organized and asked the district to provide adequate recess. The district did not respond and it took a teacher's strike to get recess for these children. McGuire, via her Seattle Times interview, claimed there needed to be "collaboration" to avoid the teachers strike. Really?
Regarding Harris and Eric's comment: Clearly, he does not know Harris. Harris has deep connections within the Democratic Party and was recently endorsed by the Senate Minority Leader. Additionally, she has been endorsed by Dow Constantine and a host of others.
I appreciate Martha McLaren's service. She saved us from Steve Sundquist, voted against Teach for America and saved us from the district going down the rabbit hole of becoming a charter school authorizer before the Supreme Court decision. McLaren ran on the concept of Truth, Trust and Transparency, but failed to understand voters quest for transparency when she attempted to ram through the hiring of the superintendent over the holiday weekend- and without consulting with PASS. She sees herself as powerless and allowed the closure of Middle College...despite a REAL lack of transparency from the district. This program saved lives and the present board did not have the appetite to write a policy, to mandate the district to bring program closures before the board. McLaren was also quoted in the W. Seattle blog as being helpless...when it comes to reassigning students in 25 schools. McLaren's previous endorsements have been passed to Harris.
Burke has been involved with the district for years and he has the capacity to hit the ground running. His opponent brings a lot to the table, but I don't feel she is prepared for the job.
Pinkham has experiences that will be beneficial.
District 1
I am writing in Eric B for District 1!!
He would be like Director Sue Peters: intelligence, clarity, hard work and dedication. Those two together on the Board would be amazing.
In terms of the other candidate who was on FACMAC, don't be so quick to draw conclusions. Some meetings, there would have to be time spent bringing up to speed because of lack of knowledge, for example, how Greenlake area was getting flipped about, even though that was her backyard. NOT a good sign. Too much conservatism. The board candidate training? Bleh. SPS need does not a group of passive followers, but it desperately needs brilliant leaders on the board who are "on it" and won't let the staff members say 'the dog ate my homework'. Respecting process is good, but when it is corrupt, we need savvy board directors who have the moxy to call out disconnects between the policy, implementation, and the mission of this organization. Geary is detail oriented, she KNOWS SpEd, and that is what will make the difference in being an effective board director. The choice for Geary is obvious.
Eric B. for District 1!
Geary/Harrison/Burke Voter
Given the extent of the upcoming boundary changes, and how they evidently don't align very well with the 5-year enrollment projections, we need someone who understands capacity and facility management on the Board.
-North-end Mom
" I've learned that we are at a turning point and the board you elect in November will have a profound impact on Seattle Public Schools for years to come."
======
Well maybe ... but it depends on who is elected.
My take is that Burke has it correct that the size, budget and influence of the JSCEE need to be dramatically reduced but will the composition of the new board make that happen?
This district needs to transition to bottom up operation from its extremely costly top heavy structure. Moving far away from Top-Down directives as the standard mode of operation is what is needed.
There needs to be a rapid transition to site based decision-making with accountability. In the current age of technological tools that "accountability" can be achieved.
Few are looking for more, no one ever held accountable, JSCEE double-speak. A large improvement in the efficiency of daily classroom instruction is needed and JSCEE stands in the way. Teachers need to be returned to a professional status.
Please vote accordingly.
The leadership gap is currently larger than the size of the Opportunity Gaps and that leadership gap is a prime reason for the large size of Opportunity Gaps, which are apparently unmeasured by JSCEE.
-- Dan Dempsey
-LM
Geary Vote
- want both
Plus, she was a strong supporter of the teachers during the strike, and gets that standardized testing is hurting our kids. The best summation of why I'm voting for her is her own words as given here - I think it's strong stuff: https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=1889910291234775&id=1790220781203727
McGuire may believe she understands the capacity issue. But what she doesn't seem to understand is how to act on it. We will never have good capacity planning and management until we have a board majority that holds staff accountable and is willing to press strongly and firmly to get the staff to shape up, especially on capacity management. McGuire won't do that. She's told the Seattle Times and the Muni League she doesn't want to "micromanage" - which to the ed reformers is code for "board members not just going along with the staff." McGuire's links to education reformers are also troubling. So while she may have been more visible at various, I don't get the sense that she will actually be effective. Geary will.
