Times, Do Keep Up

Over at the sleepy T editorial board, they woke up and decided (probably via Councilman Burgess), that they don't like the Creative Approach MOU.    The title of this missive?  "Seattle Public Schools' Innovation Plan Requires Tweaking, Scrutiny"  

Here's what I wrote in the comments:

"The Seattle Public Schools' pursuit of innovation is a work in progress that would benefit from wider, sharper scrutiny."

Hello Times! Where have you been? Over at the Seattle Schools Community Forum blog, we have been discussing this over and over. Many us spoke out against it at Board meetings.

First, it isn't hard to get 80% of people to agree if you have a good plan. It's the details that count and clearly this detail got missed by the Times and Councilman Burgess who sat silently through the entire Board meeting where it was discussed and voted on.

Very funny as well mentioning the education levies have a simple majority. Parents and teachers had to fight to get that to happen. It wasn't always the case and it still isn't for education bonds.

"School turnarounds sometimes require a change in leadership and teachers. "

You mistake what the Creative Approach schools agreement is for. It is not a turnaround plan (that was embedded in the late charter school legislation - what did happen to that?). I have no idea why President DeBell would think that was its sole purpose.

"The board's oversight role needs to be clarified."

Again, where has the Times been? There is NO oversight from the Board because, unbelievably, they voted it AWAY. Oh they can see the applications and give input but oversight? Nope.

"The teachers union, a strong opponent of charters, is enthusiastic in its support of Seattle's plan."

And that may be because they also cut parents out of any kind of oversight or vote. District staff and the union will decide the fate of your school, not parents. Again, like the Board, parents can give input but no vote and there is not a single parent on this CA Oversight Committee.

Also district staff stood side-by-side before the Board for their support of this plan. Don't you put this all on the union - district senior staff WANTED it this way.

Hilarious. Again, Times, do keep up.


Pending Motion? said…
Here is the first article with Burgess complaining about the 80% figure.:


Should we expect to see a motion to change the 80% figure? I think so. As per usual, I think the Seattle Times Editorial is laying the ground work.
mirmac1 said…
How about Crosscut just go straight into the shredder

Foot-kissing at Lowell School and 'The Death of Common Sense'

"Such allegations do, of course, need to be looked into." Ya think?! and somehow you, King and RG were prescient to know that:

“the investigation found no foot kissing actually occurred.” This judgment pales to invisibility compared to all the fallout and subsequent community uproar. Truly, if there were ever such a thing as, to put it in Shakespeare's words, "Much ado about nothing," this would be it.
Jan said…
What little I had previously read of Anthony Robinson's, I had sort of thought was ok. This was profoundly disappointing and disillusioning. What a sham of an article. Thanks, Melissa and Charlie, for your responses to it.
Anonymous said…
FYI Anthony Robinson married to SPS principal Linda Robinson.....


Anonymous said…
Former Bryant teacher here: Linda Robinson does not ignore protocols. She is most attentive to doing everything the District way. Trust me.

Anonymous said…
I'm trying to imagine the dinner conversation at the Robinson household after Linda read Tony's article.

-had to be good

Popular posts from this blog

Tuesday Open Thread

Weirdness in Seattle Public Schools Abounds and Astounds

Anaylsis of Seattle School Board Decision to Bring "Student Outcome Focused Governance"