School Board Elections
I dithered on whether to post a link to this editorial about the Seattle School Board elections results. That's because the first two paragraphs are, to me, breathtaking in the unkind words directed at Director Mary Bass. The editorial is completely silent on Cheryl Chow (which could be a ding at her because they didn't even thank her for all her years of service - I did even if I disagreed with her).
Okay Times - we - get - it. You don't like Mary Bass. Maybe they are feeling the sting of so many of their editorial endorsements going down with this election so pointing out that the ones they got right makes them feel better.
This editorial should have started with the third paragraph which is far more accurate and rational. That the editors at the Times read this and thought it fair to run is appalling.
Okay Times - we - get - it. You don't like Mary Bass. Maybe they are feeling the sting of so many of their editorial endorsements going down with this election so pointing out that the ones they got right makes them feel better.
This editorial should have started with the third paragraph which is far more accurate and rational. That the editors at the Times read this and thought it fair to run is appalling.
Comments
I am very saddened to read of the dedication, experience and ethics of Mary Bass dismissed in that manner.
I would agree Smith-Blum has energy, but her years of involvement with the private school sector is not what she needs to prepare her to be effective as a SPS director.
As for Cheryl Chow, I feel like Melissa does. I didn't think she was effective as a board member, and I think we needed change, but she does deserve a huge thank you for her (volunteer) time and service. Being a board member is difficult. It's very time consuming, and is often thankless.
Thank you Mary and Cheryl both for all you have done!
And, while I'm at it, thank you Melissa and Charlie too. You both do a fantastic job with this blog. I recognize and appreciate that you are volunteers, with your own families, and jobs, and responsibilities. Thanks for taking time out of your lives to work for the good of the whole. I do appreciate it.
The names are: Ryan Blethen, Frank A. Blethen, William K. Blethen, Robert C. Blethen, Carolyn S. Kelly, Joni Balter, Lance Dickie, Bruce Ramsey, Kate Riley and Lynne K. Varner.
I was musing with someone at the district yesterday that she would be a perfect person to get more public/private partnerships to get the STEM program at Cleveland on track. Aligning with UW, Fred Hutchinson Research Cancer Center, the biotech in Allentown. You need someone who knows how to persuade and that could be a big contribution.
I still have my doubts about her but maybe she's a fast learner.
My biggest hope is that Kay wrestles the district back from the central office staff to a program dedicated to meeting SPS families' needs.
Singlehandedly! Yes she can!
First proof that she is up to this task will be when she shows up at today's Audit and Finance Committee meeting fluent in the Diaz report, ready to take notes and hit the ground running.
I really wish I could make that meeting. I look forward to hearing the reports tonight - and if KSB and MP show up.
I really hope Meg Coyle of KING5 shows up too.
They will pretend that's the issue instead of the grotesque growth of the central staff or the absurdly oversized administration.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/
html/edcetera/2010201281
_central_area_rejects_mary_bass.html
All the people who demean director Bass base it on the idea that she is "ineffective." If you mean by that she voted against the rest of the Board often, casting "no" votes on issues she felt deserved a "no," then yes, she was ineffective. She didn't drink the Koolaide.
If other board members had shown some mettle and voted against the party line occasionally, maybe Mary would get her props.
Note the Times says, "The achievements of the current board — reopening buildings...[etc] must continue smoothly." Uh, hello, Mary voted against much of the school closure fiasco because it was ill-conceived. Now the Times is celebrating the "success," a mere two years later, in reopening schools?! So why aren't they writing, "Director Bass was right: School closures shouldn't have happened like they did, without planning." Two years ago the Times celebrated the tough work of closing schools, now it celebrates the tough work of reopening them?!
They have no credibility.
I don't doubt any of that. I'm just curious how much of a song and dance they will put on, whether much of the local media will cover it and how they will treat it.
The Superintendent needs lots of $$$ for her centralization plan.
The problem is there is NO evidence that centralization works. In fact the opposite is true. Decentralization works but it is difficult to implement (these folks do not seem capable of implementing much).