Geary has plenty of knowledge of the district, gained from her work advocating for parents of kids in special education and her own experience on her school PTA. Unlike McGuire, Geary drew the right lessons from that experience: that the district needs an assertive school board that will hold staff accountable. She is tenacious and will fight hard for our kids and their needs - and she'll listen to parents. I have no reason to believe McGuire will do anything but give parents lip service while ultimately doing whatever the staff and the Mayor's DEEL and the Gates Foundation want her to do.
As to Geary's donors, she lives in Laurelhurst and was a lawyer and administrative law judge, so those are her personal network and any good candidate will go to that network to raise as much money as they can. I've also donated to her campaign.
I'm also voting for Pinkham, Burke, and Harris. We need a new board majority that will fix the problems with this district and those four will do it.
As things stand, I am a strong supporter of McGuire. After serving with her on FACMAC and speaking with her extensively, I don't agree that she promotes the status quo. I do think she will listen to all voices in her constituency before making a reasoned decision. I have immense respect for her deep, broad knowledge of the district, and I think she has immense respect for the diverse students that SPS should be serving.
HP
Why reward Peter Maier? Why reward Lisa Macfarlane? Why reward Chris Larson? Why reward Michael DeBell? Why reward Sherry Carr? Why reward Nancy Waldman? Why reward Harium Martin-Morris? Why reward Mona Bailey? Why reward Suzanne Dale Estey? Why reward Heidi Bennett?
This is not a personal attack. It's not just about the candidate. It's not just about whether you think the candidate is a good person, or whether you think the candidate will do a good job in office. Dig deeper. Drill another few layers down. Look beyond the candidate. It's about who benefits from the candidate's election. It's about who thinks their particular agenda will be best served by electing one candidate over another, and therefore who contributes accordingly.
The donors to McGuire who I have named (all from the Public Disclosure Commission website) are not the people who I think should be rewarded by the outcome of this election. Vote Geary.
-- Ivan Weiss
I am very disappointed that the current board is letting a few administrators derail Math in Focus to put in more test prep for Common Core. Hoping Rick and the new Board reverse that and also promote better curricula for higher grades. The only way to bring down remedial math rates is to teach fundamentally sound math.
So tired of this central administration. They waste money and take us backwards.
S parent
I'm not interested in 'rewarding' anyone by voting for a candidate, I'm only interested in voting in someone that has put in the kind of time and attention that we need to get work done at the district. The hours and hours and hours that Lauren has spent working with parents, advocates, teachers, and staff make her ready to work NOW.
Wouldn't it be wise to vote for a candidate that is a great person for the job, rather than worrying that others, some you disagree with, can see those qualities too?
"Seattle PTSA Council President Lauren McGuire tells The Times that TFA is not a major issue for most parents."
http://www.seattletimes.com/opinion/seattle-public-schools-should-keep-teach-for-america/
Where was McGuire's advocacy against Teach for America?
Jill Geary is the only attorney running. For the past several years Ron English has hoodwinked the school board and provided poor (to negligent?) advice to the district. It is imperative that the board have an attorney on the board to oversee the district legal issues.
Don't harken back and holler that Peter Meier was an attorney. He was. But his "expertise" is in lemon law, not education law.
Voting for Jill Geary is not a vote against Lauren McGuire, it is vote for probably the best school board candidate this district as seen in a very long time.
Why are you robocalling me? Oh yeah, the Schmitz Park and NE Seattle FACMACer's are sisters in solidarity. Your call supporting McGuire sure was topical and without substance.
Busy signal
He didn't mention that Gerry Pollet donated to her campaign. Is he a reformer whom we shouldn't reward?
