"Could a Wealthy Few Decide Seattle's School Board Races?"
That's not my title - that's KUOW's for Ann Dornfeld very good piece on the one contested school board race - Sue Peters and Suzanne Dale Estey in District IV.
Seattle school board candidate Suzanne Dale Estey and her supporters are poised to raise more money than any other school board candidate in state history – even though a Washington state law passed last year put a cap on campaign contributions in school board races.
There’s a catch: Although campaign contributions are capped, donors can give to political action committees that support the board candidates. That has raised questions about whether a handful of rich donors could sway the school board races this year.
How much money:
The Great Seattle Schools PAC is not the first in the state to fund school board races. But it is the most flush. Campaign finance records show that the PAC has brought in $100,405 so far. Almost all of the money raised came from just a few people, including retired Microsoft executive Chris Larson and venture capitalist Nick Hanauer.
That spending is in addition to the $105,375 Dale Estey’s campaign has raised in direct contributions, compared with Peters' war chest of $28,289.
But Dornfeld goes beyond the numbers and puts out a big issue in public education today:
The spending highlights a fundamental conflict in public education today: Whether a wealthy few have too much influence on education policy, or whether they fund critical education reforms that help struggling students.
Dale Estey points out that many people do work in the private sector and so why not business people and corporate donations. She also says she's not "in anyone's pocket."
But, again, wealthy people do NOT give money to political campaigns without some kind of agenda in mind. Only a young or naive person would believe it's just that Dale Estey is the better candidate. You just don't be that kind of action - getting a PAC set up for you, getting the head of Microsoft to donate, etc. - if there is not a larger agenda.
Sue Peters' take?
But Peters said it can’t be ignored who has spent the most to get her opponent elected to the school board.
"As [progressive political columnist] Molly Ivins said, 'You’ve gotta dance with them what brung ya,' and the people who are bringing my opponent are the corporate ed reform people.
Seattle school board candidate Suzanne Dale Estey and her supporters are poised to raise more money than any other school board candidate in state history – even though a Washington state law passed last year put a cap on campaign contributions in school board races.
There’s a catch: Although campaign contributions are capped, donors can give to political action committees that support the board candidates. That has raised questions about whether a handful of rich donors could sway the school board races this year.
How much money:
The Great Seattle Schools PAC is not the first in the state to fund school board races. But it is the most flush. Campaign finance records show that the PAC has brought in $100,405 so far. Almost all of the money raised came from just a few people, including retired Microsoft executive Chris Larson and venture capitalist Nick Hanauer.
That spending is in addition to the $105,375 Dale Estey’s campaign has raised in direct contributions, compared with Peters' war chest of $28,289.
But Dornfeld goes beyond the numbers and puts out a big issue in public education today:
The spending highlights a fundamental conflict in public education today: Whether a wealthy few have too much influence on education policy, or whether they fund critical education reforms that help struggling students.
Dale Estey points out that many people do work in the private sector and so why not business people and corporate donations. She also says she's not "in anyone's pocket."
But, again, wealthy people do NOT give money to political campaigns without some kind of agenda in mind. Only a young or naive person would believe it's just that Dale Estey is the better candidate. You just don't be that kind of action - getting a PAC set up for you, getting the head of Microsoft to donate, etc. - if there is not a larger agenda.
Sue Peters' take?
But Peters said it can’t be ignored who has spent the most to get her opponent elected to the school board.
"As [progressive political columnist] Molly Ivins said, 'You’ve gotta dance with them what brung ya,' and the people who are bringing my opponent are the corporate ed reform people.
Comments
"Seattle kids, teachers and parents cannot afford four more years of a dysfunctional school board.
The costs are too high; teachers overburdened with changing curricula and standards, precious resources wasted, and our kids left behind."
That's a pretty big statement with a lot of moving parts.
First, she loves to say how dysfunctional the board is based on her assessment of the scores the Board gave itself for getting along. Is that really the same as "dysfunctional?" I don't think so.
(And she continues to say the Board called itself "utterly dysfunctional" - that was her line at Olympic View - and it's just not true.)
The first part of the second paragraph - changing curricula and standards - does that mean she's against Common Core or worried about being ready for it or the added assessments? Because I'm sure teachers and parents would like someone who would fight to keep teachers in charge of their classrooms.
But I don't understand "precious resources wasted" reference nor "our kids left behind." Is that a reference to the changing curricula or the "dysfunctional board?"
Now wishing I'd asked about defining "dysfunctional" at OV the other night.
-ML Mama
Also, there is a little bit of chutzpah in believing that one person is going to come in and change that "dysfunction."
I got the mailer today as well. Can anyone enlighten me about who the "Education Leaders" they list as endorsers? I was sad to see Adam Kline had endorsed her as well.
SolvayGirl
voter
-CT
Northeast Unpopular
NE Unpopular, I hear you. I could feel this vibe from the time I was on the PTA Board at Eckstein. It was funny because I once asked a fairly connected Eckstein mom what she thought of Superintendent Olchefske and she said, "he's great at a cocktail party but as a superintendent?" I also got that vibe when I was co-president at Roosevelt that I wasn't quite in the club.
Just not right - we don't vote like we are voting for Prom Queen.
undecided
I haven't agreed with everything I have heard Sue Peters say over the years, but I really appreciate her passion for Seattle schools and her truly deep knowledge of the District. Suzanne Dale Estey clearly has the tremendou$ $upport of all of the movers and shakers in Seattle who seem determined to privatize education. I have a Masters in Economics (from Yale, for what that is worth)and I know that: Education is TRULY a PUBLIC GOOD. It will not be provided OPTIMALLY under a free market system. Estey may believe that she will be free to follow her heart, but those of us who follow SPS know that Peter Maier and Steve Sundquist (Board member co-opted by Seattle area gazillionaires) followed the money. We can only expect Estey to do the same.
