Disqus

Monday, October 08, 2007

On the Subject of Sally versus Peter

This article was in today's Times.

You can read it yourself and make your own judgments. I do find fault with this statement:

"She micromanaged by getting involved in drinking-water-quality issues, he said, then voted against putting a bond measure on the ballot that included millions for the very plumbing problems she wanted fixed."

According to my recollection, Raj and staff wanted to do little but provide bottled water (at a high cost). The water quality issue had been a problem for years throughout the district with nothing being done. The issue of voting against the bond measure in terms of water quality is nothing sort of ridiculous. The schools with the worst water quality issues weren't even on the bond. The bond is about remodeling/rebuilding schools. The money for fixing the pipes would come from the BTA and that wasn't on the ballot. Peter Maier, as head of Schools First, knows this very well and it is wrong to make this charge.

3 comments:

Charlie Mas said...

A lot of what is decried as micro-managing - such as Director Soriano's actions regarding water quality - were actually managing. The Superintendent failed to fulfill a lot of duties, so they fell to the Board. He would either delegate up or, often, simply leave something un-addressed and wait for the Board to step in and fix it after it had gone too far.

Was this micro-managing, or was this just managing (as opposed to leaving things un-managed?).

Dan Dempsey said...

Charlie,

You are correct. Management is needed.

It appears as long as the board continues to ignore really important issues, they are doing a swell job.

Address much of importance and be ridiculed as a micro-manager.

Where do I go to vote for some "Micro-Managers"?

I've seen little in the way of effective management of academic issues.

Dan

Charlie Mas said...

There was a story in the P-I today,
After son attacked, parents push back, about crime at Hale, a topic of some discussion on this blog.

In the article, Jessica Blanchard writes:
"At least one School Board member is supporting the Sheas' proposals, but other district officials -- including the board president and the superintendent -- are hesitant to make any changes."

If you read way down the story, you'll come to this:

"To School Board President Cheryl Chow, it's not just a matter of timing -- she doesn't really see the point in providing crime data on individual schools. "I don't know if that would be helpful," she said, adding that it would be more beneficial to provide parents with safety tips to share with their children.

Board member Sally Soriano, who represents Hale and other schools in North Seattle, said she believes more needs to be done. She was surprised at the number of people who have approached her recently to discuss security concerns, including assaults, thefts and gang violence.

She urged the Sheas and other concerned parents to create a rough proposal for updating the district's security policy and helped arrange a meeting between the parents and several senior staff members to discuss it. "Parents are asking to daylight this so they can deal with it, and I think that's legitimate," she said.
"

This is the sort of thing I'm talking about. Director Soriano listened to what the people were saying and invited them to come and help the District find a solution. She arranged a meeting and got results. Was this micro-managing? Was it micro-managing if the District officials had the chance to take action and passed on it? Is it saved from being micromanaging because it will lead to a Policy - a Board concern?