When I look at the PDC report, I see a lot of my neighbors. I see people who have known Lauren for years, all the way back when she was helping our neighborhood school manage the nuances of the change to the new assignment plan (circa 2008-09?). I see passionate parents who are worried about the capacity crisis. I see people with kids in schools all over the north end of the city. And that makes sense because Lauren has been involved for a long time now with schools all over this part of town. I think she's had kids in 5 different schools now, and she's worked to help others, like McDonald and Sandpoint, start up from scratch.
Others have written more eloquently up thread (Eric, Meg), but I hope people look at the broader picture. Someone with deep, long-term knowledge of the district who has navigated the changing enrollment system, stepped up to work on capacity issues, and has first-hand experience starting new schools is exactly what we need right now.
I will say that candidates leave forums for a variety of reasons so I wouldn't count that against them. (I've been to plenty of meetings where Lauren didn't show up. For example, she came to the last Executive Ctm meeting and I hadn't seen her at one for a very long time. But I don't hold it against her.)
As well about "other aspirations" - there is zero proof that running for School Board leads to a higher office. Even Sundquist is in yet another unpaid gig.
I will gently say that while I know Lauren to be a sincere, smart person, I personally believe she is better -like Marty - as a voice on a committee and not as a leader. Getting things done on a checklist is not the same as leadership.
We can all agree to disagree.
--
"Wouldn't it be wise to vote for a candidate that is a great person for the job, rather than worrying that others, some you disagree with, can see those qualities too?"
--
People vote for their own reasons, so I'm not telling anyone that they have to vote for my reasons. I'm providing additional information, and encouraging people to put it in their mix. Obviously, not everyone will.
But it's naive to think that candidates can be separated from their supporters. People can, and will, disregard donor information. That's up to them. But most would agree that the value of that information is considerably greater than zero.
-- Ivan Weiss
--
"He didn't mention that Gerry Pollet donated to her campaign. Is he a reformer whom we shouldn't reward?"
--
I knew that would come up eventually. So I'll give it to you straight. I have known and worked in politics with Gerry and his family for years. We have a close bond, made even closer because my daughter is Gerry's Legislative Assistant. Gerry's wife Janet Miller worked in school affairs with Lauren McGuire for years. Their relationship is personal and long-standing, and it's not my place, or any of my business, to question it.
In terms of policy, I feel safe in saying that Gerry's record demonstrates that he is 100 percent opposed to the "reform" agenda that many of McGuire's other supporters have promoted. So his endorsement is a different case, made for different reasons. I have never said that McGuire is unqualified, or incompetent. I stand behind my reasons for opposing her candidacy. This will be my only statement on that particular subject. I hope it is helpful.
-- Ivan Weiss
Busy signal
Brian in Ballard
I do agree that sadly, Director McLaren somehow became co-opted into drinking the Admin koolaid - I too voted for her, and had high hopes. Whether any of the new members will go down that road remains to be seen, but I personally think someone more willing to "challenge" rather than "accept"(for want of better word) is what's needed right now.
One can challenge cordially, as Director Peters has so ably demonstrated. I have hopes for this new crop and fail to see the profit in dissing equally qualified candidates - we can all take our own inferences from the info provided - that's what grownups do ;o)
reader47
It's not Ivan that pulled those endorsements out of the list, it's McGuire. She chose to feature some of the most spineless school board members near the top of her list of endorsements. To my mind, the Times endorsement is a kiss of death, and that's on her campaign home page not even her list of endorsements. I don't dislike McGuire. I admire her service, and the fact that the District felt they had to disband FACMAC probably means it was doing too good a job. But I don't see McGuire with the stubborn independent streak needed to hold staff to the fire.
I wish one of them could be running from District 1 where either candidate seems like they'll be a deer in headlights.
Thanks!
I have never met Geary, and had never even heard her talk until the Hale forum, where she reminded me of Peters in her ability to be unfailingly polite and cheerful while calling BS. It seems like a small thing but I believe it's so crucial...And heck I love Harris who calls the BS like Charlie, so you know who I'm voting for.
anontoday
anonToday
Am I remembering that correctly?
If so, that's a huge red flag.
thanks
-katydid
Lauren's website for endorsements leads with the SEA endorsement, then 46th district Dems, Jamie Pedersen, David Frockt and others. Her home page currently shows a written statement from Tracy Libros.
