Seattle Times Op-Ed on the Superintendent
Today the Seattle Times ran an op-ed piece by Lynne Varner about the Superintendent. The column was about Dr. Goodloe-Johnson's personal style and how it rubs some people the wrong way. Ms Varner's calls the superintendent "steely but competent" and writes
To me, this is a clear attempt to dismiss the superintendent's critics as a bunch of cry-babys desperate for a hug.
Discussion of the superintendent's demeanor, whether "steely" or "warm and fuzzy", is a sideshow distraction. Ms Varner is trying to distract us with the trivial so we won't pay attention to what matters. The real question isn't whether the superintendent displays emotion, it is whether she hears the community's legitimate concerns, whether she considers the community's legitimate concerns as a factor in her decisions, and whether she addresses the community's legitimate concerns. That is the substantive question that is worthy of discussion.
And does she?
Run through a list of recent decisions (math instruction, Jane Addams K-8/6-8, APP split, program placement, Special Education inclusion, etc.) and ask yourself:
A) Was there any acknowledgement from her about the community's legitimate concerns?
B) Did her decision reflect the community's legitimate concerns?
C) Did her decision address the community's legitimate concerns?
It's not about style. It's about substance. It's not about spin it's about whether she is doing her job. In many cases Superintendent Goodloe-Johnson does not appear to be adequately regarding the community's perspective, needs, or concerns in her decisions. The community is the greatest stakeholder in the District. They should be heard, their concerns should be addressed. It is her job to hear them, to give them weight in her deliberations, and to reflect them in her decisions.
She can address the community's concerns and still be just as "steely" and "tough" as she wants to be. Raj Manhas may have been a teddy bear, but he never regarded the community's input, and that's a primary reason he was an abject failure as a leader.
Don't distract us, Lynne. And don't try to dismiss a legitimate and substantive question as gossip and fluff. You're better than that.
"We've left our Scandinavian roots of emotional distance to wanting a superintendent who will take us in her arms while we cry a river. We want warmth from the person we expect to defend our schools with all the vengeance of the Terminator. Kind of crazy."
To me, this is a clear attempt to dismiss the superintendent's critics as a bunch of cry-babys desperate for a hug.
Discussion of the superintendent's demeanor, whether "steely" or "warm and fuzzy", is a sideshow distraction. Ms Varner is trying to distract us with the trivial so we won't pay attention to what matters. The real question isn't whether the superintendent displays emotion, it is whether she hears the community's legitimate concerns, whether she considers the community's legitimate concerns as a factor in her decisions, and whether she addresses the community's legitimate concerns. That is the substantive question that is worthy of discussion.
And does she?
Run through a list of recent decisions (math instruction, Jane Addams K-8/6-8, APP split, program placement, Special Education inclusion, etc.) and ask yourself:
A) Was there any acknowledgement from her about the community's legitimate concerns?
B) Did her decision reflect the community's legitimate concerns?
C) Did her decision address the community's legitimate concerns?
It's not about style. It's about substance. It's not about spin it's about whether she is doing her job. In many cases Superintendent Goodloe-Johnson does not appear to be adequately regarding the community's perspective, needs, or concerns in her decisions. The community is the greatest stakeholder in the District. They should be heard, their concerns should be addressed. It is her job to hear them, to give them weight in her deliberations, and to reflect them in her decisions.
She can address the community's concerns and still be just as "steely" and "tough" as she wants to be. Raj Manhas may have been a teddy bear, but he never regarded the community's input, and that's a primary reason he was an abject failure as a leader.
Don't distract us, Lynne. And don't try to dismiss a legitimate and substantive question as gossip and fluff. You're better than that.
Comments
Well said!
