The Stranger and Save Seattle Schools Invite You to a Debate
I wish I could say it better but I can't (so I won't) - so take it away The Stranger:
Neither are we, but we must. After a three-year run of controversies—ranging from school closures to a $1.8 million alleged fraud scandal that ended in the superintendent’s termination—a majority of the Seattle School Board is up for reelection this fall. A sweep by four serious challengers in the general election would tip the troubled district’s balance of power.
But do these Cliff Mass-endorsed hopefuls have the skills to run the school district?
All four incumbents and all four challengers will debate at Town Hall on September 28 at 7:30 p.m. in an event sponsored by The Stranger.
KIRO’s Dave Ross will moderate, with help from panelists: Lauren McGuire (president of the Seattle PTSA) and Melissa Westbrook (author of the blog Save Seattle Schools, which is also a co-sponsor).
Tickets are free; go online to guarantee your seat here. The event's upstairs at Town Hall Seattle (8th Ave and Seneca Street) on September 28 from 7:30 to 9:00 p.m.
What can I say? This event will have a little of everything including an actual debate setting where candidates can riff off their opposition's statements.
Mark your calendars and be there or be square.
Ready to dive into the slightly-byzantine, totally-enraged politics of the Seattle School District?
Neither are we, but we must. After a three-year run of controversies—ranging from school closures to a $1.8 million alleged fraud scandal that ended in the superintendent’s termination—a majority of the Seattle School Board is up for reelection this fall. A sweep by four serious challengers in the general election would tip the troubled district’s balance of power.
But do these Cliff Mass-endorsed hopefuls have the skills to run the school district?
All four incumbents and all four challengers will debate at Town Hall on September 28 at 7:30 p.m. in an event sponsored by The Stranger.
- Lightning rounds with all eight contenders? YES!
- Four sets of one-on-one mini-debates? YES!
- Vote via text after every round for the winner of each match?
Peter Maier (incumbent) vs. Sharon Peaslee
Sherry Carr (incumbent) vs. Kate Martin
Harium Martin-Morris (incumbent) vs. Michelle Buetow
Steve Sundquist (incumbent) vs. Marty McLaren
Sherry Carr (incumbent) vs. Kate Martin
Harium Martin-Morris (incumbent) vs. Michelle Buetow
Steve Sundquist (incumbent) vs. Marty McLaren
KIRO’s Dave Ross will moderate, with help from panelists: Lauren McGuire (president of the Seattle PTSA) and Melissa Westbrook (author of the blog Save Seattle Schools, which is also a co-sponsor).
Tickets are free; go online to guarantee your seat here. The event's upstairs at Town Hall Seattle (8th Ave and Seneca Street) on September 28 from 7:30 to 9:00 p.m.
What can I say? This event will have a little of everything including an actual debate setting where candidates can riff off their opposition's statements.
Mark your calendars and be there or be square.
Comments
Jewish SPS Parent
The 28 year old teachers I work with can go out at 7:00 p.m. on a Wed. or Thurs. night - many of the rest of us old fogies (foggies?) have collapsed!
This sounds FUN!
OldBrokenDown
Today's New York Times printed a letter about Common Core standards and teacher evaluation. This letter has one of the Times' "invitations to dialogue": Letters about this subject will be in next Sunday paper Review.
Here's the letter and invite to respond:
Back to School (image of teacher with LARGE apple on back, sweating...)
As we start a new school year with high hopes and excitement, it will be interesting to watch how several controversial education reforms play out across the nation.
The Common Core State Standards, adopted by all but a handful of states in the last year or so, provide specific guidelines about what should be taught in each grade. Although this approach has been criticized for usurping local control of education, that objection is far outweighed by the benefits of better preparing students for college.
The “value added” model, promoted by the federal Race to the Top program and now used by school systems in the District of Columbia and other major cities, evaluates teachers based largely on student progress as measured by standardized tests. Test scores alone are unreliable, but used as one of multiple measures, they can provide useful information.
As teacher unions have weakened, seniority is no longer the sole basis for layoffs in many districts. In California, a Superior Court earlier this year ruled that layoffs in the Los Angeles school system should be spread out more equitably. Although the intent is admirable, the ruling opens the door to favoritism by principals.
Teachers don’t choose a career in the classroom for money, power or fame. What they want more than anything else is to make a difference in the lives of their students. They don’t always succeed, but they deserve more than the unrelenting criticism they’ve endured since the accountability movement began.
WALT GARDNER
Los Angeles, Aug. 30, 2011
The writer is a former teacher whose Reality Check blog is published in Education Week.
Editors’ Note: We invite readers to respond to this letter for our Sunday Dialogue. We plan to publish responses and Mr. Gardner’s rejoinder in the Sunday Review. E-mail: letters@nytimes.com
Deeplu embarrassed white people talk awkwrdly about race. Given our recent discussions about MSP/HSPE scores, I thought it releveant and interesting.
They basically dismiss the challengers, even though it's a NEWS article and not an editorial, but hey...it's the Times.
The most egregious is their slam of Kate Martin, telling only a small part of the story about her experience with a teacher at Roosevelt, as if that sums up her campaign...Bah.
Actually, from what I've read, this very diverse group of opponents has one central point of agreement on school board governance, which can be characterized in several ways:
Where's the spine?
Where's your mind?
Who elected you (not who paid for your campaign)?
Just becuase the Stranger cites Cliff Mass as an endorser in no way makes these candidates a one- issue block.
--read their websites, if you don't believe me
This is what we're reduced to: a choice between out of touch and often incompetent incumbents OR out of touch Where's The Math zealots. I mourn for our district.
Hey anonymous, I agree with you completely on the "Where's the Math Zealots". But look! Really only 1 candidate is a "Where's the Math Zealot": Marty McClaren. (as far as I know, maybe others can correct) You don't have to vote for her. That crosses off one "out of touch" from your choices.