Sorry, it still looks to me like Lauren has a broad range of support, whether it's financial or an official endorsement, from a wide variety of people who care about public education. Some hold positions I agree with, some don't. But this guilt-by-association approach to sway voters isn't very compelling when you look at the big picture.
"Pollett's record on education policy is clear. Nevertheless, his wife is McGuire all the way because of their longstanding friendship. So Lauren don't pretend that your politics align with Gerry's, rather your friendship aligns with his wife."
Wow. I guess all those capacity-related meetings I attended with both Gerry Pollet and Lauren McGuire in attendance were my mind playing tricks on me!
-North-end Mom
SF, yes, McGuire was involved with VNESS. She was also involved in opening McDonald and JAMS.
Katydid, I will go back in my notes (and update this post - I had so much from all the forums, it was impossible to put it all up) but I believe you are correct on Christophersen's response.
A small thing maybe, but it is her choice and shows whose opinions she thinks are important.
McGuire's great strength is that she is able to work a wide variety of people. Her list of endorsements, really reflects the years and years of committee work and PTA work. This guilt-by-association with ed reformers just does not hold water. Those "ed reformers" were the also the decision-makers and Lauren has demonstrated that she can work with people.
We have all seen how steep the learning curve to be a board member can be. Sue Peters is doing an excellent job, in part because of the many many years of work she did before serving on the board.
Laura Larkin
You can add Jon Bridge to McGuire's corporate backed supporters.
I don't vote for candidates supported by Democrats for Education Reform.
DFER, run by hedge fund millionaires out of the East Coast is corporate America's sneak attack attempt to nose profit-making policies into school districts under the guise of "Democrat" support. It lives to shove charters into every nook and cranny of our system. Because charters are "better" (and profit centers!)
There is no "middle ground" with DFER. Either you are a true Corporate Reform believer or you're dirt.
Vote Geary.
NoCharters
Geary's opponent talks about NOT micromanaging. In contrast, Geary is going to shine bright flashlights into the dark corners and she will work to tirelessly out the facts, the all of the facts, and the complete story. That is not micromanaging, that is called performing one's job. She alone knows the SpEd system and can work collaboratively to start making some headway.
There is a fundamental divide about HOW a board should govern.
If things are going great, results are strong, decisions all align with values and our strategic plan, all students are thriving, then having a bunch of caretaker directors/lap dogs is fine.
But, when teachers are getting laid off without any data justifying the necessity of those lay-offs, when high school enrollment is teetering on the brink of disaster, when SpEd Fed funding is under threat because it has failed students consistently, when principals are sometimes chosen by their communities but at other unlucky schools simply 'placed' with no input from the families, when GC/CM guys move in and skim $6 million out of capital budgets while a site for 2,000 kids gets no auditorium, when ELL is so bungled a massive emergency fix has to be pushed through, when the district uses resources on activities and pet projects (preschool, that downtown building), when regardless of who is on the board, we get a new super every 2.5 years anyway, when cabinet employees don't get fired but instead are given 'retirement', when the super can beef up his org chart with bodies ad infinitum and one of those bodies who has NEVER stepped foot in any of our schools dictates who has to collapse classrooms and overload remaining ones and create splits... when all of that is going on, I think the model that eschews 'micromanaging' as some kind of dirty word is so very, very broken.
I would counter the slur of 'micromanager' with the real slur of 'yes men', also known as 'asleep at the wheel'. So, if McGuire wants to boast about not being a micromanager, that is a HUGE red flag. I FEAR 'yes men'. It hasn't worked for this district yet.
With the former 'yes men' board we had, high school crisis die was cast.
This district needs bright, bright flashlights shining in all those dark, dark places. That is not 'micromanaging', that is fiduciary responsibility. You can be relentless and polite at the same time. Those 2 qualities are not mutually exclusive. Geary is going to get the job done, and while she may disagree with what staff are going to try to get away with, do brand her with a label of 'rebel' or 'not collegial' or 'micromanager'. The district desperately needs a Geary, not another 'Harium'.
