CPPS Survey on Superintendent - URGENT

This is what I have been working towards - a simple parent/community survey about the effectiveness of Dr. Goodloe-Johnson as SPS superintendent. It was created by CPPS (Community & Parents for Public Schools).

PLEASE take this survey - it's 6 questions. I would have liked the questions tweaked somewhat differently but the last one is pretty much an up/down vote of her effectiveness (with a range to answer within). Naturally, you can only take the survey once. (They only ask for your zip code to get an idea of who is taking the survey.)

PLEASE let your PTA (or parent group) know about this survey. I believe the Seattle Council PTSA may be alerting PTSA leaders about it but ask for it to be in your weekly newsletter or put on your PTSA website.

Clearly, I vote no confidence in the direction/effectiveness of our Superintendent. But if you feel differently, vote that way.

Either way, I know that the Board wants to hear from parents/community.

I think we are reaching a turning point in our district and we cannot just stand around and complain. Let the Board know what you think. Large numbers speak volumes.


alxdark said…
Unfortunately this survey requires some kind of login for a Hotmail account; most people (myself included) aren't going to sign up to Hotmail to take a survey.
Eric B said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
ParentofThree said…
Link does not take me to any survey, just to a hotmail page....
jason said…
I was sent this link:

BL said…
I'm on the CPPS email list, and I've completed the survey. They have a Facebook page ("CPPS of Seattle"), and you can complete the survey there as well.
Sorry. I did the link again and I believe I have it right this time. Please try again.
seattle citizen said…
Melissa, I don't want to sound paranoid, but can you assure us that a) this survey is CPPS's own, and not instigated by some other entity; and b) that the questions appear neutrally worded? That would help me get word out if I had your take on the nature of this survey.
sixwrens said…
So, I tried to take the survey and it said "sorry, you already did". Wha?! I
feel a little like my vote was stolen.
Unknown said…
I just had the same problem. I think it will be hard to argue that the survey is particularly useful if we can't get in on the first try. Then it will only be the rabid who keep trying whose votes count.
Chris S. said…
I think Melissa's link is telling them you are Melissa. Try this.


It's the link in the email I got to sign up for the mailing list. It should get you to their website and then you can register and/or find the survey.

And sea cit, it's very short, pretty unbiased, and there's space for comments.
Chris S. said…
OK, that only works if you're not on the mailing list already. On the other hand, if you are, you already got an invitation...
Here is the link to use:

Sorry for the confusion. It's a new tool we're using with some kinks to work out. Thanks everyone for participating!
Yes, this is just CPPS and yes, I feel the questions are neutrally phrased. As I said, I like the last one which is pretty much "is she an effective Superintendent for our district". I basically wanted a vote of confidence/no confidence and that's what this last question is.
Unknown said…
I went to the Facebook page:


The link to the survey was right at the top.
Maureen said…
Andrew, is there a limit to the comment length? When I filled it out, it said I was 934 characters over the limit (but it let me keep typing). Then when I submitted, it said I had already filled it out (that was following Mel's link). Fortunately for me, I copied it into Word before I submitted, but I'll wait for your answer before I try again (will have to refine my language, r nx vwls mbe?!)
Hippy Goodwife said…
I filled it out via Facebook. Wish I really thought it would do any good.

WV Bumut. yep, I am bumut over the actions of this Super.
Maureen -- sorry, there's a 500 character limit. Because we'll be forwarding to the Board a summary of hundreds of results (we already have almost 200 submissions), we need to keep things relatively simple so we can roll everything up into a format that they can affectively follow-up on. I'd recommend you fill out the survey with abbreviated comments and then also send your thoughts directly to the School Board members. Make sense? Thanks everyone for participating... I hope it will make a different as we will have lots of data to report. Hard to ignore the voices of hundreds of citizens from across the city.
Maureen said…
Thanks Andrew! I can get it down to 500 characters, I'll just substitute bullet points for eloquence!

You're already past 200 submission? That's great! The A4Ed "Their Schools Coalition" petition is slogging along at 60!
dan dempsey said…
Mini essay on confidence-----

Here is how a judicial review is supposed to be performed.

A judicial review
analysis requires the court to review the administrative record to determine the factors employed by the agency and the quality of its reasoning. The court must scrutinize the record to determine if the result was reached through a process of reason, not whether the result was itself reasonable in the judgment of the court.

