Disqus

Thursday, June 17, 2010

KUOW Story on Superintendent

I missed the report from KUOW reporter, Phyllis Fletcher, so I looked it up. Guess what? The Superintendent has this to say:

Goodloe–Johnson: "They don't really get the opportunity to see the humane person that I am as it relates to children, and that I've committed my life to this work. And I don't think they get to see that, which I'm gonna work on, because they don't really know me. They know the Superintendent, the CEO of a business. And our business is about children. But they really don't know me as a person and as a mom."

So much can be said about these comments. I always get scared when I hear that education is a business but now Dr. G-J says children are her business. Great. And frankly, I don't want to know her as a person or a mom. I don't need to know the School Board that way to know if they are doing their jobs and I don't need that from her.

And she wants to be thought of as "humane". So now we know one personal thing about her - she's funny because if she thinks what she has done in our district in her tenure here is "humane" then she needs to look up the definition.

She also said this:

Goodloe–Johnson admits the special ed rollout hit some bumps. And that it's personal for parents whose kids are in special ed.

Really? She's used the argument before - in public, repeatedly - that she can't really listen to parents because school issues are too personal to them. And now, she gets it?

This "reinventing of Maria" (otherwise known as How Do You Solve a Problem Like Maria?) should be very entertaining.

I should note as well that Dr. Goodloe-Johnson had two Superintendent's reports. One, was congratulations to the 2010 graduates. It was so pro-forma and rushed (go listen to the tape), I have to wonder why she bothered. Because the second one, dear to her heart, was that South Shore has no real organic problems and so they are still going to rip out all the carpet and redo all the flooring. No mention of the cost of course because we are rolling in money.

10 comments:

Kirsten Wild said...

Where can I find the report you mention at the end of your post re. South Shore? You note that it was said "there is no real organic problem..."; this is contrary to the toxicologist report on the SPS website.

ParentofThree said...

I heard it as the tox report concluded that the off gassing did not cause any lasting injury.(which is great news for those exposed)

But yes, there was off gassing caused by the carpet/cement (read: rushed work) and it is all getting pulled, and the cement resealed.

And yes, you could see the white elephant in the room with big dollar signs on its ears and NO not one board member followed up with the $64,000 question, How much?

Was pretty unbelievable.

Melissa Westbrook said...

The Superintendent said that and I assume she got it from the latest report which should be online. If it doesn't say that, then she may have misspoken but I have it recorded in my notes that way.

Kirsten Wild said...

I understand the same thing as "ParentofThree" re. the VOCs. Even the folks doing the toxicology testing felt the effects when they were in the building, but supposedly there should be no long-term effects on people exposed. l'm surprised there was no follow-up question to the money issue, but I'm fairly certain that ultimately the $ for repairs will come from the GC or subcontractors, not from the district; the board members may be more in-the-know about lawsuit status (or statuses) and may therefore not feel the need to ask.

ARB said...

Well, as a parent of a special needs kiddo, it certainly is "personal" when the school district disregards it's own audit, botches a chance to make needed improvements, and limits educational options for these children. Keep in mind, that my "personal" feelings that my child should be appropriately educated are supported by a strong federal law-- the IDEA -- which says the same thing. I know that spec ed does not affect most of the posters on this board, but we should all keep an eye on how the district treats its most vulnerable students ...

Charlie Mas said...

It's not about her personality. It's about her job performance.

Jet City mom said...

Re: South Shore- shouldn't insurance coverage- for SPS/contractor cover this sort of thing?

Re: SPED- the IEP comes first- it is an Individual Education Plan- not put the money from IDEA into the schools general budget and assume the IEP is being met.

In 1988, the Idaho Supreme Court found that the Boise school system had not offered or provided a free, appropriate education (FAPE) because they did not develop an IEP that was "sufficient." The IEP was not "sufficient" because it did not specify the criteria and evaluation procedures that would be used to determine whether the IEP goals were being met.

The Idaho Court noted that:
Above all else, Congress recognized that handicapped children are unique and that placement decisions must be made on an individual basis, by a multidisciplinary team, according to a variety of criteria . . . The importance of the IEP cannot be understated. It is the decision making document. Thornock v. Boise Independent School District #1, ___ Idaho Sup. Ct. ___, 767 P. 2d 1241, 1987-1988 EHLR DEC. 559:486 (1988).


The Court found that the two IEPs proposed by the school district were not sufficient because they did not include. . . goals, objectives and appropriate objective criteria and evaluation procedures and schedules for determining, on at least an annual basis, whether 'instructional objectives are being achieved' as required by 20 U.S.C. Sec. 1401(19) . . . Because of the flaws in Gabriel's IEPs, the districts' failure to acknowledge the deficiencies of the IEPs it promulgated . . . we affirm the decision of the district court.

Without a valid IEP, there can be no FAPE, see 20 U. S. C. Sec. 1401 (18), and therefore 34 C. F. R. Sec. 300.403(a) indicates that (private school tuition) reimbursement is appropriate.

gavroche said...

"They know the Superintendent, the CEO of a business." -- M Goodloe-Johnson

That kind of corporatist mentality is straight out of the Broad Foundation playbook. Broad board member Goodloe-Johnson is revealing her true agenda here. And it has nothing to do with the will of Seattle's public school parents and community.

The fact is, she is NOT a CEO of a business -- if she were, she'd be fired by now for gross mismanagement.

Our school district is NOT a business. The purpose of a business is to make a profit. The purpose of a school district is to educate children. These are NOT the same objective.

Not every worthwhile goal in life pays off financially. Arguably, the most valuable ones do not.

This is the whole problem with the Broad/Gates/Duncan/reformist approach to public education.

They look at our schools and they see a business opportunity.

We parents look at our schools and we see children.

I have absolutely had it with this School Board.

spedParent said...

Big deal Emerald Kity.

The Court found that the two IEPs proposed by the school district were not sufficient because they did not include. . . goals, objectives and appropriate objective criteria and evaluation procedures and schedules for determining, on at least an annual basis, whether 'instructional objectives are being achieved' as

blah, blah, blah

So now it's about writing IEPs correctly? Even if they do write some goals, with some objective criteria, and with some schedules... it won't mean much. You know, it's NOT about the IEP. The district, like most districts, has learned to write a lot of stuff on paper. It has learned to be pretty competent on the technicalities of the law. So, it will be hard to make a case against them because they will write a lot of fluffy goals on IEPs, write in support minutes that can't possibly do much for the student, and have a few meaningless criteria.

Melissa Westbrook said...

I can't tell you how many times it seems like a contractor would be paying for something wrong at a new building and yet somehow the district does. And no, it doesn't usually come out of insurance.

Also, Dr. Goodloe-Johnson spoke at the Roosevelt Graduation last night. It was the most pro forma speech ever. She listed (staff must have handed her a list of RHS accomplishments) and she read it off. And Good luck. That's it. Nothing inspirational or personal. Nothing. Norm Rice, on the other hand, was fantastic.

One kind of funny thing (which was verified to me by another parent seated elsewhere in the stadium) was that when she was introduced, there was mild applause and a low rumble. Earlier my husband had kidded me that we should boo (we didn't) but yup, that rumble was people booing. She was introduced twice (once to explain who was on the dias) and once for her speech. Both times, low boos. This was at the very nice and very polite Roosevelt.

Yes, it's all in our heads.