WP Bound
"McGuire's great strength is that she is able to work a wide variety of people. .......... This guilt-by-association with ed reformers just does not hold water. Those "ed reformers" were the also the decision-makers and Lauren has demonstrated that she can work with people.
We have all seen how steep the learning curve to be a board member can be. Sue Peters is doing an excellent job, in part because of the many many years of work she did before serving on the board."
The other part of Sue Peters that I find spectacular is she has the gumption and courage to call it like it is. She skillfully investigates and then calls it as it is. .... The many years of work she did before serving on the board has little to do with either her courage or gumption.
It not easy to determine, which candidates if any will have the skills and gumption to become effective agents for the positive changes so needed at this time.
Vote accordingly.
-- Dan Dempsey
Valid question
Though I appreciate Lauren's community spirit, for the board
not-a-fan
Did McGuire's group- Northeast Cluster Coalition- advocate for the repurposing of Summit K-12? Summit K-12 was an alternative school that served at-risk students. The school was turned into Jane Adams K-8. It was a very painful period of time.
http://saveseattleschools.blogspot.com/2009/01/re-purposing-of-summit-k-12.html
"Another idea is to create and locate the cluster's first traditional K-8 school in the building that also houses the alternative Summit K-12 in Northeast Seattle, he said."
http://www.seattlepi.com/local/article/High-enrollment-cramps-North-End-elementary-1286010.php
For the record the Northeast Cluster Coalition advocated strongly for the OPENING of buildings. We wanted SPS to open Sandpoint and John Marshall. The district reply was that opening those buildings was just not possible and they used our advocacy as the political cover to close schools that they had already pre-determined to close.
But yet, just months after the closures were finalized and long before the ink was dry ... the district announced the opening of Sandpoint Elementary, along with opening of FIVE BUILDINGS.
As for McGuire, I was alarmed to hear McGuire talk at one point about how much she looks forward to opening schools. Will she be excited to open charter schools?
In the McGuire/Geary race, I think regardless of who wins, we will have a champion for Ed Reform.
For District 1, I am supporting Christophersen.
Joan NE
My activism started when I was worried about an assault on Alternative Schools. My children attended Thornton Creek. I felt that an assault on any Alt. Sch. was an attack on all such schools. I saw that Summit was a target. I tried to organize support for keeping that program open. Kelly LaRue told me I need not worry. She claimed that she had talked to all of the directors, and none of them would allow the closing of Summit. I was relieved and discontinued my efforts.
Later the board closed Summit. Some months later I learned that Kelly LaRue had been part of the Northeast Cluster Coalition, and that this group actively lobbied to close Summit. I realized then how Kelly had tricked me.
I was disgusted later when I saw how the District finally put funds into upgrading this building, but only after the black kids had been kicked out.
As I was exploring Kelly's involvement, one of my anti-Ed Reform activist colleagues urged me to stop. "No good will come of this research." I followed her advice. Later I found out that she too had been part of this coalition. She didn't want me to find this out. She posts frequently on this blog.
I saw the same phrase on the Times website recently (it appeared in a comment upon the Times endorsement of Michael Chrisophersen). I pretty much am certain that people are hiding something when they pull out a phrase like this.
If one signs in with OpenId do they reserve the option to delete? Furthermore, does the comment show as anonymous or with the ID, as happens when google ID is used?
Joan
Also worth noting that Jill Geary does not support charter schools, as indicated by her KC Dems questionnaire: http://www.34dems.org/sites/34dems/files/KCDems-Quest-Geary-Jill.pdf
In short, I've seen nothing to suggest Geary would back an ed reform agenda, and plenty to suggest she would not.
Time to VOTE! Please join us in supporting Seattle School Board candidates:
District 1: write-in Elizabeth Wong
District 2: Rick Burke
District 3: Lauren McGuire
District 4: Marty McLaren
~Wondering
-bad memory
Uh,that's what they did during the years the district didn't have a demographer.