Neah Bay Chamber of Commerce v. Department of Fisheries, 119 Wn.2d 464, 474-5, 832 P.2d 1310 (1992)

The court must scrutinize the record to determine if the result was reached through a process of reason,

There is precious little that the MGJ administration does that appears to be the result of any reasoned process.

The SPS is unable to produce an administrative record as required by law to show the Board decisions (which are appealed) are the result of reasoned processes.

How can any rational individual that uses reasoning have any confidence in Maria Goodloe-Johnson as the Seattle Superintendent?

#1.. tells Superior court to stuff it on the math decision .... She clearly does not understand judicial review process as used by Judge Spector...... or just wants to drag this out as long and expensively as possible.

#2.. creates separate and unequal schools.... (appeal continues)

#3.. closes Cooper School to solve an over capacity problem in Southern portion of West Seattle..... note Cooper school was not in the region with excess capacity .... just happened to be the building that Pathfinder wished to move into. Note the building closed was Genesse, which is also not in the area with the over capacity. (under appeal)

#4.. Superintendent submits a contract for approval on 2-3-10 for $800,000 that does not exist. Four Board members vote to approve non-existent contract. Appeal filed on March 5..... New introduction item of similar proposal but with actual contract on 3-17-10 .... Board approval on 4-7-10 .... last day to appeal this is 5-7-10. ..... This "Option" NTN STEM plan has zero to do with helping the educationally disadvantaged learners so poorly served in the SPS ... but will produce better scores at the Cleveland Building.

Try reading article IX of Wash. Constitution ..... for those with any reading comprehension...
confidence in this
Superintendent = ZERO

Closer to Racketeering than Confidence .... (unless of course we are talking about the phrase "Confidence Man")
SSDemp said…
Based on his numerous involvements in corporate agenda efforts (charters lectures, Raj's "Gang of 14", Don Neilsen's Superintendent Search,etc.) and without going too negative, why would I want to follow any link Andrew K. recommended?

I would'nt. Sorry.
Charlie Mas said…
An excellent question, SSDemp.

Let me point this out: The CACIEE Report by "Raj's gang of fourteen", as you call them, pretty much called for Raj's immediate replacement as superintendent. The whole first half of the report was a thorough description of how, exactly and in every facet of the work, Raj Manhas had utterly failed to do his job. In retrospect, I have come to believe it was that document that provided the impetus for his resignation.

Also, outside of comic books and other children's entertainments, there is no one who is all good or all bad. It is unreasonable to expect someone to be on the same side with you on every single one of the many controversial issues related to public education.

I'd be pretty reluctant to speak ill of anyone who was committed to improving public education, even if I thought them misguided. For what it's worth, I have had a number of discussions with Andrew and, while we have not always agreed, I do not find him misguided or cavalier or profit-motivated.
Charlie Mas said…
I completed the survey and, in the comments section, noted how poorly the Superintendent has been implementing the strategic plan.

Every initiative is either undone, overdue, gutted, short-cutted to the point that it loses its essence, rammed through without any consultation with the people impacted, or some combination of the above.
In response to SSDemp's claims, first of all thanks, Charlie, for backing me on unfounded claim #1. As for the others:
- "Charter lectures" - If you're talking about the Rob Stein piece, that is NOT a charter school -- it is fully public based on Colorado's "Innovations School" act. It is a great example of a public school district showing it can experiment with autonomous alternatives without going charter.
- "Don Neilsen's Superintendent Search" - I have zero idea what you are talking about; I have never been a part of anything even remotely close to that description.

But I appreciate that you weren't "going too negative." Judging by these claims, I'd hate to see what "negative" would have looked like!

If you've got an issue with me, feel free to email me at andrewk@cppsofseattle.org to discuss it. I'm a public school parent, active volunteer, and don't hide behind any aliases.
SSEmp, really? This is the lens you view everyone thru? I sure wish I could view the world in black and white terms. But the world is a lot more nuanced to me than that. I served on a Board committee to close schools. So am I suspect as well? I concur with Charlie that I don't always agree with others who work on public education issues but I give them credit for their efforts. The CAICEE committee really created a pretty good document which the district, per their usual, shelved and did nothing with.

