Times Urges Mayor Murray to Take Control of the School Board
In one of the most shameful and disrespectfully written editorials I've ever read in the Times, they urge the Mayor and the City Council to make taking over the majority of the Seattle School Board positions a top legislative priority.
It's a funny thing because I JUST today wrote the Board about a couple of other issues but warned them of this. Now we all know there is no love between me and the Times so no one gave me a heads up. You could have seen this coming from the signs put out by Burgess and Murray a mile away.
Here's what I just told the Board in an e-mail:
No, I'm not clairvoyant - I just can see where Mayor Murray and Councilman Burgess are heading.
This from the Seattle Times:
But the value of a city department of education is diluted as long as the Seattle school board (sic) remains mired in dysfunction. With the elected board whipsawed by ideologies and personalities, Seattle is now looking at its fifth superintendent in a decade. It is telling that three left for smaller school districts. The district's special education department - on its eighth chief in five years - is an embarrassment, as shown by a Monday Seattle Times news report.
If Murray is going to make a lasting difference on education, he needs power to ensure competent leadership is part of the seven-member school board. The mayor of Oakland has the power to appoint three members to a 10-member local school board.
Doing something like that here requires state legislation. They asked Murray and he said, "It makes it easier to get something done."
The City Council and the mayor (sic) should make mayoral power over the school board a top legislative priority for the 2015 session.
Where - to - start?
This is quite the throwdown to you as a Board and I would suggest a strong response. It should include the message that the MAIN goal for this Legislative session is NOT to overthrow the Seattle School Board but to fully fund McCleary. (I guess the Times must have missed that discussion in the Supreme Court today.)
If any of you believe in this nonsense, then please, for everyone's sake, show yourself.
But this is an incredibly disrespectful editorial and there is no mistaking that. And, they don't just want a couple of appointments - they want the majority.
Any ideas that anyone had about being "partners" with the City on preschool should be put on hold (especially if the City's proposition passes).
Do you trust people who are trying to end the elected control of the School Board? The control of ONE job, YOUR job - public education - and not a multitude of jobs as the Mayor has.
I can only say - as respectfully as I can - that if your Board or the previous one - had not allowed yourselves to be intimidated or shamed by this "dysfunction" talk or "micromanaging," maybe this wouldn't be happening.
But I, for one, will not let this stand and any Seattle legislator who promotes this may find his or herself an outcast in Seattle because the one thing I know -after more than decade in activism - is that Seattleites will not let this happen.
End of e-mail
The Times wants a fight? They are going to get a fight.
It's a funny thing because I JUST today wrote the Board about a couple of other issues but warned them of this. Now we all know there is no love between me and the Times so no one gave me a heads up. You could have seen this coming from the signs put out by Burgess and Murray a mile away.
Here's what I just told the Board in an e-mail:
No, I'm not clairvoyant - I just can see where Mayor Murray and Councilman Burgess are heading.
This from the Seattle Times:
But the value of a city department of education is diluted as long as the Seattle school board (sic) remains mired in dysfunction. With the elected board whipsawed by ideologies and personalities, Seattle is now looking at its fifth superintendent in a decade. It is telling that three left for smaller school districts. The district's special education department - on its eighth chief in five years - is an embarrassment, as shown by a Monday Seattle Times news report.
If Murray is going to make a lasting difference on education, he needs power to ensure competent leadership is part of the seven-member school board. The mayor of Oakland has the power to appoint three members to a 10-member local school board.
Doing something like that here requires state legislation. They asked Murray and he said, "It makes it easier to get something done."
The City Council and the mayor (sic) should make mayoral power over the school board a top legislative priority for the 2015 session.
Where - to - start?
This is quite the throwdown to you as a Board and I would suggest a strong response. It should include the message that the MAIN goal for this Legislative session is NOT to overthrow the Seattle School Board but to fully fund McCleary. (I guess the Times must have missed that discussion in the Supreme Court today.)
If any of you believe in this nonsense, then please, for everyone's sake, show yourself.
But this is an incredibly disrespectful editorial and there is no mistaking that. And, they don't just want a couple of appointments - they want the majority.
Any ideas that anyone had about being "partners" with the City on preschool should be put on hold (especially if the City's proposition passes).
Do you trust people who are trying to end the elected control of the School Board? The control of ONE job, YOUR job - public education - and not a multitude of jobs as the Mayor has.