Kellie LaRue does not lie. She may have - sadly - believed the district and then found out that they changed their minds.
VNESS seems to operate in its own world,for sure. Some of their rhetoric at Crosscut when they first started out was not good. I like that write-in, though. Wish Wong had run.
Dear Friends,
Here's my message now that ballots are in voters’ hands:
Our Board has hired SPS’s best Superintendent in almost 20 years. I agree with him on many of his initiatives, and our students, teachers and parents are seeing the gains that come from stable, forward-focused leadership. It is imperative to elect Board members who support Larry Nyland and the vital work he is leading. It is of great concern that some candidates for School Board promise to “shake things up,” implying that they do not support the important strides in motion. Please spread the word. You can help by committing to send this email on to friends. Please help to ensure vital continuity and collaboration in Seattle Public Schools by voting for Marty McLaren.
As the board member with actual teaching experience in Seattle schools, I know we are making significant headway against the enormous challenges in Seattle Public Schools: We’re seeing outstanding test results with the new Common Core standards, increased engagement of school principals in district decision-making, more equitable resource allocation to all schools to help close the opportunity gap, improved Special Education services resulting in SPS’s removal from the Federal Watch List, earlier hiring of teachers, and a continued high bond rating.
I remain committed to positive change, continuity, and constructive dialogue on the School Board.
Warm regards,
Marty
===================
Inquiring Mind
~ wondering
As to McLaren, she has decided on her talking points and will not veer off them,no matter how wrong.
1) Candidates say they want to "shake things up" and could mean any number of things. It does not mean they will significantly veer off what the Superintendent's plan is.
2) Nearly everyone running has shown evidence of being able to work in a collaborative fashion. Director McLaren also seems to mistake being able to collaborate with leadership. It is not the same thing.
3) That "outstanding results" for Common Core is her way of messaging "not so bad." That ACTUAL, documented results have not been released in a press release should tell you something.
4) I have no idea what "increased decision making by principals means" - it would be great to hear that from actual principals.
5) "more equitable resources to all schools" while the administration grows and some profit. If McLaren votes for a raise or bonus for Nyland, that should tell you what you need to know.
6) improve Sped by getting off the Federal Watch list?! Where was her outrage that the district even GOT on it? When President Carr tsk tsk'ed over school staffing cuts and said that well, they had to spend $500K on fulfilling the OSPI requirements for Sped, where was the outrage that this district got there with current senior staff?
Your experience with Kellie is much different than mine. When I was experiencing a large scale public dispute with the district she came to my aid unbidden and gave great advice and guidance.
Granted, I don't agree with her on the endorsement of Lauren - but I'm not going to hold it against her and I don't believe she'll hold it against me.
I think that your allegations are misplaced as holding Kellie accountable for district actions is unjust. Who among us can accurately predict what district rabbit will pop-up next?
-StepJ
My apology to Kellie.
I think Geary and McGuire are both very strong candidates and it is a loss for Seattle that we can't have them both on the board.
That said, it is also very hopeful that we do have a strong race. So many years, the board job is a walk-on elected position with no real race. Michael DeBell was completely unopposed in his election and Stephen Blanford only had a nominal candidate.
I think everyone wins when we have this much interest and attention to getting very good board members.
Simple facts get lost in the PR messaging, the tremendous pain inflicted on families and the hideous irony that schools were closed while enrollment was growing, not shrinking.
If we don't learn from this history, we just repeat it.
In 2002, the DISTRICT, identified the need for additional elementary and middle school capacity in NE Seattle and began the conversation about potentially opening Sandpoint Elementary and returning Summit back to the central area as was long promised (the Jane Addams building was intended as a temporary home when they were temporarily relocated there from the Beacon Hill area).
To the best of my knowledge, this was the first, last and only time that SPS was proactive about the idea of adding seats in a geographic region that needed them. As I live in NE Seattle and I am a capacity management expert, I was greatly interested in this and hence my public school advocacy started.
However, shortly after this, the Olschefski financial crisis set in and the conversation about closing schools started. Then the drastic state level budget cuts happened.