Please, vote for Sue Peters!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Sims
On June 14, 2011 - less than two years after accepting his HUD appointment - Sims announced his resignation and intent to return to Seattle, citing a desire to spend more time with his family.[6] Sims' announcement followed the release of official travel records toAmericans for Limited Government that showed Sims had spent 45 of 128 travel days during his tenure on trips to Seattle,[7] a statistic that the group said raised "questions about the legitimacy of these trips." A HUD spokesperson denied the travel records indicated malfeasance on Sims' part, noting that "every trip taken by Deputy Secretary Ron Sims was in response to a formal speech or forum participation request."[8]
The board member was outraged. Would this individual welcome Estey with open arms? I doubt it.
High Info Voter
Hi Info Voter
Can someone clarify: school board elections are voted on city-wide, but the board member serves as representative for one district? Or: school board members are voted on within a geographical district?
Thank you.
-flibbertigibbet
The system is a mess locally and nationally. There really is no clear path to rectify this situation. The gazillionaire in question really gets nothing out of it but a bunch of trouble, grumblings from everyone, and spends a bunch of his/her money in a way that cannot be traced to really help anything. Sure one might contribute a small bit here or there but to jump in as if this was there thing to save the world. The gazillionaire just sends their kid to private school anyways. Let the minions haggle over the public school debate issue as it is not solvable as demonstrated by this blahg.
Dollar
It is a very difficult campaign to plan because you must first have a base in your district to get out of the primary(and that's no small thing).
Then, you have to turn on a dime after the primary and campaign city-wide. That's where having a base can help to get work done but you are appealing to very different groups/areas.
And, because the voting numbers are lower for school board (people are either more interested in the "big" races and/or don't have a clue how to vote so they don't), every single vote counts.
Why this is for one single race is interesting but no one can tell me why it is so. And, directors are expected to know their region well (I believe in order to fill in the blanks for the other directors because to know each region well would be very, very difficult. And yet, they are city-wide directors.)
Makes for a more challenging campaign, and frankly, one that most strategists get wrong.
=========
Some data:
1) In 2007 the Seattle Times stated that: THE LARGEST $$$$ amount spent by a winning School Board candidate prior to 2007 was $37,000 and predicted that 2007 winning candidates might spend as much as $50,000.
2) In 2007 winning candidates spent an average of $120,000 each (P Meier high at $166,000 and H Martin-Morris low at $65,000)
3) Meier and Sunquist spent far less in 2011 while still outspending their opponents by massive amounts (Meier about 5 or 6 to 1 and Sundquist around 3 to 1)
4) A piece in Crosscut after Meier and Sundquist lost stated that not enough money had been spent and that $200,000 to $250,000 will need to be spent on future School Board elections.
5) Estey + PAC has now surpassed the $200,000 mark and there is more time to amass more.
6) The $480,000 four from 2007 (Meier, Martin-Morris, Carr, & Martin-Morris) often ignored evidence, provided by the public, to vote as a block of four for Actions which were without supportive evidence but put forth by the superintendent.
======================
Please attempt to "Improve the System" .... Vote for Peters for a huge number of reasons.
Because.. public education represents the largest remaining block of government funds not readily accessible to private corporations. For example, the WA State Budget for k-12 represents about 25% of the state's annual 35 billion dollar budget. That's a big chunk of changes and corporations would love far better access to that, especially with poor financial and outcomes oversight.
-CT
- Ballard Voter
He has often sided with the Tim Sheldon/Rodney Tom/Steve Hobbes crowd in the Senate against teachers and the rest of the Democrats. We hope someone else who would better represent the 37th is eying that seat.
Kline is a lost cause and I find, knows little about education policy.
Seems that everyone is just being mean to point this out and that it really didn't mean anything when Sherry Carr got big money (but her money pales in comparison).
I think people are starting to think out loud what it all means and that's a very good thing.
With the realignment of SLU/downtown in Lowell, not Hay, there is zero capacity reason to spend even $1 on a downtown school consultant or plan ... but do you think SDE will vote for or against spending $5 million on downtown school feasibility study? Money that, by the way, could renovate some school that is already full overcrowded. But her consultant and real estate development donors will talk, talk, talk about the need for a downtown school.
We already have two downtown schools, both of which need renovations: Lowell and TT Minor. But developers won't make any money out of those, only out of new space. The property people aren't giving to SDE from altruism, but because they think she represents their best interests. If they just wanted to improve a kid's life, they'd give to United Way of King County or Boys and Girls Club or Big Brothers/Big Sisters. But they don't, do they?
It's all about those contracts that are the consent items on the board agendas.
Why do gazillionaires care? Money. The voters just gave the district 695 million $. Who wants pieces of that? You can never have too much money.
With the realignment of SLU/downtown in Lowell, not Hay, there is zero capacity reason to spend even $1 on a downtown school consultant or plan ... but do you think SDE will vote for or against spending $5 million on downtown school feasibility study? Money that, by the way, could renovate some school that is already full overcrowded. But her consultant and real estate development donors will talk, talk, talk about the need for a downtown school.
We already have two downtown schools, both of which need renovations: Lowell and TT Minor. But developers won't make any money out of those, only out of new space. The property people aren't giving to SDE from altruism, but because they think she represents their best interests. If they just wanted to improve a kid's life, they'd give to United Way of King County or Boys and Girls Club or Big Brothers/Big Sisters. But they don't, do they?
It's all about those contracts that are the consent items on the board agendas.