But okay, we all have to have the place where we draw the line.
spedParent said…
The CAICEE did a great job, really? You mean the committee for excellence for some people... at the expense of others? Why do we think a bunch of volunteers and wealthy people would do such a great job, while we denigrate others like the Gates foundation? The Committee for Excellence for some completely threw special education to the wind, in fact recommended service cuts (and breaking the law) for students with disabilities. IN fact, they were the only ones to be axed in their grand scheme.. everyone else would do just great. Services until age 21... yes a big joke to them... let's cut it. Who cares about IDEA... right? Volunteers and Boeing executives aren't really what we need.
seattle said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
dan dempsey said…
I believe that OSPI handles IDEA complaints..... are they any good at that?

Looking at the current structure of Special Ed in the SPS under MGJ .... I suspect NO
spedParent said…
OSPI is not good at handling IDEA complaints. ANd, they never have punitive or compensatory relief. Their main finding is that everybody should go back to the drawing board and have another IEP meeting. Well, what good will that do? Really, OSPI is just a big, grown up SPS. But, at least they are free. Students seeking relief from IDEA violations are stuck with due process, which is expensive and risky.
The CACIEE Report is a public document that speaks for itself.

spedParent- I'm sure the report (and the months of associated work) was far from perfect. But unless you think you can fix the district on your own, I'd suggest you look for ways to work with other people. I don't think personal attacks against volunteers will get you far. Those "wealthy people" you essentially accused of evil -- we worked for almost a year, sometimes 10-20 hours a week (including evenings and weekends) -- all unpaid. We were selected because we had all succeeded in various industries (profit and non-profit) and the district leadership was in crisis when they were forced to pull the first poorly-designed school closure process. The help we gave them in areas like budgeting, leadership, community engagement, etc. were all areas where they were in great need of help. It was unfortunate they didn't accept more of our help. I'm sorry you were disappointed with that one section. I don't think any of us every claimed our report was error-free. I'm not going to assume you care only about Spec Ed students; maybe you shouldn't be so quick to assume anyone with proposals you don't like is immediately an enemy rather than a potential ally. When different constituents all point fingers at each other, it only weakens our ability to work together to improve the system.
Sahila said…
From the CACIEE Report: Prretty much first page...

"WHAT IT WILL TAKE (to turn around SPS)

It begins with leadership, including:
• More forceful direction from the Superintendent and greater unity and cohesion on the part of the School Board;
• Greater mission clarity and a more focused and concise strategic plan;
• An organizational culture-shift that values creativity, fosters adaptability, demands
accountability and rewards innovation, teamwork and risk-taking.

Well, from what I can see, the only thing that has been accomplished is the first recommendation -

We have a forceful Superintendent committed to taking this District down a path she's decided on and she's not letting anything as trivial as community disagreement and resistance get in her way; heck, she doesnt even listen to the community - her employers...

And we have a Board that is unified and cohesive in rubber stamping everything she presents for their approval, again deaf to the input of the community, its constituents...

I dont see any evidence of outcomes two and three having been achieved... in fact, quite the reverse...

So where does the CACIEE committee stand on the fact that its recommendations have not been adhered to?
SSDemp said…

There are a number of other issues that motivated my comment, including the superficial fiscal research which came out of the Gang of 14 report.

I was specific, included no one else (you are all very much valued at our house) and spoke only for myself.

I am sorry if I offended anyone with good intentions.

Again, its simply a personal trust issue.

Please don't mistake my comment as negative to anyone else or as a world view I hold.
Sahila said…
This is what happens when charter school proponents succeed on their mission - they get appointed to State Boards of Education, to have a direct impact on all public education...further cementing the covert influence of the Broad and Friedman Foundations:

What's interesting to me here is how no one has offered any input on their own view of how the Superintendent is doing. I'd be interested to hear about that.
Webster said…
I have gmail and was able to take the survey.
Webster said…
OSPI is not good at handling IDEA complaints. ANd, they never have punitive or compensatory relief. Their main finding is that everybody should go back to the drawing board and have another IEP meeting. Well, what good will that do? Really, OSPI is just a big, grown up SPS. But, at least they are free. Students seeking relief from IDEA violations are stuck with due process, which is expensive and risky.

This has been our experience.
Additionally, while we were hopeful as G-J has background in SPED that she would infuse accountability into this issue- that has not been the case and we have been forced to move into another district to get appropriate services.

