Yet another Times' editorial on the superintendent search

Sunday's Times has yet another expression of the editorial board's unhappiness with the superintendent search. This one is a bit confusing because on the one hand, they complain that the Board kept a tight rein on the process (last time, you'll remember, they called it a circus). Then, they say the public interview process was by invitation-only. But it was on tv - live - and replayed. What would have happened (or what different questions would have been asked) if 500 people had showed up (and frankly, I don't think it would have reached 100). Then, they moan over the lack of opportunity to ask questions privately. Well, that would be the Board's job - it is the main job they have as a Board. I'm assuming the Times wanted private meetings with the candidates for editorial boards. But which editorial boards?

They claim they wanted to hear an articulated vision for the city. Both the candidates, wisely, stated that they would need to come in and get the lay of the land (my words). Go out to schools, talk to principals and staff, talk to parents. I would be wary of any person coming in with a "vision" when they have no real sense of our district.

Comments

Anonymous said…
Their comment Board President Cheryl Chow gripped the reins of the process so tightly that at the end of the allotted 45 minutes with the media, one candidate asked Chow's permission to go off script and say goodbye to the audience. was right on though. I think there could have been a happy medium between 2003 and 2007 processes.
4/9/07, 11:07 AM
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