Stranger Endorses Peters, Blanford
The Stranger's endorsements for School Board were pretty much on point. (The Times hasn't issued their endorsements for School Board but does have a sweet editorial about how expensive it is to go to weddings. No, really, apparently that's the burning issue of the day.)
District No. 4
Sue Peters
As if you needed more proof that the Seattle School Board is a dystopian shithole, the board members, in a self-evaluation released this summer, anonymously described themselves like this: "The poster-child for a dysfunctional school board." "It's like Kabuki Theater." "A board like this will repel all people of quality."
Seriously, we didn't even have to make any of that shit up. Consequently, school board races are normally filled with wackos. But this year, the candidates were thoughtful, intelligent, and for some god-awful reason, engaged in the minutiae that makes up school board work.
Take Sue Peters, for instance. An education buff who started the group Parents Across America and edits the wonky Seattle Education blog, Peters opposes the corporate education reform agenda, including charter schools and Teach for America, and she's skeptical of the state-mandated Common Core curriculum soon to be rolled out in schools.
Opponent Suzanne Dale Estey is well-qualified, but despite saying she opposes privatizing public education with charter schools, she's in bed with the corporate education "reformers" behind charter schools. Most notably: Tania De Sa Campos, sponsor of last year's charter schools initiative, gave to Estey's campaign. Estey is also backed by problematic past board members who should have prevented the district from losing millions of dollars in a scandal a few years back. Specifically: She's been endorsed by retiring incumbent Michael DeBell and former school board member Peter Maier (they received a report about the risk of theft years ago and did nothing). We don't need another candidate perpetuating dysfunction. The other guy in the race, Dean McColgan, is a charter schools supporter who says he'd bring a "business background" to the board. Yech. Peters points out, rightly, that "the last time we had a board with business backgrounds... we ended up with a superintendent and CFO being fired."
Vote Peters.
District No. 5
Stephan Blanford
Stephan Blanford seems a little, well, bland (ha-ha, Stephan Blandford!), and he hedges on issues more often than we'd like. But he's more familiar with the district and its problems than opponent Olu Thomas, a parent and social worker. An education consultant who's worked with the district before, Blanford prioritizes early education funding and addressing the achievement gap. Thomas thinks we should move money from the capital to the operations budget (which isn't possible), was unfamiliar with Teach for America, and has a bit of an anti-teacher bent, which plays poorly for someone looking to help direct a school district. LaCrese Green, a tutor, didn't even show up to our endorsement meeting.
Vote Blanford.
District No. 4
Sue Peters
As if you needed more proof that the Seattle School Board is a dystopian shithole, the board members, in a self-evaluation released this summer, anonymously described themselves like this: "The poster-child for a dysfunctional school board." "It's like Kabuki Theater." "A board like this will repel all people of quality."
Seriously, we didn't even have to make any of that shit up. Consequently, school board races are normally filled with wackos. But this year, the candidates were thoughtful, intelligent, and for some god-awful reason, engaged in the minutiae that makes up school board work.
Take Sue Peters, for instance. An education buff who started the group Parents Across America and edits the wonky Seattle Education blog, Peters opposes the corporate education reform agenda, including charter schools and Teach for America, and she's skeptical of the state-mandated Common Core curriculum soon to be rolled out in schools.
Opponent Suzanne Dale Estey is well-qualified, but despite saying she opposes privatizing public education with charter schools, she's in bed with the corporate education "reformers" behind charter schools. Most notably: Tania De Sa Campos, sponsor of last year's charter schools initiative, gave to Estey's campaign. Estey is also backed by problematic past board members who should have prevented the district from losing millions of dollars in a scandal a few years back. Specifically: She's been endorsed by retiring incumbent Michael DeBell and former school board member Peter Maier (they received a report about the risk of theft years ago and did nothing). We don't need another candidate perpetuating dysfunction. The other guy in the race, Dean McColgan, is a charter schools supporter who says he'd bring a "business background" to the board. Yech. Peters points out, rightly, that "the last time we had a board with business backgrounds... we ended up with a superintendent and CFO being fired."
Vote Peters.