I can only say - as respectfully as I can - that if your Board or the previous one - had not allowed yourselves to be intimidated or shamed by this "dysfunction" talk or "micromanaging," maybe this wouldn't be happening.
But I, for one, will not let this stand and any Seattle legislator who promotes this may find his or herself an outcast in Seattle because the one thing I know -after more than decade in activism - is that Seattleites will not let this happen.
End of e-mail
The Times wants a fight? They are going to get a fight.
Comments
Their shining example of board dysfunction: the special education department is a mess. Really? That's the Board's job?
Who gets capitalized in Blethen's world? Certainly not the "mayor" or the "board." But MW you are completely right in both pointing out the disrespect as well Blethen's poor political stance against -- Seattle. WE SEATTLE never vote the way he tells us to. WE SEATTLE look to The Stranger on how to vote. Not because we are sheep but because we have a similar agenda as they have. We like to be free and we like to help our neighbor. We don't want untrained teachers (TFA) or school closures to mask poor test scores to support the corporate education reform.
It could be a lot better but I hear that Blanford is working to a position between the Board and the city (supplementing his current elected role on the Board). His trip East certainly seems to confirm that.
Muarry this city has a history of one-time Mayors... Going towards Blethen will insure your carcase is thrown on that heep too.
I will from now on call him Mr. Bloomberg.
I've noticed that my child-free friends ask for my opinion on school board races and levies. I'm sure many of us have friends like that, too.
Our school board needs to stay independent. This year is the first time we've had any hope of success for a long time - it's less than a year since DeBell left, and even if Peaslee et al haven't been perfect, they have been an improvement. Let's give them a sporting chance to prove themselves before imposing sweeping changes again.
--flibbertigibbet
does it really matter, at this point?
SPS is on the precipice of major crash-and-burn-ville, frankly. At this point, I really, truly don't believe the big clusterf*** that's coming is avoidable. Too much diddling on Absent-Man Banda's watch, all 2 years of it, means at this point, the die is truly cast.
SpEd, unfortunately and sadly, has been the canary in the coal mine. The way the District treats SpEd families, is how it will treat all families as circumstances get worse and worse and worse and the going gets really, really tough.
The continual years of bad SPS decisions in all spheres is awe-inspiring! Remarkably bad decisions in everything from actual education, like discovery math curricula, to lack of fiscal controls, hello Potter!, to nutty operations, IT, looking at you, to the ultimate flustercluck, facilities, close 'em, sell 'em, oops, open 'em, build 'em, who knew? (we all did) that's what I'm talking about.
It's not one-off stupidity, it's endless...
So yes, the District is lined up for severe failures, and thus, I must admit, it is not clear that it really matters who is at the wheel as the car is careening off the cliff, 'cuz it's gonna land in the same place. Nice Job, Banda! Wright! Tolley! McEvoy! Herndon! Way to go, DeBell, Smith-Blum, Peaslee!
Caring who is at the wheel is really like caring about the deck chairs. I don't see what's salvageable, nor do I see what the hail-mary would be at this point; we are simply too far gone.
Valiant educators in the trenches keep-on keeping-on, they are the heros. They are the ones every single day in our schools caring for our children and working their butts off despite the numerous obstacles and lack of respect and pay that come their way from up above.
Tired reluctant-cynic
Seattle's business and political communities throw highly paid consultants, dollars and polls behind their candidates.
Seattle's elite have failed to control school board elections for the last two business cycles and they are throwing a tantrum.
..and if Tired reluctant cynic thinks things can't get worse- think again. Look at the city's dismal failure to address infrastructure, transportation, homelessness, rents etc. What do you think they would do to education??
The Times' "Education lab" reporter has been fishing for a "negative" SpEd story for months. What does he find? Skeletons in the closet? Millions in locked briefcases?
No, he found "failure to communicate" as the KEY to the matter. Parents like me got a good laugh outa that one. His premise is really a no brainer that does not add to the body politic, yet it feeds Times' editorial board's toxic blatherings.
But the Times' has its agenda it must continually put forth. So Gates' Ed Lab grants pave the way for asinine editorials like this one and others.
But here's the thing. Many years back, I was a volunteer investigator for six months at the public defender's office. It was interesting, trying and I learned a lot.
Now we could look up info on the victim, the witnesses but weren't encouraged to look up anything on our clients. I did sometimes and guess what? Many were not angels.
