Board Members Did Not "Back Down"

I'm extremely frustrated with press coverage that suggests that Seattle School Board members who voted to table the school closure motion "backed down" in the face of public pressure or changed their minds about school closures.

As I said in my testimony at the Board meeting on Wednesday, I am clear about whose proposal was voted down. It was Raj's proposal. The School Board members didn't like the preliminary recommendations or the process used to develop them, and they were open and honest about that with Raj. Raj was unwilling to change his mind about two of the recommendations or to do what Brita Butler-Wall requested, and pull the entire Phase II recommendation.

Wednesday's Board meeting was the first time Board members could discuss the proposal and react to it formally in public. The five Board members who voted to table the Phase II recommendations did so despite the fact that three of them believe in the importance of closing schools. They did so because they were presented with recommendations that failed to consider the academic implications of the proposed changes.

Today's Seattle Times editorial, This isn't any way to run Seattle schools, also makes two ridiculous statements:

1) "We have a superintendent who could be effective if he had a board to back him."

2) "The cool heads of board members Michael DeBell and Cheryl Chow were not enough to prevail and the board inexplicably tabled the closures issue."

Listen to coverage on this issue on KUOW today from 25:04 to 32:25 and then from 43:12 to 44:17 in the audio file. Sakara Remu brought up the "structural funding gap" and the fact that school closures won't solve that. Susan Paynter said "Chow and DeBell were the ones who had the most spine in this situation." Knute Berger says "...they should have just declared victory [after Phase I] and moved on." And I managed to get on right near the end to say that the School Board did not change their mind. They voted to close seven schools and would have been willing to close more if Raj had brought forward recommendations that made sense from an academic perspective.

Comments

Anonymous said…
Excellent point. That was my perception as well, having followed this controversy and also watching much of the Wednesday meeting on tv. This was the school board telling Raj, look, you're wrong here, it's clear. There are many facts that were brought up by speakers, including the fact that neither school proposed for "co-location" of two "programs" had enough room for both. I wonder how much longer Raj will hang on to his job.
10/20/06, 12:27 PM
Anonymous said…
This is not a closing schools issue, this is a process issue. And from that standpoint SPS has failed all the tests. Don't mistake backbone for logic.
10/20/06, 11:43 PM
Anonymous said…
I do wish there had been no Phase II (or, it had happened in 6 months to a year). People were still getting a grip on the Phase I closures which, in and of themselves, were enough of a start. I think Raj and the staff shot themselves in the foot by going ahead AND having a completely different way of choosing schools from the CAC.
10/23/06, 2:19 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Tuesday Open Thread

The speaker list is up for the Board meeting tomorrow; not as packed as I thought with just four people on the waitlist. The majority of the speakers are speaking on high school boundaries (with several wanting to talk about Ballard High). There are only three of us speaking about the Green Dot resolution asking the City to not grant the zoning departures that Green Dot has requested.  It's me, long-time watchdog, Chris Jackins, and the head of the Washington State Charter Schools Association, Patrick D'Amelio.  (I knew Mr. D'Amelio when he headed the Alliance for Education and Big Brothers and Big Sisters; he's a stand-up guy.)
Read more

Breaking It Down: Where the District Might Close Schools

Update 2: an absolutely fabulous interactive map made by parent Beth Day (@thebethocracy on Twitter - she covers Board meetings and is fun to read).   end of update    Update 1: Mea culpa, I did indeed get Decatur and Thornton Creek mixed up. Thanks to all for the correction. end of update   I suspect some who read this post will be irate. Why do this? Because the district seems very hellbent on this effort with no oversight skid marks from the Board.    To clearly state - I do not believe that closing 20 schools is a good idea. I think they hit on 20 because they thought it might bring in the most savings. But the jury is still out on the savings because the district has not shown its work nor its data. I suspect closing schools and THEN leasing/renting them is the big plan but that means the district really has to keep the buildings up.   But this district, with its happy talk about "well-resourced schools" is NOT acknowledging the pain and yes, gr...
Read more

Education News Roundup

From the ever-amusing Washington Policy Center : Vouchers are Pell Grants for students under 18.  Vouchers are no different than Pell Grants or GI benefits, except the money goes to the families of students younger than age 18.  Except they are. Pell Grants were created to help needy students and that's not really the goal of the voucher program.  The Pell grant website does have a couple of great studies on why low-income students drop out before finishing their higher ed and what makes a difference.
Read more