Watching this mess has been surreal. It almost seems like the thought process at JSCEE is: "Hmm. Some families still trust us a little bit. Isn't there some way we can destroy whatever shreds of credibility we had remaining after everything else that has happened this year? Yeah, I bet there is. Let's try this: let's close Summit; then let's come up with a poorly conceived plan without engaging the affected school to try to move an alternative K-5 to JA and make expand it into a K-8; then let's switch and start a new reference K-8 in JA; then let's make some mandatory assignments there, but still leave the building emptier than it was when Summit was there, in spite of the fact that our stated reason for closing Summit was to solve the NE capacity problem; then let's decide it needs to become a comprehensive middle school, but with no idea of what timeframe that might happen, thus leaving families at the newly created K-8 in limbo; then we should publicly deny that the idea of changing it to a middle school was under consideration, but only after we make sure that enough evidence has leaked to make it absolutely clear to any reasonable observer that it is under consideration; then let's absolutely refuse to make any commitment whatsoever to the families coming into the new JA that want nothing more than a tiny bit of certainty that their children won't be subject to a game of musical schools in their elementary years. Yeah, that'll do it. That will raise the mistrust level of SPS from 95% to 100%. Let's go for it!"
As far as the Superintendent goes, the only real question that I have is how long will it take the public and the school board to rebel and force her out of her position. For her successor, I hope people view any endorsement by either SPS staff or the Seattle Times editorial staff with extreme scepticism.
It could also be a preemptive strike to the rally that is planned this evening at the district offices.
Charlie's whole thing on authentic family engagement is spot on. At the family engagement thing last month, I had a chat with someone from the Alliance regarding parent engagement. I didn't think highly of the district's response to parents' concerns. He replied to me that I was expecting too much, that I seemed to be expecting a role in governance. I should get over that. I replied back that I do not seek governance (Ok, well, it would be nice to have that power, but I admit I don't got it) but what I am seeing is active disregard for family concerns with the whole bell and bus thing. Completely driven by bus efficiencies, (only with faulty analysis there, as well) the chaos regarding the changes is already evident. I predict that the chaos in the Fall regarding bus routes, schedules and bell times will be worse than almost anyone imagines. And all that burden rests on families and teachers in the classrooms (with their own family and commute issues). So the way this whole transportation thing has gone has shown very clearly that there is absolutely no empathy for family issues.
OK one other thing from Lynne's piece that is odd, because she didn't take it anywhere. The line "Improve the schools enough that parents aren't begging, borrowing and cheating to get into the good ones and I'll love her."
Well, the issue of improving schools doesn't appear anywhere else in the article, does it? I don't get it. Because I agree. If she's effective and schools improve, then sure, many of us can overcome her lack of warmth. But I am not seeing evidence of improvement. Are you? How long should we wait to expect to see some positive results?
wow - a folk hero, no less... my Andy Warhol 15 minutes of fame? They can use it as an epitaph on my headstone!
I guess it that's the only achievement they can find to put in my obituary, I shall be happy with that!!! LOL
As Seattle citizens we play a role in governance via the City Council, our representatives. The Council is a counterpoint to mayoral powers. (Oh, we elect him too.) As Distict parents, we play a role in governance via our board members. The Board hires the superintendent. You bet your bippy I expect a role in District governance. And if the entrenched staff and fundraising Alliance and the super herself disagrees, then we have more problems in this district than the ones that are already evident.
Have lots more to say about this... but no time.... thank goodness, some of you might say!
Yes, a poorly written and condescending article, but with some belated acknowledgment from one of her chief cheerleaders (the Times) that MGJ is not so great after all. (Is it any wonder that Seattle Times readership is on a steady decline?)
At least Lynne Varner and the Times are no longer able to ignore the very real and legitimate dissent in the Seattle Public Schools community toward the Superintendent (and this hapless Board).
See you at the rally tonight everyone! (5 p.m. John Stanford Center, SPS HQ.) Bring a sign. Bring your own "Annual Evaluation" of MGJ's performance -- and how about some hankies for Ms. Varner, cause we sure don't need them. We won't be "crying" -- we will be shouting.
This attempt to defend Dr. G-J is sad. Because we aren't wrong to want REAL transparency. We aren't wrong to want her to stop using her Blackberry during the comment section of the Board meetings.
We not a bunch of whiners and as I said previously, I don't need to be friends with her or "like" her. I need to be able to trust her and believe in her judgment for this district and I do not.
But I should expect that true academic considerations, true parent and student considerations are part of decisions. And in order to get that, the district ought to listen to a variety of parents and students and consider the issues. But they don't and so many decisions seem to be designed almost specifically to disregard academic or family perspective.
And I should expect that promises will be kept.
