Debate the issues facing Seattle Public Schools, share your opinions, read the latest news. Organize and work for high quality public schools that educate all students to become passionate, lifelong learners.
Times Editorial - Wrong Again
Get link
Facebook
X
Pinterest
Email
Other Apps
I don't know why I even bother, but here is another misguided editorial on education from the Seattle Times.
Oh, so the passage of 1240 is a mandate and yet there were barely 40,000 votes between yes and no.
And yet, the overwhelming wins by McAuliffe and Tomiko-Santos are NOT mandates for their voters wanted?
Oh Times, you and your less-than-cogent thinking.
And you want more bi-partisan leaders? Like Rodney Tom who cannot figure out if he is a Dem or Rep (and note to the Senator - you may find yourself in a very lonely place when NO one in the joint trusts you).
Have to add one of Charlie's laugh out-loud comments as well:
"voters’ embrace of charter schools" Really? A victory by a margin of 50.7% to 49.3% thanks to outspending the other side 17:1 constitutes an "embrace" to you? It makes me sad to think of the kind of embraces you must be getting at home."
I got so depressed when I started to read yet another pro-charter editorial, because I thought, OMG, what's worse than 1240 passing? Years of pro-charter editorials? Aaack.
And then I read Charlie's comment, and frankly, it almost makes it tolerable.
"It makes me sad to think of the kind of embraces you must be getting at home."
You nailed it, Charlie -- and so did you, Melissa. And so did jetcityhelix and Another Arnold. I wish I could believe that if people keep pointing out how idiotic their editorials are, they will stop writing this nonsense -- but then I guess when you are part of the 1% AND you "own" the paper (and it is the only one in town), you can write whatever you please, and enough people will still want to read Pearls Before Swine and Doonesbury to keep subscribing.
Anonymous said…
Too funny Jan. And oh so true. Add "Dilbert" to the list. Just like my neighborhood school admin. The comics are the main reason I still subscribe to the Times. I just might have to start tracking those down online if the Times persists in their one sided, sophomoric editorials.
The follow up to this editorial in the "Ed Cetera" blog is even worse. It's an effort to suggest that these two legislators are in the pocket of the teachers' union. Only their effort to "follow the money" shows a lot more special interest money on the other side.
Eric B said…
I thought it was kinda funny that they said that McAuliffe and Tomiko-Santos were supported by those who opposed charters, those who favored the status quo in schools. I had no idea Melissa and Charlie were such reactionaries!
Charlie, that follow-up was just more piling on. I don't get it. Why do they think that haranguing is going to work? And, of course, their point makes little sense.
Quite funny to hear them complain of one candidate being outspent by the challenger - by a lot - and STILL not winning.
And yet, there is Exhibit A, I-1240, right in front of them.
Anonymous said…
Molly: Dump the Times (I did back in 2000 when they endorsed GW Bush). You can get most of your funnies at GoComics.com.
SolvayGirl
Times makes me crazy said…
I recently discontinued my subscription to the Times. I wish I could do it again.
Charlie's quote- "It makes me sad to think of the kind of embraces you must be getting at home."-should go down in history!
This brings home to me something I see from all sorts of political groups: settling on a solution and clinging to it like grim death. I predict that, after we get our few dozen charters, and absolutely nothing good comes out of it, the Times will fulminate against all the evil forces that are preventing the obvious solution from actually, you know, solving something. It cannot be possible that charters aren't a solution -- therefore something else must be keeping them from working! Some bad, bad person, or people!
A reasonable person would look at such a result and think, huh, charters aren't the answer. Now what? But the Times, and their ilk, will never be able to believe that they might have been wrong. This same denial of reality is widespread in public policy of all sorts, and is a mixture of baffling and frustrating.
Anonymous said…
Josh is right.
The problem with this kind of "thinking" is that the "answer", in this case charter schools, is decided upon without actually considering what the question really is. It is a purported "solution" without consideration to what the nature of the problem might really be.
Lack of critical thinking? Check. Advocacy for a political position? Check. Attack anyone that questions your position because they are "supporters of the status quo"? Check.
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.)
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
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
Comments
Oh, so the passage of 1240 is a mandate and yet there were barely 40,000 votes between yes and no.
And yet, the overwhelming wins by McAuliffe and Tomiko-Santos are NOT mandates for their voters wanted?
Oh Times, you and your less-than-cogent thinking.
And you want more bi-partisan leaders? Like Rodney Tom who cannot figure out if he is a Dem or Rep (and note to the Senator - you may find yourself in a very lonely place when NO one in the joint trusts you).
"voters’ embrace of charter schools" Really? A victory by a margin of 50.7% to 49.3% thanks to outspending the other side 17:1 constitutes an "embrace" to you? It makes me sad to think of the kind of embraces you must be getting at home."
I got so depressed when I started to read yet another pro-charter editorial, because I thought, OMG, what's worse than 1240 passing? Years of pro-charter editorials? Aaack.
And then I read Charlie's comment, and frankly, it almost makes it tolerable.
"It makes me sad to think of the kind of embraces you must be getting at home."
So snarky but so well deserved.
Laugh of the week for me. Can't stop laughing.
Molly
Quite funny to hear them complain of one candidate being outspent by the challenger - by a lot - and STILL not winning.
And yet, there is Exhibit A, I-1240, right in front of them.
SolvayGirl
Charlie's quote- "It makes me sad to think of the kind of embraces you must be getting at home."-should go down in history!
A reasonable person would look at such a result and think, huh, charters aren't the answer. Now what? But the Times, and their ilk, will never be able to believe that they might have been wrong. This same denial of reality is widespread in public policy of all sorts, and is a mixture of baffling and frustrating.
The problem with this kind of "thinking" is that the "answer", in this case charter schools, is decided upon without actually considering what the question really is. It is a purported "solution" without consideration to what the nature of the problem might really be.
Lack of critical thinking? Check.
Advocacy for a political position? Check.
Attack anyone that questions your position because they are "supporters of the status quo"? Check.
Lame. Really. Lame. Check!
Oompah