Revisionist History at Work

Students Need Stable District Leadership is an article at the website, District Administration, about Dr. Goodloe-Johnson.  It was written by Tom Payzant, a professor "of practice" at Harvard's Graduate School of Education and the former head of Boston Public Schools and he is apparently someone who likes to talk about things he isn't well-versed in or he just likes to leave things out.
To wit, his article where he basically says the Seattle School Board did everything wrong.  Let's see:

• He gives some stats about student achievement that I find hard to believe because if true, she would have shouted it from the rooftops.  Seattle students not only improved in reading and math at nearly every school level...  I won't reprint it all here but it starts after the break in the article for the ad for District Administration Daily.  I find it mystifying unless you look at it from doing better than other districts in the state and other urban districts. 

• you cannot get significantly better student results without making significant changes in organizational direction.  No, and you can't get better results unless teacher support you.

•  The onus, is of course on the superintendent to communicate their rationale for charting a specific course so that the community, the staff and the board can independently judge the logic behind particular goals and strategies and evaluate progress.  Yes, and she didn't do this in spades (see the Seattle Channel forum if you don't believe it).

• However, in the end, the Seattle school board unfortunately succumbed to pressure from constituents opposed to reforms, publicly resting its decision to ask Dr. Goodloe-Johnson to leave on the fact that a mid-level staffer had committed what was clearly fraud. That employee resigned, as did their direct supervisor, and Dr. Goodloe-Johnson took immediate measures to correct the situation. The question for school board members nationwide is whether a circumstance like this warrants removing a superintendent that stands out nationally for raising student achievement far faster and higher than other big city districts.   It seems to me the Board didn't even give itself time to be pressured. Mr. Payzant is woefully ignorant of all of her shortcomings to our district.  

Which brings us to Lynne Varner at the Times who writes "In defense of Maria Goodloe-Johnson."  Okay, Lynne, what say you?

She points out Professor Payzant's point about firing MGJ too soon but then says:

(Payzant doesn't mention the superintendent's obvious failings as a communicator or a leader presiding over an environment of lax oversight and bureacratic inertia.) 

But again we get this "she was doing great with student achievement" stuff.  Did we all miss something?  He is saying, in rather tortured detail, "that the degree to which Seattle rose above performance levels statistically expected of it given its high poverty levels, under Dr. Goodloe-Johnson’s leadership, the district bested other large urban districts nationwide."

Lynne says the comparisons may be pointless.  A child learning to read or count doesn't care about the foot race as much as the adults.

She also admits this Payzant piece was forwarded to her by someone at the Broad Foundation (still trying to prop her up, guys?).  

No one is saying that everything Dr. Goodloe-Johnson did was wrong or wasn't towards better student achievement.  Oh but her methods, the costs, her attitude and her hubris are what ultimately undid her and her legacy.