But just because our clients did something wrong in the past did NOT make them automatically guilty in the case at hand.
I was not helping to defend any one person in any one case. My tiny contribution was to defend the Constitution.
And so it is here. I don't defend any single Board member or the entire Board as it exists today. I defend democracy.
I believe public education is just that important.
Because we have the City Council trying to take on the Parks AND preschools (and they can't even get Bertha right).
Murray wants to be able to appoint a majority of the Board? Is he seriously going to pick someone who disagrees with HIS agenda? And, if he picks the majority of the Board, then he is also effectively picking our superintendents.
Anyone truly believe you vote out a mayor on one thing? I don't.
As well, this feels like the Mayor might be thinking (again, with people whispering in his ear); "Those voters! We put up candidates with good backgrounds, fork over a lot of dough for their campaigns and the voters STILL don't vote the way we want. WE know better and this has to stop."
Why does the Mayor think he knows better than the voters of Seattle when it comes to public education?
I have watched this play out on a national political stage and also (with the "Majority Coalition") in the state, to some extent. The only thing that regular (NOT rich, connected) folks have to empower them is their ability to band together (through their vote) and their purchasing power (such as it is). To counter that, those who want to run things without having to bother with democracy generally swamp our spending power -- but the vote thing is harder. To nullify that, they either need to get us to vote against our interest (candidates who misrepresent themselves) OR just not vote at all -- and short of voter suppression laws, the best way to do that is to convince folks it isn't worth the bother. Government doesn't work anyhow, why bother, blah, blah, blah. Then -- to keep us from waking up and changing our minds when we realize how horrible their plans for 'us' are -- they use their power to remove the ability to vote. For us -- it is changing the school board to one appointed (or partially appointed) by the mayor. (For many states in 2010, it was wild, out-of-control gerrymandering -- that resulted in a situation where more folks voted for democrats than republicans in the US House of Representatives -- but the Republicans took it by a huge majority. It will take a decade to unwind -- and that is only if they can't put enough voter suppression tactics in place to win again in 2020.
In Seattle's case, this is EXACTLY what big business and big money want -- and have wanted ever since A4E went "ed reform." They want to (and did) buy influence -- and then use it to undermine and degrade good governance (starting with the MGJ era). Next, when they have choked off funding (because they never want to fund anything in the public sector -- unless it is provided through contracts with their cushy private sector friends) and things work even worse than usual (I say this because I am not defending the glories of public bureaucracies here -- there is ALWAYS work to be done getting government to run well), they niggle, and criticize, and nitpick, and get entities like the Seattle Times to do their bidding.
Finally -- just as they always wanted, they get people to get tired, and disgusted and cynical about the ability of the public sector to deliver ANYthing (we aren't supposed to notice they are hanging off the back bumper, dragging their feet to impede as much progress as possible) -- they can take the next step. Tired cynical people throw in the towel, quit, give up. What the $%#. Who cares? Nothing we do seems to help anyway. And voila! Money and monied influence wins.
cont'd (sorry Melissa)
Jan
I would love to know if there is ONE city out there -- where the mayor "took over" education -- that is happy that they no longer get to elect a school board. And if there is one, I would like to know whether, and to what extent, it is comparable to Seattle.
I spit in the teeth of cynicism. I am NOT tired. I am really, seriously, "channeling mirmac (as best as I can)" pissed.
I am DONE with the Times -- and I am implacably, and irrevocably opposed to Murray if he continues down this path!
Jan
Joe T
The board is not the problem with Seattle Schools. The fundamental issue with public schools is that schools are required to serve 100% of this years students, even if to do that, you must abandon your multi-year plans. That requirement of 100% service for this year, combined with a real need to have a long term vision creates a tension that is complex to manage.
And as for the revolving door on Superintendants, the simplest explanation is more convincing in my opinion. When you focus on a national search to find a superstar, you find precisely that. You find someone who has no local connection.
The truism that all politics is local applies to schools. It takes years to understand the nuance of decades of local decisions that got us here.
There'll be different names with high price tag at SPS helm. A big yes to Burgess' expensive Pre-school initiative that only reach a fraction of Seattle preschoolers while getting a bloated, well compensated admin staff with poorly paid "teachers" and TAs. Will get a very expensive Bertha like downtown school to go along with the never ending Mercer mess. Higher property taxes. Look for more ed levies to vote on in August.