Of course this has been encouraged by G-J, her attitude is " if you can find what you need somewhere else, go there".
Sahila said…
I did the survey and put my input there - I've said often enough here that I think she ought to be fired for incompetence and conflicts of interest...

She made the grade in 4 of her 20 performance indicators and got a bonus? Never seen that in any of the companies I've worked for... and she and her backers want merit pay for teachers based on outcomes over which they have little control, whereas she does get to control every aspect of her staff and resources available to do her job... sheer hypocrisy...
me said…
Great story about Seattle school on King5. Please post on blog:

Steve said…
I just took the survey for the *2nd* time, clicking on the link provided in the original post. If everyone can take the survey as many times as they like, the results won't have any validity. CPPS should have required at least names, email addresses or other identifier to only let you do the survey once. I fear the response to the results when they're available will be "Yeah, but someone could have filled the survey out 300 times..." Missed opportunity if so...
Unknown said…
Melissa, my comment started out with something like "The Superintendent has run roughshod over parents and community members..."

I suppose you can infer from that where the rankings went.

seattle said…
MGJ's big downfall, in my opinion, is her lack of communication with, and her dissmisive attitude toward the families of this district. She is unwilling or unable to engage them and that is truly a tragedy.
Charlie Mas said…
Oooh! I just took the survey again.

This time I left a different set of comments. I hope my distinctive prose style doesn't give me away.
The survey tool is set to allow each person only one vote but obviously the mechanisms are imperfect. I hope it's not possible to vote 300 times and I hope people have better things to do with their time and are more honest in this matter given what's involved. That said, this is not a scientific survey and we were never planning on claiming it as such, but we do have enough different entries (with names and emails) that I am still confident there will be good data to come from it. Thx.
seattle said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
Central Mom said…
Back to the superintendent--every organization in crisis needs a change agent. She was it.

The immediate crisis of fiscal bookkeeping disaster and inept employees downtown and mobs of angry citizens threatening physical harm during board meetings is largely over. And the plan to cut transportation and make neighborhood schools a default is in place.

We are now entering an era that calls for finesse. Finesse at refining problems with the enrollment plan. With negotiating with unions. With listening to parents. With bargaining with state legislature. With inspiring teachers and administrators.

I have never thought MGJ's personality was a good fit for Seattle, but her style served a certain purpose over the last three years.

Neither her style, nor her skill set, are a match for the next 3 years. Both she and we will be better for parting. Soon.
spedParent said…
I for one, am glad SPS never did anything with Committee for Selective Excellence's report. Pretty unrealistic to expect it, in any case.

People were selected for the Committtee... because there was so much whining and complaining about Raj's closure plan... that he felt he needed to assuage the community who didn't want it. The lauded plan certainly didn't avert any crisis. And schools were still closed in the end.... after everyone got used to the idea.

No Andrew, the Committee for Selective Excellence did not take input. Why did the committee assume special ed was the big budget buster... and then have no expert for that issue as a member? Many, many parents tried to talk to Sherry Carr about the needs of special education, what the requirements were, how to optimize delivery. But no, the basic issues didn't really get through to her. Neither did it get through to the big budget experts, who had no idea on how special education funds are spent, where they come from, what the law requires, or even information on current court cases. They were all basically ignorant of the simple fact... special education students are general education students first.

SOOOO the big idea for saving money, let's just cut special ed services. And... oh yeah, lets save some money on the bus. Great work. The document does stand on it's own... and we don't need it.

We don't need more volunteers offering expertise they don't really have. I just find it odd, that people who loved the last bunch of volunteers and wealthy citizens... dislike so vehemently the current group of wealthy volunteers: Gates and Broad. What gives?

By the way, I don't think volunteers, wealthy are not are evil as you suggest... I'm sure they're all well intentioned.
Beth Bakeman said…
I've deleted a string of comments around identifying bloggers by name. Everyone on this blog gets to post as they wish.
Beth Bakeman said…
I've now turned on comment moderation. No comments will be posted until I've reviewed them.

I hate that I have to do that.
SIDominic said…
I just took the survey and I was wondering when its going to be collated and presented?

Are you going to release it through the media? Or just to the Board?
I didn't like all the CAICEE report either. But they had some good suggestions that should have been followed thru and were not.

