The Stranger Endorses BUETOW; Rescinds Endorsement of Martin-Morris

I can't reprint all of what The Stranger says (this is a respectable joint) but basically, they say they got it wrong.

It seems that they cannot take Martin-Morris' leadership on rewriting the policies around student newspapers.  (Not surprising from a newspaper.)  From The Slog:

He insists that the district currently doesn’t have rules prohibiting students from libel and defamation—but he’s wrong. The district already has rules in place, rules that place less ambiguous restrictions on student speech. We don’t buy his argument that we need new rules that suppress student speech, particularly from someone who doesn’t even know what the existing rules are. 

I'm thinking they may have been on the fence all along, went for Martin-Morris and then remembered why they liked Buetow in the first place. They crossed out his name on their cheat sheet and put hers in red letters. 

Kudos to The Stranger (and folks, no matter how you feel, give credit to a media outlet for saying they believe they were wrong).


Anonymous said…
What? A school board member ignorant of policy?! Heavens!

At least the Stranger is no longer ignorant. See, ANYONE can learn.

Mr. Ed
Chris S. said…
Clearly, Martin-Morris doesn’t think state and federal laws are “real” enough.

Dan, are you out there? That explains a lot, doesn't it? Can't wait for you to jump all over that one!

mirmac1 said…
The "uppers" must've kicked in.

WV: Victory is "surtin"!
Anonymous said…
what is WV:?

Michael H said…
This is great! Someone actually published a piece about HMM's ignorance. Did he think they wouldn't actually check district policies?? He's probably thinking that they crossed boundaries by checking the policies, just like he complained that board members should just take staff's word that something was done and not challenge staff claims.
Patrick said…
Good, but would have been more helpful a few days ago. Most people have probably sent their ballots already.
Patrick said…
Confused, "W.V." is Word Verification, the semi-random letters you copy in order to post.
mirmac1 said…
It's that, at times prescient, Word Verification box under your comment.

WV: cathroon...uh, I got nothin'
Anonymous said…
Kudos to the Stranger. I very much respect when someone can admit they got it wrong, and then correct heir error.

Murky Water
Anonymous said…
thanks Patrick and Mirmac; glad to have that sorted out.

no longer confused

WV: alize
BTW, Phyllis Fletcher is reporting that the Board is backing off:!/phylfletch/status/133673415646253056
BL said…
The backing-off is now on the SPS website:
"School District, board agree to withdraw proposed policy governing student freedom of expression"
Anonymous said…
this just in...
From KUOW Newsroom: Seattle School District reverses course on student speech restriction. The district will keep its current policy: freedom of the press. Details this afternoon on KUOW 94.9 FM.

-go team free speech
mirmac1 said…
Governance by flip-flop.
Jan said…
Sort of, mirmac. But in my opinion, it is an instance of governance "taking into account public comment and reaction to an initially bad policy." The thing(s) that are too bad are:
1. That we have people in a position to write policies who are so weak (in terms of understanding federal and state laws on freedom of the press, public values supporting freedom of the press, and the welfare of students in terms of having a voice).
2. That we have a District and a board that would get this far on stuff like this with absolutely ZERO public input (really, District -- all that stuff about community engagement that you so routinely ignore -- a LITTLE bit of that would have prevented all this); and
3. that we have a board member (HMM) who chairs the committee overseeing this who is as clueless as HMM. The GOOD news is that the election is tomorrow, and maybe a few folks haven't voted yet.

The District even working in the dark with blind moles for scribes should not have come out with such a flawed proposal. BUT they should also have had/asked for community engagement at an earlier stage. If they had, someone could have clued in the "clueless" before this ever hit HMM's rubber stamp.
Anonymous said…
No need for my first amendment soapbox tonight!

We pay for the schools, but the Board and Management act like they own them.

Newsflash! The district is still our sandbox. Buckets & shovels too.

dan dempsey said…
Dear Jan,

You said "If they had, someone could have clued in the "clueless" before this ever hit HMM's rubber stamp."

WSDWG said "We pay for the schools, but the Board and Management act like they own them. "

Public testimony and the "clueless" stamp are hardly an indication that the rubber-stamping would not occur.

Check out the number of times that Carol Simmons and I wrote or testified to the Board to the Board that WAC 181-79A-231 requires a careful review of all options for closing the achievement gaps .... BEFORE making a judgement that conditions warrant using "Conditional Certificates" for TFA corps members to close achievement gaps. .... Public testimony 5 times and at least two letters.

Number of Directors that voted against Authorizing the Superintendent to request "Conditional Certificates" to close the achievement gaps = ONE Betty Patu.

Nope these folks were unable to admit they had been repeatedly wrong on this subject since at least November of 2010 .... just no stopping these folks from doing serious wrong..... and continuing to do serious wrong. So Joy Anderson filed a $230 appeal but the real solution is tossing 4 of these Directors out of Elected Office and having the Board simply give TFA notification that the contract will be terminated at the end of this school year.

In about 24 hours we should know whether or not "The Clueless Stamp" could be applied to Seattle's Voters.
dan dempsey said…
Mr. Ed,

At least the Stranger is no longer ignorant. See, ANYONE can learn.

I am not convinced that "Anyone can learn".

Do not leap from the Stranger to the School Board.... I find little evidence of learning for the Board as a body over the last four years.
Charlie Mas said…
I'm really troubled by Director Martin-Morris' claim that "That's the way the process is supposed to work." when he can make a call to the superintendent and unilaterally authorize the amendment of a motion before the Board.

Shouldn't this require an amendment to the motion approved by a vote of the Board?

Popular posts from this blog

Tuesday Open Thread

Seattle Public Schools and Their Principals

COVID Issues Heating up for Seattle Public Schools