Meanwhile for the rest of the 50,000 students much like the rest of Seattle populace, we count only enough for the dollars we bring in to the city and school coffer. After that, we are left trying to kill each other off to see who get to be top of the stewing pile.
The culture won't change, just the vultures!
Ugh
These clowns are proposing one administrator to every 50 students. The city wants a preschool program for 2000 students and they want to hire 42 highly paid administrators. Administrative level will go to over 60(!) individuals after 2018.They are also proposing very generous salaries. I'm confident we'll see these jobs land in the hands of their best buddies.
Hi Holly!
Where is Blanford in all of this? Afterall, he and Holly Miller have a "special project" that they are working on.
1-I can no longer in good faith advise incoming jobseekers and faculty at the UW to put their children in the SPS. I did not think like this 6 years ago but I see no change for the better and many changes for the worst.
2-There is no functional advanced learning program in the SPS. There is no academic challenge evident in either the APP or Spectrum programs. This can be a key issue for recruiting faculty to our local Universities.
3-Students are actively discouraged (by principals and the superintendents) from seeking academic challenge to supplement the district's spotty educational program. This discouragement manifests itself in a variety of ways ranging from not providing students with access to online courses on school grounds to withholding credit and placement for outside educational opportunities.
4-The math education in the SPS has been unsuited to prepare district students for college and university courses. This criticism may now only apply to middle and high school students (thanks to the advocacy of the school board).
I have seen the UW lose promising faculty candidates over the last several years. The lack of academic rigor in the Seattle Public Schools and administrative disfunction evident in the SPS district has been a primary factor in the decisions of these people to go elsewhere. The operation and priorities of the district schools are a key factor in driving talented workers away from Seattle.
-Repercussions
CT
They have the means and smarts to adjust and get on top.
ugh
If Maier and what's-her-name from Queen Anne had won, this wouldn't be happening.
Chris S.
However, there are also a huge number of UW faculty kids being kicked around in the APP Spectrum and ALO programs as well. I can't think of a single one who is happy with the academic rigor (or lack thereof) of these programs.
-Repercussions
I'm of two minds here. On the one hand, I see Chicago and New York don't want that here. On the other, I see Michelle Rhee taking the mayor of DC down with her.
If there is mayoral control, it MUST be direct and specific. The mayor has to hire the superintendent so that any stupid messes the Supt makes are the mayor's problem too. If the mayor just appoints the majority of the board, then there is absolutely no accountability through elections.
If the mayor takes control, performance of SPS and the superintendent will be a major campaign issue in every mayoral election. Is that such a bad thing?
I do not want the Mayor or Council to exercise control of the SPS Board. Yet, I do agree the District is a hot mess - everything that Repercussions mentions, to just basic things such as how staff treat and respond (or NOT) to parents and students. If this were a business it would have closed its doors long ago. Yet we are forced to put up with substandard practices and services.
I know it has been broached on here in the past, and, I know it is not popular in this forum - but I keep coming back to SPS as being too large and unmanageable and would like to see it split into smaller districts. Recently, I have been wondering how such a campaign could be launched.
Concerned Parent
"Dear Ed: I was happy to support your candidacy for mayor because I thought your predecessor was an incompetent fool. But if you do as the Seattle Times would have you do, you likewise will be an incompetent fool, and I will work as hard to make you a one-term mayor as I did for your now thankfully departed predecessor."
-- Ivan Weiss
If people were smart, they would get behind Louis Watanabe and send him a campaign donation.
He was nowhere - NOWHERE - on education, period. Frockt out of the 46th runs circles around him on education policy.
You don't just jump into ed policy. You study it. You have kids go through the system. You volunteer. Ed has done none of that.
Jumping on the "ed reform" wagon is just so much resume building for the man, and I'll work my butt off to elect someone else if he so much steps in the direction of public school "ownership".
DistrictWatcher
Political graspers all.
I have to step outside to spit to get the foul taste out of my mouth.
DistrictWatcher
Eric,
Here is your answer to Boston and mayoral control:
"Chicago, Boston and New York schools are still under the watch of the mayors — Richard Daley, Thomas Menino and Bloomberg — who first took them over. But what happens when the next mayor comes into office? Will the commitment to improving schools continue?"
It is worth noting that Murray and Burgess are WELL of Boston's school structures. They visited these areas and found that it was much easier to get the school district involved in preschool efforts because there was control from mayors etc.