The only time the district followed thru on a report, in my memory, was the Moss Adams report and that was paid for and they were expected to do so. That said, they didn't do everything there either.
Charlie Mas said…
The District's dysfunctional culture has a very special way that it treats reports, plans, audits, and reviews by experts, blue ribbon committees, or appointed panels. For some inexplicable reason, once the report is delivered, the District considers the problem solved.

The District leadership can't seem distinguish between talk and action. They seem to think that once they have discussed a problem, the problem is solved. They don't seem to understand that it takes action - real work in the physical sense - to solve problems. That's why they mark work as done after the discussion determines the solution instead of waiting for the solution to be actually implemented.

This is also why they don't bother to assess the effectiveness of their work. Since they are exclusively focused on the theoretical solution, and since in theory all solutions are perfect, there's no point to reviewing or feedback.

I'm not sure that I'm explaining this right, but this is also related to why the District leadership believes in statistics instead of reality. They are disconnected from reality and live in a universe of concepts and statistics.

So they announce the curricular alignment initiative and then declare that the curricula are aligned. They announce the Southeast Initiative and then declare it a success. They announce that students with IEPs will be served in general education classrooms and declare it done.

Once the issue is decided and off their desks, they regard it as complete. Weird, huh?
ParentofThree said…
I totally agree Charley, they check things off and see them as complete and successful. I have been wondering for a long time now how much we saved in closing schools, changing bus times, cutting food services - all should have added up to millions and a leaner budget - but yet we are still in the hole even though there are less schools to operate, less busses to run, less food staff and a few more students who are cash positive to the district.

If we had saved all that money as advertised, shouldn't the budget be almost balanced, versus $6 mill in the red? Of course some blame needs to be passsed on to the fault of the board to not get this information.

Simple question:

What were transporation costs for the 2008/09 school year and what are transporation costs for the 2009/2010 school year?
Megan Mc said…
I think mom of three has the right idea. I plan on writing to the directors requesting that they ask the superintendent for these numbers as part of her evaluation. If we did not save as advertised than she should lose her job, or at a minimum, fire Mr. Kennedy and the whole cfo staff. Everyone Accountable remember?
gavroche said…
ParentofThree said...

I totally agree Charley, they check things off and see them as complete and successful. I have been wondering for a long time now how much we saved in closing schools, changing bus times, cutting food services -

Excellent questions.

Here's another example of that: in her Capacity Management Plan of 2008/09, the Supt. claimed that $3 million/year would be saved by closing 5 schools.

But only a few months later she announced the District needed to REOPEN 5 schools -- at a cost of $48 million.

So where's the savings in that?

One of the schools that will be reopened, by the way, is Viewlands, which was closed by the District just a few years ago, in 2006 (over much community dissent: http://www.westseattleherald.com/2007/05/15/news/viewlands-elementary-near-closure). While closed, the school fell victim to vandalism and its copper wiring was torn out. Now the District has to pay to replace that and to reopen the school -- all of which would have been unnecessary if it had listened to the community, paid attention to demographics and kept the school open.

In the end, there seems to be an awful lot of waste associated with these shortsighted closures/reopenings, and heavy costs associated with bringing a shuttered or mothballed building back online.

And then of course there is the whole issue of central office bloat in the John Stanford HQ. Has the school district made any kind of meaningful cuts there? Isn't Supt. Goodloe-Johnson asking for two more $90,000/year "Broad Residents," and aren't there still 110 "teaching coaches" on staff at a cost of $100,000 each?

Meanwhile there is talk of possibly more RIFs of teachers?!

I say can the coaches, keep the teachers -- hire more, in fact, since they are opening 5 more schools, and we all voted for smaller class sizes.

Which brings us back to the original topic, the Supt's evaluation.

I really cannot think of a single thing she has done that has led to "excellence."
Anonymous said…
Because it will be our board members who will evaluate the supe, I would also recommend that everyone who completes this survey also contact their board members and provide them with the same comments.

I know that Kay Smith-Blum, my district's director, is wanting as much input as possible.

A simple survey will help but actual e-mails, letters and phone calls to the board directors are still far more effective.
Michael said…
My comments were that I think the superintendent is corrupt. No more, no less.
That's a tough word, Michael. So how is she corrupt?
dan dempsey said…
Is it corrupt to be almost completely under the direction of the Billionaires' Club? I guess that is a question that needs to be applied to the entire sorry current Seattle Process ... and include SB 6696 also.
dan dempsey said…
Corrupt ??? or Inept?