-different anon
Please, get to know these candidates. Or don't bother voting.
No confidence in Bellevue Superintendent
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2015801694_schoolboard03m.html
We had an article in our neighborhood paper about local school board members. It glossed over some big issues.
curious
---------------------------
It’s wonderful this forum is happening, thank you to the organizers.
That said, the comments above about “print-at-home tickets” are not just misleading, but outright false. There are no printable “tickets” at all. You go through the entire order process, just as if you were going to purchase something with a credit card, including requirements of entering name, address, etc. but at the end it gives you numeric code and you need to show identification to get in. This is burdensome, and probably will be an outright barrier for some people who might otherwise attend. Certainly anyone not fluent in English and/or online reservation systems is not going to deal with this.
If we’re having a public forum to meet and learn about school board directors and candidates, this should be an open venue, first-come first-served. If they run out of seats, well, you should have gotten there earlier. That’s only fair, and the candidate forums I attended 4 years ago were easily accessible to all.
So nice to hear from you. Your presence here affords us all the opportunity to learn more about how this article was written in the first place.
You wrote: "Now, four years later, the activists are back"
Which activists are back? Sally Soriano? Darlene Flynn? Brita Butler-Wall? Which ones are back? Or are you suggesting that the current Board members are not activists? What does that make them? Inactivists? Is this not an attempt to claim a link between the challengers in the school board elections with the Board members elected in 2003? Is there any such link in reality?
You wrote: "Nearly all of the 11 challengers indict the four incumbents up for re-election for being too sober" Really? Which of the challengers said that? Which of them said "Sherry Carr is just too sober"? What does that even mean - "too sober"? I think you invented this. I don't think any of the challengers said it, let alone nealy all of them. I think it is an effort on your part to make them appear ridiculous.
You wrote about the incumbents: "They say they reacted decisively" but you don't note the nine month delay between the audit report (that you say was the cause of the superintendent's downfall) and their dismissal of the superintendent.
You wrote: "Several challengers verge on being single-issue activists, with several campaigns based on the district's math curriculum." Is that how they describe themselves or is that how you describe them? Why is it that the incumbents get to describe themselves - without any critique from you - but the challengers are described by you (as a group) without the opportunity to describe themselves? Do you not detect any bias in that?
You wrote: "The board is in the process of adding two new internal auditors" but neglected to note that the district has gone seven months without an internal auditor. There was no particular urgency to get the position filled.
You quoted Mr. Maier as saying that he "had learned his lesson" without comment, question, or evidence. But you felt it necessary to make Ms Peaslee and Mr. Cummings appear to be single-issue candidates and, in Mr. Cummings' case, you tried to make him appear incompetent. Do you not detect any bias in that? The only one of the three who had demonstrated any incompetence is Mr. Maier.
continued...
You don't question Mr. Sundquist's claim that the current board inherited a mess. You spin data to make his mistake - voting to close schools that have to be almost immediately re-opened - seem reasonable. You don't question or critically consider the validity of his claim that the board worked hard on the new student assignment plan or the teacher contract.
While you write about Joy Anderson and Marty McLaren's views and their efforts to influence district decisions, all you write about Mr. Esparza is that he "has worked in food services in Yakima restaurants and briefly in Seattle schools, was rated 'not qualified' by the Municipal League of King County." Is that fair to Mr. Esparza? Does that help to inform the voters on his positions on the issues? If that isn't your goal, then what is?
Sherry Carr not only gets to describe herself, she also gets to speak about her opponent, Ms Martin.
Your only note about Kate Martin is to say that she had to be removed from Roosevelt High School by the police one time. You don't mention that she proved right and that her effort proved effective. Ms Martin does not get to speak for herself.
You don't write about Mr. Weber's perspective on district issues, only that he "was under supervision by the Department of Corrections in the early-1990s for an out-of-state check-fraud charge. He was rated 'not qualified' by the Municipal League of King County" How does this inform the voters on his position? What did Mr. Weber say about this? Where is his opportunity to speak on his behalf?
This article, Mr. Martin, was a grotesquely biased hit piece and you need to answer for it.
The four incumbents represent the ruling majority of the current board. While they may have inherited problems, they also created several big ones. All were major supporters of the past superintendent and kept giving her raises and rave evaluations right up to the point where they fired her and threw her under the (school) bus.
I see no proven connection between past board "activists" and the current crop of citizen challengers. I also have not seen any major focus on math from any of the challenger campaigns.
And nobody has ever accused the four failed incumbents of being "too sober." A more accurate criticism would be to call them lazy, rubber-stamping head-nodders who don't have the ability to ask hard questions or stand up to the District administration.
--J.R.
It's funny, when I clicked on the article the other day (when it showed up as just posted) -- my immediate impression was that it was, in fact, the same article I had seen and read earlier. I hurriedly closed the browser, because I didn't care to exposed again to such a horrible, unfair excuse for a piece of journalism. Really, the Blethens and the senior editors at the ST ought to be cringing, to have their staff this sort of stuff as newsworthy -- particularly right before the primary.
I'd love to see good researched reporting from the Times, but I guess that's too much to ask for.
1. I've been married 4 times to 3 different women.
2. I once drove a car at 150 MPH on a public road at 3 AM.
3. I am a recovering alcholic.
4. I've had 15 children in eight different states.
5. I once walked into a casino in Las Vegas and put $10,000 down on red, and won.
Some or all of each of these statements is true. Answers below.
1. True.
2. Partly true. It actually was at 3 PM in Neveda.
3. True.
4. False, but I've been in at least 8 different states.
5. Partly true. I lost.
I hope this clears up the confusion.