There is so much this Superintendent and Board are wrong about that it is no accident the improvement plans for SE high schools are a total joke. The Strategic Plan is only lightly monitored and clearly results are viewed as unimportant. WASL scores are ignored when they do not match with planned results.
Where are those Fall 2008 PSAT results? These folks are simply an embarrassment. They should be choking every time they attempt to say transparency or accountability.
I also think that having experience with both public and private school is a *good* thing in a school board director. One of the things Seattle does really badly is making the public schools appealing to people who can choose between public and private. If a free product can't compete with a $20,000 product, there's a problem. There's nothing wrong with understanding the competition.
She also said I should hold her feet to the fire, so I did. I told the rest of the parent group the things she had been telling me and was then contradicting. That was her game, from what I could tell. Be on your side until it came time for action, then say she was sorry she couldn't help you.
One of the other parents then sent that to the other board members (Along with the things the *other* board members had to say in support of Summit). Mary went balistic. This was the day before the final vote on closure.
Those of you who remember will note that Harrium made a proposal to save Summit. Mary seconded it ONLY after the time almost expired and Debell was actually speaking to close the proposal down. Of all of the board members I talked to during that process, only 3 were truly honest with me. Debell, Harium, and Peter... Sure, I didn't like what Peter had to say, but he was honest with me about what he felt and why.
Given the bitter taste in my mouth after watching Mary grandstand the rest of that evening, I, for one, was glad to see her go.
She may have had a great record, but I think she allowed herself to fall into a pattern of obstructionism and political expediency. Her replacement may not be the right person for the job, but I don't think Mary was, either.
Dorothy's comment has inspired me to suggest the following:
Tell the board that we will organize to raise strong public opposition to the upcoming levy UNLESS the Board agrees to adopt John Carver Policy Governance Model.
The John Carver Policy Governance Model is a brilliant strong-board model. It eliminates micro-managing by the Board (if it is implemented with high fidelity), and holds the chief executive officer (that would be MGJ in SPS) accountable for upholding Board policy.
I think many of the problems in SPS are related to our having as of Nov 2007 a majority on the Board that favors a weak School Board. A weak school board does not enforce policy, rubberstamps the Superintendent's actions and decisions, and acts as a buffer between the Superintendent and the Public. In the weak board construct, the main purposes of the Board are to promote the superintendent's policies, act as the community-engagement intermediary, and take the heat for unpopular actions of the superintendent. THe Broad Foundation and Gates Foundation are paying for our Directors to attend trainings that are designed to get the Board to put more and more weak policies in place, and to teach the board how better serve the promotional and buffering purposes of a weak school board.
I talked to Sally Soriano today. I understand from her that prior to 2007 policy was quite important to the Board. That certainly isn't the case now.
Did you know that as of a policy revision in Jan 2008, the board no longer requires the Sup. to uphold Board policy?
Did you know that the Broad Foundation (and Gates,too, no doubt) favors the superintendent to have more authority than the Board, and to be the chairman of the board: the evidence for this is at http://www.broadprize.org/resources/tools/district/new_york.html--click on the heading "Setting and Implementing Board Policy", read the brief text there, and then look at just the first several clauses of the downloadable pdf of the NY district bylaws.)
Did you know that currently there is no limit on the amount that individuals may contribute to school board campaigns, and a few wealthy individuals account for most of the extraordinary funding that Carr, Maier, Martin-Morris, and Sundquist received in 2007?
If we had a Board that believed in enforcing policy, then the problem for Alt Schools would be limited to making sure that the Board doesn't rescind or significantly weaken Board Policy C54, and calling to the Board's attention the Superintendent's violation or lack of attention to Policy C54.
Joan
Did you know that the Broad Foundation (and Gates,too, no doubt) favors mayoral appointment of school district directors?
Did you know that Mayoral Candidate Mike McGann favors mayoral appointment of school district directors? (A McGinn victory could be disastrous.)
We have had discussions here about voting against the BTA levy and what reasoning we would use. I have more capital related reasons to be against the levy but we could use many reasons (and possible solutions).
My ultimate goal is to get change BEFORE the levy so that we can all vote yes on the BTA and do so happily.