Her school system is unable to comply with RCW 28A.645.020 ... not equipped to follow the law, and has no interest in doing so.
{See pages 3 and 4)

Closes schools in a manner that is out of legal compliance.

Ditto for Student Assignment Plan.

2-3-10 as Board Secretary has Board approve the NTN contract that is NOT there.

I might believe inept except for the Eli Broad game plan and how all of the above favor that game plan.

Check out that legal appeal of the Spector decision ... Charlie wrote this:
None of the reasons given for the District's appeal of Judge Spector's decision strike me as credible, let alone legitimate.

First, the suggestion that the Court's decision was not confined to a review of the record that led up to the Board's vote to adopt these materials. That's somewhat true. The Court included a review of the public input, which the District claims, in court, were not part of the material considered while claiming, in public meetings, were part of the material considered. This duplicity is sickening.

Second, the District bases its appeal on the contention that the Court disregarded a yearlong instructional materials process that the School District followed prior to making its decision. Two points: One, the Court wasn't reviewing the whole process, just the Board's decision. Two, the Court clearly did not disregard the process because the Court made reference to the process and the process was discussed in Court.

Third, that the Court substituted its judgment for that of the School Board. This is particularly absurd because the Court didn't make a decision on the books. The Court remanded the decision back to the Board. The Court directed the Board to make a decision - only to make it properly this time instead of making it in the arbitrary and capricious manner it used the first time.

This appeal of the judge's decision is completely without merit. The best solution would be for the Board to simply do as the Court ordered and re-do the decision.

I notice that the Board doesn't appear to be having any trouble re-doing the NTN contract decision.

March 29, 2010 7:28 PM

Drags out appeal processes with the help of three superior court judges.

It will be interesting to get the Supreme Court's take on this.

I really would like a better explanation from OSPI on several items that directly or indirectly favored Seattle Superintendent's position..... Starting with Greta Bornemann's 10 minutes on "pick any math text you like because anything might work" delivered right before the Board vote for the "unsound" arbitrary and capricious vote for the "unsound" Discovering.

Seattle has k-12 math texts completely unaligned with State math standards and yet district will receive $2 million to make things better .... based on Bold Disruption Note: Not even mentioned that math is a huge reason the schools are in a failing condition. Nor is a change in Seattle's approach to math even hinted at .... sure to make the microsoft math/Science initiative folks happy as they provided much of the pointless direction Seattle math still follows.
Anonymous said…
Dora, one piece of data that might be of interest to the School Board members, including Kay Smith-Blum, is this May 2009 survey taken in Charleston. It found that Maria Goodloe-Johnson is seen as a much less effective leader than her replacement:


"73% of the 817 Charleston Teacher Alliance members surveyed believe McGinley is an effective leader, compared to just 48% who said the same about former Superintendent Maria Goodloe-Johnson."
Unknown said…

I stumbled upon this illuminating document while researching the influence of the Broad Foundation on our public schools. I think this is particularly relevant to struggling families with children in special education. Much has been said about the secretive way the Board has handled the Superintendent's performance evaluations. It is well known that MGJ is a graduate of the Broad Superintendent's Academy. So imagine my chagrin when I review the Foundation's guidelines for evaluating the performance of a school superintendent. Note the evaluative criteria at the bottom of page 48 in the linked pdf.

"Works closely with Education Team to ensure that students receive appropriate referrals for additional services. Supports Ed Services team to put programs in place to ensure that Special Ed, ELL, and Read 180 students are held to rigorous academic expectations and receive the support necessary to reach their full potential. Works closely with Education Team and Ed Services staff to ensure that the unique needs of every student are met. Implements processes to track the impact of services and programs on student behavior and achievement."

Now, I disagree with the majority of the Broad Foundation's goals (for-profit privatization of public ed), but on this point I wholeheartedly concur. If the Board grades MGJ on a range of 1 to 4, (Unacceptable to Exceeds Expectations respectively), she merits an epic FAIL. Special-needs children are denied critical services everyday in this district. I urge you to write to the School Board and tell them that, as our elected officials, they will be held accountable for arrogant leadership that Needs Improvement!

Popular posts from this blog

Tuesday Open Thread

Seattle Public Schools and Their Principals

COVID Issues Heating up for Seattle Public Schools