There's absolutely no way this woman will still be in Seattle when her daughter is old enough to enroll in school. No way.
Once the student assignment plan roles out, it will be time for her to move along. The issues that are already moving to the forefront need the talents of a leader more along the lines of a diplomat. This is not her talent. We can help her to move along via board elections and public editorializing. So stay engaged for the medium-term, not just the short term. If that happens, I have no doubt momentum will gain to swing the pendulum.
I don't know how I feel about her and the job she has done - I think some changes needed to be made, and no one will be happy with every change.
We will have to see what the district looks like in 5 years to see all the results of her tenure.
...what led to my writing it is that we have a troubling duality here: Seattle schools chief Maria Goodloe-Johnson is smart, she's an educator after several non-educator superintendents and much of what she's implementing are ideas that pre-date her, i.e. school closures, curriculum alignment, the shift from site based management to more centralized control and even the program audits. I've written about Seattle schools since the early 1990s and I recall school board members discussing the need for these things. Change happens slowly in large systems but it appears we've been heading this way for a long time.
I am surprised at the depth of animosity about the superintendent. It would be strange if she didn't have critics, but it is unusual to have a vocal and respected critic all but call you a liar in a well-read schools blog and no one posts an immediate defense. That was a red flag to me.
As long as critics remain in the minority, is this really a big deal? Yes. Personal style counts in leadership. If too many people don't support your leadership, they won't buy into your goals...
I want to hear more about your demand for G-J to look at you when you were speaking! What was the reaction? (It stinks that you had to use even a second of those precious 3 minutes to remind her of obvious courtesy.)
Moose
I have never said that I think everything she's done is wrong or has been handled badly. It's kind of like the Gates Foundation money. That kick-started some real internal assessments at our schools. Dr. Goodloe-Johnson's work has kick started discussions about alignment, curriculum, autonomy at schools and so forth. That's good but if you don't include teachers and parents in the discussion in a manner so they feel like they are heard, well, it's hard to get buy-in.
Lowell is one of the highest performing elementary schools in the state -- yet MGJ & co. break it in half and dilute the APP program. -- And then vote to break in half and weaken the middle school APP as well.
TTMinor is a diverse, centrally located school with a successful Montessori program. Why did MGJ & co. decide to close it, award Leschi with TTMinor's Montessori program, and tell the rest of the kids to go to Lowell -- but not offer them the transportation to get there? (Word is that only about 55 TTMinor kids will be going to Lowell next year.)
NOVA is an academically successful and valuable alternative school functioning just fine in the Mann Building. Why did MGJ & co. decide to evict the kids and move them to an unsafe building (Meany) in a potentially incompatible co-housing situation? How much money does that really save? Is it worth the disruption to the school and the students?
And then there's the inexplicable treatment of Summit which the Supt. and Board decided to close, only to completely mess up the plans for its building, leaving 300 families in disarray.
Meanwhile there are schools like Madrona and some Southend high schools with longstanding or serious issues, and which are half empty. MGJ and co. didn't touch these. Why?
This hacking away at some of the strongest elements of our school district makes no sense -- academically, fiscally, and I would even say, morally.
Last night a parent was talking to Ruth Medskar and while the parent was speaking Ruth Medskar was making faces and rolling her eyes, and finally another parent in the small circle spoke up and said in a stern voice "why are you making faces at her while she speaks, try listening to what she has to say".
I think people are truly fed up.
If Goodloe-Johnson is merely a highly paid hatchetwoman, who's behind the curtain calling the shots?
Anonymous people in SPS administration or outside influences from the "Business Roundtable"?
Gates and Broad with their anti-teacher pro-privatization agendas?
Not that any of this exonerates Goodloe-Johnson.
What's really going on inside the John Stanford Center?
"Transparency" my arse.
AS#1 - under restructuring - is to have a new programme with a focus on the performing arts and environmental science.....
Now, I remember a school that had a performing arts focus, and a new K-8 that was supposed to have an environmental science component...
We've been told we have to take this on under restructuring - no community dialogue at all.... despite policy C54.00..
moose... gotta get to work... if you really want to know, will rehash my momentary fame later today...
