Hell Gets a Chill

No, hell hasn't frozen over but it is a bit chilly as I find that I actually agree with the Times' editorial board on an education issue.  

We all agree the public should have the opportunity to hear and/or meet the superintendent finalists. 

Then they go and spoil it by showing their motivation to get an ed reformer in there but I am glad they are standing up for more transparency.  They have a great quote from 2003 when the district was again looking for a superintendent.

We warned then that, "Seattle Schools' number-one goal ought to be regaining public trust and confidence. The district compromises this goal when it promises citizen input but fails to deliver."

Amen, brothers and sisters.  But it would seem that in other cases, the Times works to make sure to protect those at the top like Goodloe-Johnson, Sundquist and Maier.  That endangers public trust and confidence as well.

Then they bring out one of their most old and tired lines:

Board members' frustration with critics who disrupt meetings and act in uncivil ways deserves some sympathy.

Here's what I said in the comment section:

Boy, this gets old. There hasn't been any real disruption at a Board meeting in years. And just as one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, we don't all define speaking out as "uncivil." Martin Luther King certainly didn't.

Later they say:

Yes, the public has a responsibility to ask real questions and leave old grudges at the door.

Well, then leave that old canard you feel the need to state so often out of your future editorials.

And then they say:

Views on charter schools, standardized tests and the achievement gap — to name a few pressing education issues — are fair questions.

Now to be fair, of course, the charter school question might be a fair one for any candidate except that we still don't have any charter law and never have.  It's a bit of a moot point.  I don't see wasting a lot of time on this point. 

As well, the Board would control if there was a charter school in SPS, not the superintendent (at least not with the current charter legislation which I hope by Saturday is done.)

Comments

Eric B said…
The issue of who controls the charter school in the old version of the WA law is pretty murky. While the charter could certainly apply to the local school board, the local board has a strong financial disincentive to approve the charter. To get around this, the charter can also apply to a state university or one of the Education service Districts (not sure if these function like school districts). If I were setting up a charter school, I wouldn't even bother with going to the local school district. I'd go to a friendly state-wide institution, preferably the one that demanded the least amount of oversight.
3/28/12, 12:02 PM
Melissa Westbrook said…
Well, in the current charter legislation (and that's what I was going off of), School Boards are one of the authorizers. But yes, I would go elsewhere myself.
3/28/12, 1:02 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