Disqus

Sunday, April 29, 2012

Where's the Times' Endorsement?

There are two important education stories in the Times today but there should be a third.

The Times was all set to put forth their endorsement for superintendent in their Sunday edition.  Lynne Varner was quite clear on this when we taped KING 5's Upfront with Robert Mak on Friday.

(We discussed the superintendent candidates.  It airs at 9:30 am and 11:30 p.m. on KING 5 on Sunday; 11 am Sunday on KONG.)

It's not at their editorial page (and one reader says it is not in the print edition).  I suspect something is going on.  Someone may have dropped out or the process may have been compromised to the point where the Times is waiting on their endorsement.

Curious.

More on the other two stories in the next thread.

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

Enoch just quit the race. Somebody got to him. Husk just seems so wrong, so MGJ. This is not going to be a good era for our district. Banda seems like a light weight, more oriented to elementary school than anything else. I can't believe we are here again.
--oh no, last man standing once again

Anonymous said...

Maybe a lightweight but I'd rather give him a try than take another MGJ. Been there, done that. Maybe it is time to give our communities of color a compassionate and decent man. The rest of us, too.

n...

Anonymous said...

I would DEFINITELY give Banda this position over Dr. Husk, and I do NOT think he is in any way a "lightweight," though I am sure that the LEV/A4E/STAND crowd is tickled to have him painted that way. Look at Dr. E! She had never been a Superintendent AT ALL before she got the position here -- and she was a vast improvement over MGJ, the "lots of experience" person who preceded her. Although he currently heads a district that lacks the upper grades, it is not like he has no experience with them from prior positions, or that there aren't plenty of folks around her (buckets of "ed directors, assistant supes of curriculum, etc. etc. etc. Moreover, he struck me a perfectly intelligent, thoughtful, and totally in possession of this entire process.

I too liked Enoch, because he was older, had more seasoning, and in particular, seemed to "get" special ed stuff -- which we have lacked for so long.

But I am dismayed over what I think is entirely misplaced pessimism about Banda's ability to manage this District well. And when we chose Olschefske, and Stanford, etc. etc. -- these folks did not have years of experience in like-sized Districts!

We need someone with the substantive ability to make good decisions FOR THIS DISTRICT. Look at the math decision-making between these two! It is obvious who THINKS, and who mindlessly swallows whatever the latest fad is. We need someone who is willing to work with a true "governing board," rather than just a rubber stamp board that has ceded ALL of its governance functions to the Superintendent. Banda has NO PROBLEM working with the board. It is crystal clear from Salem that Dr. Husk wants a "non-interference" pact from the board that basically gives her carte blanche. And the metrics on which she was judged -- SO squishy. No accountability.

I hope the Board stops to think about how many fiascos have flowed from that management model with MGJ. MGJ got her way on any number of horrible decisions -- school closings in West Seattle, the co-housing of APP, school sales to FAME, freedom to totally ignore business management issues downtown (Potter-gate, audit findings, years of screwing up the Native American grant, bloated staffing, etc.).

I'm sorry -- but this decision is a flat no-brainer. The job offer should go to Banda. End of story. And a pox on the ST and their head-wedged reporting. AARGH!

Jan