(http://www.broadcenter.org/about/board.html)
(http://broadacademy.org/)
To which MGJ replied: "The Broad Foundation has nothing to do with charters. Read the Web site."
"I have," said the parent. "That's why I'm asking."
As the Web site clearly shows, Broad does indeed support charters:
"Broad Foundation Awards $2.5 Million to Expand Charter Schools in New York --
Uncommon Schools and Success Charter Network to triple number of schools in next five years"
(from a recent press release dated April 9, 2009 http://www.broadeducation.org/asset/0-090408nyccharters.pdf)
Or how about:
"We invest in cities and charter management organizations where our dollars can be leveraged to
accelerate school reform efforts."
(from: Broad Foundation Annual Report 2008. p. 13, http://www.broadeducation.org/news/biannualreport.html )
Or this:
In our hometown of Los Angeles,where public charter schools have gained an important foothold, we have taken a different approach. Now home to more charter schools and more students attending charter schools than anywhere in the country, Los Angeles is experiencing an education revolution from the bottom up. By reaching a tipping point, we believe that high quality public charter schools will place the essential pressure on all other public schools to improve performance.
(ibid)
So why did Goodloe-Johnson deny it?
If the privatization of public schools via charters is her agenda, why doesn't she just admit it, so we can all discuss whether we want our kids' public schools here in Seattle taken over by private, for-profit corporations?
What's with the subterfuge, and yes, lies?
Which leads one to ask: who is Maria Goodloe-Johnson answering to -- the parents and children of Seattle and the Seattle School Board, or the Broad (and maybe Gates) Foundations and their agendas?
I’m impressed that she’s decisive. I respect that she takes action. But what does she stand for? Why does she get up and go to work in the morning? If she were a leader, no one would ever ask that question. If she stood for the mission of Excellence for All, it would resonate in everything she says and does. Instead, she and her staff make feeble (and typically absurd) attempts to link actions with mission.
“Data-based decision maker” does not define a leader. SPS needs a leader. The board should have hired a leader when they hired her. I hope when the time comes to hire a new superintendent, they make a better choice.
If Varner is down to parsing words and red flags, I think she's missed the point. There is nothing personal about MG-J's time in SPS. Historically, has - any - sup been popular since The General?
From a management perspective, I agree that MG-J is here to do a job. She probably doesn't worry about the performance of district staff (the mistakes, the back pedaling, the reports that never appear, the deadlines missed, the excuses, the disdain), because she won't be here very long. Making friends on the local level isn't as important as maintaining contacts on a larger scale. Local doesn't really matter in this picture. Nobody is clamoring for the city to take over.
MG-J's praise for the Alliance, whose members have reportedly told other parents here that they expect too much, says it all. Steely? Again, this is a characterization that implies that her mission is greater than it is. She has no reason to care. Whatever looks good on he CV. She can say she reached her goals, although the reality may be quite different. It doesn't even matter if she has an education background, because the job of superintendent will remain political and evasive, with only mock transparency, until we change the way we fund public ed.
At present, our expectations are underfunded and unwinable. Excellence for All? This makes me think of Contras as Freedom Fighters and trees as polluters. Just pass me the Freedom Fries and I'll eat those lies for lunch.
According to Nina Shapiro in today's Seattle Weekly, Supt. Goodloe-Johnson's annual evaluation today was "prepared" by Tom Payzant. (http://blogs.seattleweekly.com/dailyweekly/2009/06/school_board_to_give_mixed_rev.php#more
School Board To Give Mixed Review to Supe)
Payzant is a former Supt. of Boston School District, and is connected to -- you guessed it -- the Broad Foundation. He too is a former graduate of their "Superintendent Academy" and now a coach there (http://www.broadacademy.org/news/press/2002-0204.html) and I believe he won a "Broad Award."
"Dr. Tom Payzant and Dr. John Simpson named Broad Superintendents Academy coaches: http://broadacademy.org/new...3:34 PM May 4th from web"
So we have a Broad Foundation person overseeing the evaluation of another Broad Foundation board member/graduate.
Talk about a conflict of interest.
How likely is it that Mr. Payzant will be objective and genuinely critical of Goodloe-Johnson?
Who arranged to have him come in to do this?
This is suspicious.
