Times School Board Primary Wrap-Up

In a phrase, not good.

The Times is not consistent in what they say about what they want in a School Board.  First, they want continuity.  Then they don't like that and want new people. 

At the last election, according to them, the sky fell because two incumbents (rightly) got ousted and two new members were elected.  These were not people they wanted and they proceeded - from day one - to lambast Directors Peaslee and McLaren.  (Do a search and see the contrast between what they have said over the last two years about those two plus Smith-Blum versus DeBell, Carr and Martin-Morris.  They strangely omit Patu but I think there's a reason for that.)

But now they like change and new people are a good thing.  So really, it isn't about consistency or continuity or Board unity - it's about getting people on the Board that THEY like.

This piece starts off okay.  It states the outcome of the primary and rightly talks about more in-depth discussions among the candidates during the general election.  (They mention Sue in the very first paragraph but only have photos of Dale Estey and Blanford.)

What is disturbing about this editorial is the contrast between District IV candidates, Sue Peters and Suzanne Dale Estey.  The Times, like the Chamber of Commerce, refuses to accept that Sue is NOT just a blogger but a writer and journalist.  A trained one.  With a Master's in Journalism from Stanford University.

(I note that Lynne Varner, who writes about education for the Editorial Board at the Times, does not have a journalism degree.  She has a BS in Communications.  She was, like Peters, at Stanford but was there for an academic fellowship on international/domestic policy and healthcare. )

What is worse is that Varner claims Peters has only "talked or blogged" about education and not worked on it.  That's hard to fathom because Sue has done extensive research and writing about education. She has served on several district-appointed taskforces and, by virtue of all that work (as well as being a long-time parent in the district) really KNOWS this district. Dale Estey does not know this district in any manner close to Peters' knowledge base. 

But Varner, like the PAC supporting Estey, is going to play the game of omission.

She goes on to say that Dale Estey worked on the Road Map project.   That will be a good question to ask Estey at debates.   What is clear is that it was part of her job in Renton to be involved in this effort (although it also seems that she personally was committed to it).  But one education project doesn't make a person an expert.

What is also an issue is this statement about Dale Estey - "she knows how to take an idea and develop it into a working plan.."  But that's not a Board member's job.  That would be micromanaging.  Policy creation and enforcement -that's a Board member's job.

Then, again with omission in mind, Varner says that Dale Estey has the support of Ed Murray and Senator Reuven Carlyle.  That's true but if you want to play that card, then name the supporters that Peters has in the Legislature.  But the editorial doesn't.

Then, it gets unpleasant and it's where I believe some kind of throwdown is happening beyond this editorial or even this election.

Peters may give Dale Estey a run for her money. But the effort would have to begin with Peters broadening beyond the “education activist” description. Here’s why: Any parent volunteering in the classrooms, on field trips, attending school board meetings, raising money for education or in myriad other ways working to improve their local schools is an activist. So is Peters merely one of them? Or is the “activist” moniker code for membership in a small cabal of district critics who have not changed their reflexive oppositional stances since the early 1990s? Conversations leading up to the November general election should provide answers.

Oh so Varner gets to define what an activist is?  Broadly - and I mean very broadly speaking - she's right.  An "active" parent could be called an activist.  Except that it usually means going beyond your own school.  She knows that (or she should).  

Then she talks about "code" which is ironic given the use of ed reform code words she uses in her columns all the time.  

So there is a small "cabal" of district critics?  Well, there's an even larger -but much more selective and closed-off - cabal of ed reformers.  And no one need apply because they only let the "right" people in.  (I also have to laugh at Varner saying Peters may give Estey a "run for her money."  Money is right, given how much more Estey has and who she gets it from.)  

I'm fine with being challenged and I'm sure Peters is as well.  Let's get into the debates and see who knows this district, its challenges and needs and how to find and create better academic outcomes for all Seattle public school students.  

Because I'm not certain Varner does.