District No. 5
Stephan Blanford
Stephan Blanford seems a little, well, bland (ha-ha, Stephan Blandford!), and he hedges on issues more often than we'd like. But he's more familiar with the district and its problems than opponent Olu Thomas, a parent and social worker. An education consultant who's worked with the district before, Blanford prioritizes early education funding and addressing the achievement gap. Thomas thinks we should move money from the capital to the operations budget (which isn't possible), was unfamiliar with Teach for America, and has a bit of an anti-teacher bent, which plays poorly for someone looking to help direct a school district. LaCrese Green, a tutor, didn't even show up to our endorsement meeting.
Vote Blanford.
If you live or have friends/relatives in District IV, you might considering letting them know how you might vote if you lived there. (It is apparent from fundraising notices that Michael DeBell has turned all his contacts over to Estey - he's practically her campaign manager.)
Yes, I'm agreeing with The Stranger - Sue Peters is the best choice.
I will also point out what I believe could happen, depending on the final vote in November.
If Estey and Blanford win, there's a fairly solid majority vote (with Martin-Morris and Carr).
If Peters wins, then there's a fairly solid majority vote (with Patu, Peaslee and McLaren), although I think Peters also goes her own way.
What is interesting is if Blanford and Peters win, you then have a "Supreme Court" kind of situation.
McLaren has shown herself to listen AND change her mind. She is kind of the Anthony Kennedy of the Board. And, as well, despite Blanford's outward leanings, I sense a streak of independence and he may well surprise some people with his votes.
To my mind, it would be better to have people on the Board who don't have clear alliances and/or bents.
Comments
If this guy was Kay Smith-Blum's designated successor, it does not speak well of her. I know she has her fans here, but I have never been one of them.
Those of us who are opposed to corporate-driven "reform," and who favor stricter oversight of an entrenched SPS bureaucracy, have to face some cold facts. Other than the outstanding Sue Peters, we haven't done the job we should be doing in candidate recruitment, and that needs to change. We were fortunate that Peaslee and McLaren stepped up, and fortunate that they won, but we need to do better, because the other side is resourceful and adaptable.
-- Ivan Weiss
Tired of Tutoring
This expense really is the fault of those who put on these weddings, the above-mentioned contractors. If they can't marry our young people (and old) and make them stay married, then they should be fired. We should first reduce their pay, make them hungrier, make them more eager to retain their jobs and improve in them. Then we should make them do more weddings, maybe 40 at a time. This will teach them efficiency. We should let private think tanks design wedding scripts, designed to maximize longevity in marriages (using data pertaining to income, race, gender)by assigning each wedding participant a given, numeric value and measuring the expected marital outcomes based on that value.
Officiants and their ilk have been maintaining the status quo for too long. Their union fights wedding reform at every turn. We need to digitize, standardize, itemize and maximize the process so guests can most enjoy their canapés, champagne, and teary-eyed remembrances of those glorious days when love was young and fresh...
HIMSmom
Rimshot for HimsMom, too.
WSDWG
Bwessedness is not measurable. Nor are dweams.
If it smells like a duck and walk likes a duck. Well, you know the rest.
I will lay bets it is because either: a) because DeBell seems like an okay guy, or; b) because (insert politically connected name here) endorses her.
I lose if it is because "I actually met her and understand just what the heck she stands for." (I still win if it is for the DeBell legacy).
http://crosscut.com/2013/07/18/education/115601/seattle-school-board-thankless-job-somebodys-gotta/
PSP
But, as a West Seattle Parent, that is exactly why I will NOT vote for Peters.
I don't want someone who will defer to or align with McClaren on all things West Seattle because, quite frankly, McClaren has been a huge disappointment to many of us in West Seattle.
She's inconsistent. Yeah, she "listens" and changes her mind frequently, but is that a good thing or a sign of someone who isn't critically thinking about the issues on their own?
McClaren has told me several times what she "thinks" WS wants, but when I challenge the assumptions, she will admit there has been NO community engagement on the issues. I'm well connected with many WS schools and feel that McClaren only parrots the voices of a select elite and is not seeking the input of the majority (including our diverse populations that don't have the luxury/privilege of attending meetings that is the endurance test of who gets what in SPS).
McClaren is over her head and won't be serving another term. I don't get the sense that she wants to be re-elected (from her and others who were originally her supporters).
WS Parent, I'm confused that one endorsement would make you say no to one candidate. If it were a group that you thought not worthy but one person?
Believe me, whoever gets elected will defer to McLaren. That's your challenge for the next election.
Every candidate I can remember that has been endorsed by the stranger ends up losing. Please do not list this if you truly support Sue Peters.