(And why can't our Board figure out how to do its OWN evaluation of the superintendent they hired, promoted and whose performance they have witnessed firsthand these past two years?)
Incompetence and corruption collide?
Spending 1.1 million for great new math books seems like a luxury this budget cycle. Spending 1.1 million this year on ineffective mathbooks that will hamstring our kids for years, thats not results, thats lunacy. Steely, smart, no nonsense, don't matter to me as much as what she is actually accomplishing.
As a UW football fan, she reminds me a lot of Ty Willingham. Look disciplined, look decisive, then have your team do undisciplined things and be undecisive. Willingham to alums/booster equal Dr GJ to parents. Length of stay of football coaches to principals probably pretty similar too.
Dear Seattle Public School families,
As we head into the last few weeks of the school year, our most important responsibility is to maintain effective learning environments for all our students. I want to thank all of you - as well as our teachers, principals and other school staff - for keeping the focus every day on our students' success. Each of the children you entrust to us is precious, and our goal is to ensure they all receive an education that prepares them to graduate ready for college, careers and life.
Maria Goodloe-JohnsonCommunicating Directly with Families
Every student deserves an excellent education. Delivering on the promise of excellent instruction in every classroom means that we have serious work to do: to adequately fund public education, to retain and attract excellent teachers, and to have every District employee accountable to supporting student success.
This work requires us to change how we do business. I know that many people are feeling overwhelmed with the amount of change happening now-globally, nationally, and locally. I understand that the changes we are making at Seattle Public Schools have been difficult for many families and staff. Please know that it has been a very difficult decision to lay off teachers and other valued staff. But I urge you to remember that these changes are all made with our central goal in mind: an excellent education for every student.
As we hear of plans for rallies and protests in response to the District's decisions, it is important for families to know that maintaining safe and respectful learning environments is our top priority. I also want you to know that I am redoubling my own efforts to engage with and listen to the comments and concerns of communities throughout the district. This note is part of that effort and includes several topics that may interest you including:
· New Student Assignment Plan Update
· Strengthening Teaching & Promoting Accountability
· Closing An Unprecedented Budget Gap
· Listening To & Celebrating with Our Communities
I will be sending additional brief updates to the e-mail addresses families gave us as part of their contact information. In my next update, I plan to ask for your feedback via an online survey. If you wish to receive the family e-newsletter, please click on the Confirm link at the top of this update. You can also update your email address by clicking on the Update Profile/Email Address at the bottom of this update. I encourage you to forward this email to additional community members using the Forward email link at the bottom of the update.
I hope that you all enjoy the last three weeks of our school year and have many opportunities to celebrate the wonderful work that our students and staff are doing in each school.
Sincerely,
Maria L.Goodloe-Johnson, Ph.D.
Superintendent, Seattle Public Schools
i wouldn't read too much into the "lack of defense" - there might be a lot of people out there like me, who think the superintendent is missing a sensitivity chip but who, overall, are content with the work being done by her and by the board - or, alternatively, people who don't think that much about it at all because they're content with their children's schools and this whole budget deficit, schools closing, assignment plan changing business is pretty far out on the perimeter.
now that this blog's two primary writers (charlie and melissa) are regularly and consistently posting negative reactions to district doings (and i personally feel both have gone beyond the pale in extrapolating motive and meaning - as well as in the charges they've all but leveled against all concerned)- and the balance of comments is in agreement (and frequently not terribly informed) - there isn't much reason to record opinions to the contrary - you're not going to change people's minds, and who has time?
My own problems with the good Dr G-J stem from a fundamental disagreement about organization: she believes schools are best governed from above, with little to no local control. I favor a balanced approach. One could argue in favor of either perspective, but I have the responsibility of caring for the education of my children. If her approach holds sway, we bid adieu to SPS, along with every other family whose kids don't thrive in the rows of boxes she prefers.
The utterly boneheaded mismanagement of some of the initiatives we've seen just this year -- the Jane Addams building debacle reads like some gothic novel, it's so absurdly bad -- must lie at the feet of the superintendent, mustn't it? Or are we to assume the existence of some cadre of incompetents of which our superintendent has no knowledge?
Please: if we are poorly-informed, inform us.
serious work to do????
No given the k-12 math books we have impossible work to do.