Don't Hold Your Breath II

On January 11, I wrote this blog post called Don't Hold Your Breath about my doubts that the district staff would follow up on commitments to make corrections to the school reports. The blog post also expressed my dismay at a Board that appears completely unfamiliar with the whole idea of following up. They actually accepted promises of future action from a staff person that they knew was leaving the District. Incredible.

It has now been over three months since the changes were promised (and promised promptly), yet we still have not seen any of the promised action.

I wrote to a couple of Board members asking about it. One of them forwarded my concern to the superintendent. She wrote back on Thursday the 17th that the changes would be made on Friday, March 18. The changes were not made. I wrote back to the Board member to make her aware of that fact.

No response.

This sort of stuff does not restore public trust in the District.

I recognize that this sort of thing may appear petty, but this is the stuff that determines the level of trust in the District. Do they tell the truth? Do they get their numbers right? Do they keep their commitments? Do they follow through as promised?

Comments

Melissa Westbrook said…
No, it's not petty. If something is said at a public meeting, then they should keep the promise/commitment they state. If not, then okay, why not and when they will follow-thru.

I'm sure the Board is very frustrated but to Charlie's point, what is the truth about trust in this district. It kind of throws Reagan's "trust but verify" into "verify before you trust."
3/23/11, 12:07 PM
Charlie Mas said…
Director Smith-Blum suggested to me that the Colorado Growth Model is dead. The delay in updating the school report has been a consequence of trying to find a more meaningful measure.

Of course that doesn't excuse the delay in updating the Advanced Learner numbers nor does it excuse the silence. They need to acknowledge that it is taking longer than they led people to believe it would take.
3/23/11, 9:23 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Tuesday Open Thread

The speaker list is up for the Board meeting tomorrow; not as packed as I thought with just four people on the waitlist. The majority of the speakers are speaking on high school boundaries (with several wanting to talk about Ballard High). There are only three of us speaking about the Green Dot resolution asking the City to not grant the zoning departures that Green Dot has requested.  It's me, long-time watchdog, Chris Jackins, and the head of the Washington State Charter Schools Association, Patrick D'Amelio.  (I knew Mr. D'Amelio when he headed the Alliance for Education and Big Brothers and Big Sisters; he's a stand-up guy.)
Read more

Breaking It Down: Where the District Might Close Schools

Update 2: an absolutely fabulous interactive map made by parent Beth Day (@thebethocracy on Twitter - she covers Board meetings and is fun to read).   end of update    Update 1: Mea culpa, I did indeed get Decatur and Thornton Creek mixed up. Thanks to all for the correction. end of update   I suspect some who read this post will be irate. Why do this? Because the district seems very hellbent on this effort with no oversight skid marks from the Board.    To clearly state - I do not believe that closing 20 schools is a good idea. I think they hit on 20 because they thought it might bring in the most savings. But the jury is still out on the savings because the district has not shown its work nor its data. I suspect closing schools and THEN leasing/renting them is the big plan but that means the district really has to keep the buildings up.   But this district, with its happy talk about "well-resourced schools" is NOT acknowledging the pain and yes, grief, that is to come fro
Read more

MEETING CANCELED - Hey Kids, A Meeting with Three(!) Seattle Schools Board Directors

 Update 2: So I have seen a message from President Liza Rankin on why she, Director Evan Briggs, and Director Michelle Sarju backed out of this meeting.  In a nutshell: - She says there was no organization to the meeting which is just not true. They had a moderator lined up and naturally the board members could have set parameters for what to discuss, length of meeting, etc. All that was fleshed out. - She also claimed that if the meeting was PTA sponsored, they needed to have liability insurance to use the school space. Hello? PTAs use school space all the time and know they have to have this insurance.  - She seems to be worried about the Open Public Meetings law. Look, if she has a meeting in a school building on a non-personnel topic, it should be an open meeting. It appears that Rankin is trying, over and over, to narrow the window of access that parents have to Board members. She even says in her message - "...with decisions made in public." Hmmm - She also says that th
Read more