While we should increase preschool to low income children, I don't believe present funding should be redirected out of the K-12 system. I'm sure Murray and Burgess would love some K-12 dollars for these efforts.
Let's not forget Murray LOVES to bash poor outcomes, but he failed, miserably, to fund ed. while in the legislature.
As a matter of fact, he was the guy that wrote the legislation for Bertha!! Keep this guy away from us!!!!!!!
Ivan- I'm afraid you made a very big mistake supporting Murray.
District 9 or Hunger Games anyone?
ugh
If there weren't so many problems with how central administration is run here in Seattle, there would be a lot less fuel for the fire of those that want a takeover of our public schools.
The best defense against these kinds of moves would be a well-run, functional, accountable, and efficient central administration and school district. Sadly, we are nowhere close to having that, and I see few signs that our new superintendent considers it a major priority.
Unlike McGinn, Ed will test the political waters. He will not go forward with this if he thinks there will be political blowback that might affect him and his administration adversely. It's our job to quit wringing our hands and assuming the worst. It's our job to start providing that blowback.
For example: Message to Ed -- Taking your political advice from Frank Blethen is not a ticket to political advancement, nor is it a prescription for sound public policy.
-- Ivan Weiss
Chris S. about who didn't get elected, you are right on. That's why my long comment referenced the frustration that I think the powers that be have over Board elections. Why didn't that nice Peter Maier keep his seat or that nice Suzanne Dale Estey win? It would seem those outcomes are a mixture of tone-deafness and lack of understanding about this district.
Eric, if the mayor appoints the majority of the board, he will also control who is superintendent. I cannot accept that kind of power. Charlie has often said that maybe the City should run facilities or appoint the Superintendent but I cannot see the power brokers even contemplating that. It's all or nothing.
Concerned Parent, it may be time to think about splitting the district but I'll be darned if I know how. I know it would have to be legislatively done but who would lead the charge out of Seattle? It might be possible if some large group like SCPTA or League of Women Voters said they would help do a survey/study of what it would look like and if the outcomes would be better for students and taxpayers. I would not support dividing it into more than 3 sections.
Jon, I have warned Board members for years that to not get this district's house in order is to invite this kind of action. I agree with your thinking.
Mr. Mayor - you are a fool if you listen to this "advice" and I will happily join the throngs making sure you are never mayor of Seattle again if this happens. What a misguided power play.
That's exactly the problem I have with the mayor appointing the majority of the board. If he does that, he has the control without the accountability. When the next clusterf*ck arrives, he replaces a couple of board directors and goes on his way. If there's no board and the mayor appoints the superintendent, then there is a direct line of accountability to the mayor, and it becomes a direct campaign issue. "Why did the superintendent you appointed allow ____ to happen? Why haven't you replaced the superintendent over this?"
The mayor appointing the board is the worst of both worlds.
If able I would fire each and every board member, but who cares it just a hobby position. I feel used by a certain board members election campaign and will work against that member come election time.
SPED Parent
HIMSmom
My trash gets picked up on time. My kids don't. Need we say more?
-D
What about school psychologist? UW
Oh, we had better listen or face losing another overpaid PUBLIC SERVANT at OUR PUBLICLY FUNDED UNIVERSITY!
You would be better served posting on a Tokyo base blog.
Get Real
ugh
-Anonymous Today
There is no guarantee that a mayor will be in office beyond one term. I am already hearing rumors that a candidate is firing-up to run against Murray. Murray would be smart to remember that he didn't win by a landslide and he had $880K and a PAC.
Murray would be smart to stay clear of this issue. I'm absolutely confident the push-back against mayoral control would be fierce.
ugh
I also fully agree that UW is part of the problem. You have half the faculty at UW wanting greater academic rigor and a decent math curriculum to minimize remedial training for incoming students. And the other half of the faculty……I dunno…..with their heads in the clouds or something, doing everything they can to obfuscate education in the district. Bizarre.
But the state of the public schools are contributing to a growing loss of a talented workforce in the city of Seattle. Dropping the mayor into the mix is the worst possible "solution".