By that point, it was damn-the-torpedoes when it came to closing schools and the district approached the closing of schools with the fervor of a religious zealot and there was no amount of data, reason or common sense that could stop it.
The closures did a huge amount of damage to this district. Both because an entire decade that should have been spent on building new capacity was wasted AND because so many families were directly hurt but closures that never needed to happen.
I began with the video voters guide HERE
Yes I found out that neither participated. I shall now look elsewhere for information about these two.
==============
Video Voters guide does list the following as participants (links provided)
District 2 - Burke v. Gramer
District 3 - McGuire v. Geary
District 6 - Harris v. McLaren
Tuesday 20, October 2015
Election raises questions about Seattle schools’ direction
=====================
In Ballotpedia
Ballotpedia Christophersen
Ballotpedia Pinkham
Christophersen under Campaign Themes shows "rankings on the issues" and "positions on the issues", but Pinkham does not.
SPS has a huge need in serving students with Specific Learning Disabilities, I believe that Christophersen will do something about that.
I sure wish that Pinkham would have "ranked the issues" and had "position on the issues"
It is pretty hard finding out about what either of these two might do as Board Directors.
The Times may have this one correct in recommending Michael Christophersen.
-- Dan Dempsey
The School Board has struggled with high turnover, including several resignations this year, and McLaren would provide some continuity. If you prefer an experienced candidate who would provide some stability on the School Board, McLaren is a good choice.
==============
Does the PVG have any knowledge of facts?
No one resigned from the school board this year, so it must have been the school board struggling with central staff turnover.... are you kidding me?
Can someone tell me of these resignations and why they were problematic?
I guess the PVG has a lot more faith in bloated top-down management than I do.
-- Dan Dempsey
I tried to validate Jill Geary's claims regarding her work for families in Seattle. I pulled records from OSPI and SPS back to 2007 and I can not find any evidence of Geary's claims of making settlements for SPS special education students.
The PRR log shows only 2 candidates have a history of actively pressing the district for information, Harris and Christopherson.
I see PRR entries from numerous lawyers, but their are none from Geary. Jill, can you explain the lack of documentation?
I'm going to submit a PRR today for all settlements involving Geary. Stay tuned.
2 Cents
Geez, get your facts straight!
Go Jill
Why would our candidates accept contributions from from her.
Please go to the following site and see who these guys are being funded by.
http://www.pdc.wa.gov/MvcQuerySystem/Candidate/loc_candidates
MCMINIMEE SHANNON 8/24/2015 $50.00 G SEATTLE WA 98136
Disgusted
Michael has Q and A and is taking questions at his url.
http://christophersen4schools.blogspot.com/2015/10/ask-candidate-questions.html?m=1
Melissa has promised to do a critique of Michael's ideas. I am pretty certain she is referring to the Q and A content on his campaign blog.
I hope readers of this blog will visit and discuss Michael's campaign blog (and submit questions to him) before they read Melissa"s evaluation, since she is not an unbiased judge.
Writers on this blog are saying they want directors who.."won't let the staff members say 'the dog ate my homework'...have the moxy to call out disconnects between the policy, implementation, and the mission of this organization.....represent the people, not the staff....[display ]intelligence, clarity, hard work and dedication. "
This sounds like a description of the Michael Christopherson I have come to know through working as an education advocate to the family in IEP negotiations and through talking with him extensively about his knowledge and ideas for Seattle schools.
Here is are the most outstanding comments about Scott that I find on this thread.
"Pinkham has experiences that will be beneficial....Pinkham [would] tend toward the revolutionary side but may be convinced one way or the other. "
I think Michael would be a far more energetic Board member than Pinkham and will be far more helpful than Pinkham would be to Peters, Burke, Geary, and Harris if he ends up on the Board with these four
Pinkham has a student attending there. 12 grade
Burke has a student attending there. 12 grade
Christopherson has two students there. 9 and 11 grade
Christopherson is an Ingraham grad and that's a plus.
We know we will at least have one! When is the last time one of our students had a parent on the school board?
Go Rams