Sunday, March 05, 2017

McCleary Discussed as Little Gets Done

Good discussion at Seattle Channel's City Inside/Out on McCleary funding.


On the show:
Rita Green, Education Chair, NAACP
Leslie Harris, V.P., Seattle School Board
Eden Mack, Legislative Chair, Seattle Council PTSA
Kim Mead, President, WA Education Association
Erin Okuno, Exec. Dir., Southeast Seattle Education Coalition
Chris Reykdal, Superintendent, Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction
Summer Stinson, V.P., Washington's Paramount Duty

 They are running a poll:

"Who has the best McCleary funding plan?"

The options are are the Governor's plan, the House Democrats' plan, Senate Republicans' plan, or Senator Mullet's plan.

Almost seems like a trick question.

As of 1:00 pm, the Governor's plan was at 81%, Republicans 2.88%. Democrats 10% and Senator Mullet .72% with "Other" coming in at 5%.


16 comments:

Anonymous said...

Would have liked to have seen Erin Okuno on the panel. Instead the panel was comprised of Kim Mead and her "endorsed champion" plus two WPD board members.

Where's the balance? All four of these panelists essentially agreed on all of the issues. It wasn't a discussion at all.

Albert

Ugh said...

Agreed, and having "ghetto school" Harris on a panel does little to add credibility to any education discussion.

Anonymous said...

Ugh, cut the s**t. What's your problem?

Also, please don't stand next to me. I'm not with you.

Albert

kellie said...

@ Ugh,

Leslis Harris has been a consistent champion for schools and lends credibility. You can't be bothered to use a name.

We all make mistakes in our advocacy work. Only some of us learn from them. Leslie apologized immediately. Move on.

Melissa Westbrook said...

Albert, you might complain to Seattle Channel.

Anonymous said...

"Where's the balance?" Yes, Seattle Channel producers should have gone out and gotten Michael Baumgartner, Matt Manweller, and Betsy DeVos herself to be on the panel. Because anytime we discuss an issue, the panel should include both the "here's how we fully fund our schools" as well as the "um actually we shouldn't have public schools, we should defund them and sell them off to our billionaire buddies." I assume that would have made you happy, Al?

George

Anonymous said...

Slow your roll there, George. I don't think any of the panelists are extremists or flame-throwers in any way, so I don't think the individuals you've mentioned would have provided a true balance. Do you even know any of panelists? If you do, you wouldn't have considered Baumgartner, Manweller, or DeVos as their counters.

Balancing the panel could have included someone who didn't think the governor's budget proposal was the cat's meow, for starters. That could have included any number of center-right moderates.

So, no, those individuals wouldn't have made me happy. Does inciting discord and division make you happy?

Albert

Anonymous said...

Melissa, don't think I haven't. ;)

Albert

Anonymous said...

"Center-right moderates" - what makes them any different from Baumgartner or Manweller or DeVos? "Center-right moderates" think it is more important to keep taxes low than to fully fund public schools, and are open to selling off public schools to billionaires. So they overlap quite well with the names I gave.

No, the problem for you is that this was on Seattle Channel, which has a Seattle audience. That audience strongly believes in supporting public schools and opposes the regressive taxes and privatization plans that "center-right moderates" love so much. So why on earth would Seattle Channel put on someone who doesn't share the audience's values? That makes no sense.

George

Anonymous said...

George, I don't even know where to start. Not even sure there is a place to start.

Clearly, you consider anyone to the right of you extremist and neoliberal. That's healthy (and deranged).

And you think center-right people don't value public education. Again, unhealthy and deranged.

I'm not down with your attempts to re-educate me, comrade. Maybe you should read Animal Farm and 1984 to balance you out.

Albert

Melissa Westbrook said...

Well, I can agree; there was not much balance on that panel which is surprising as Seattle Channel is nearly always careful to do so (at least for the panels I have participated in).

Albert, you seem to want to pick a fight. I suggest you go elsewhere.

Anonymous said...

Melissa, you read this entire thread and you thought the one picking the fight was me?

Albert

Anonymous said...

Hey, we're not the ones who are trying to redefine private for-profit schools as "public charter schools." Or is it "charter public schools"? I can't keep up with all the Newspeak these days.

If the center-right valued public schools, they'd be opposing charters and moving heaven and earth to fund actual public schools. They're doing the opposite. I believe people should be judged by their actions and not their words. Don't you?

Snowball

Anonymous said...

Snowball, let's start with some facts: (1) Charter schools in WA are non-profit by law. (2) Charter schools are supported by the left, right, and center throughout the country. Charter schools supporters are not found only on the right of the political spectrum. (3) Once moderates --- both center-left and center-right --- gained control of the state Senate, only then did the legislature invest $4.5 billion dollars in education --- the largest increases in education spending in our state's history.

So, yes, I judge people by their actions and not their words.

Albert

Anonymous said...

The idea the Seattle public schools are not well funded sounds like a Trumpisum.

Seattle is becoming an enigma, the richer the city becomes the more potholes, homelessness and taxes we see.

Seattle reset

Melissa Westbrook said...

Seattle reset, really? Tell me how they ARE well-funded.