-Repercussions
1. Pressing Olympia to full-fund K-12 education.
2. Get a firm grasp of the enrollment/capacity challenges facing SPS, and work on ways to help meet these challenges. It is pretty obvious that the Mayor does not understand the school capacity shortfalls, or he would not be promoting the preschool initiative. If he really wants to increase the number of minorities who graduate from high school, then perhaps he should work with SPS on solutions for our high school capacity crisis, because expecting kids to attend high schools with shifts that start at 6 or 7 am is not going to yield the results he is looking for. If SPS wasn't spending so much time and money on coming up with emergency capacity solutions every year, then perhaps SPS could direct more time and money on curricular, programming, and transportation issues?
3. Direct funds to better support our students in their daily commutes to school (i.e. sidewalks, signaled crosswalks, better Metro service, etc...).
3. Direct funds to better support adequate before and after school care and activities at our schools and community centers. For instance, the Lake City "community center" is basically a rental hall, with very few, if any, facilities and services to support families). This part of town is exploding with growth, and our teens and tweens need a functioning community center. I'm sure other areas of town are facing similar shortages in support for tweens/teens.
4. Implement impact fees for developers to support school capacity needs and infrastructure, and all the programming and services listed above.
- North-end Mom
NGC
They have cultivated and supported efforts to prevent board oversight (remember MGJ's "contract" with the board to not disagree with her) and good governance. They have actively worked against community outreach and involvement -- and FOR special interest politics. They have encouraged the Superintendent and senior district management to ignore the public and to condescend to the Board (by ignoring Board policy and procedures -- things like getting stuff onto agendas, not voting on things you introduce in the same meeting, etc.).
When has the ST or the Alliance -- or any of the other ed reform political groups -- ever tried to help the board with community outreach? Where was A4E (or anyone on the city's staff) as the District struggled to try to figure out how to reach compliance with the OSPI SPED investigation? Why have we never had an effort from A4E to help the board insure that staff shows up with recommendations (and supporting presentations) that address crucial issues and follow policies in terms of how they wre developed? They were nowhere. Absent. Gone. Why? Because having a well run, functioning School District, and good educational outcomes for kids has never been the goal with these folks. It is not about education with them -- ANY of them, any more than Russia's presence in eastern Ukraine is about helping to bring peace. It is all a political power grab.
I would be very curious to see the results of a public records request on the Blanford's communications with Holly Miller and the City.
Jan
Jan
"If the mayor takes control, performance of SPS and the superintendent will be a major campaign issue in every mayoral election. Is that such a bad thing?"
C'mon, Eric. The mayoral campaigns are beyond fierce, funded at $880K and there are many competing issues. Mayoral control of education would only encourage more dollars to flow into PACs and mayoral elections. And...we're so lucky to have Gates and his cronies right here in our back yard.
Murray has NEVER had a child in SPS and he has not had years of daily interaction with SPS. That counts.
I echo the voices here.. No mayoral control. Let him and the city council get a handle on everything that actually is their responsibility first. then we'll talk....
-katydid
Hey, hey, ho, ho.
This lame idea's got to go.
Public school kids don't need more woe.
With a mayor there for show.
-skeptical-
Tomorrow it will be yesterdays news.
Today it is was a waste of ink and paper.
The mayor and the council are about to shove a feel-good idea (PreK) down the throats of a district that can't manage the responsibilities it already has. With friends like the city, SPS doesn't need enemies, that's for sure.
-skeptical-
I will say that I have rarely encountered anyone who treats the Board work as a "hobby."
The legislation that the Times SHOULD be working for is funding to pay the three largest school boards' members in the state (that would be Seattle, Spokane and Tacoma) so that Board members could truly devote time to it as their real job.
Po3, I got "worked up" for a couple of reasons.
1) I want to nip this thinking in the bud. I want the blowback to be such that the flame of any idea like it goes out.
2) People actually still read the Times and some of them - who don't know our district - might actually think it a good idea.
I have already heard from a couple of my legislators (I wrote to all of them this morning). They all respect Mayor Murray but do not approve of this idea. (When I have heard from all of them, then I'll say who they are.)
I would advise you to let your legislators know that you don't want them working on this "education" issue but that they should be working on THE education issue which is McCleary.
chris s.
I also like the idea of an elected super.
This is the same city that can't seem to fix the sidewalks?
Let me think about it...
-districtWatcher
It blows my mind that they can designate walk zones and "safe routes to school" when there aren't sidewalks for the kids to use. My kids don't have the luxury of a sidewalk on their walk to John Rogers and Hale. It's been especially scary during the 35th Ave closure, since the detour traffic is directed past both schools.
IMO, there is quite a bit the City can do to support our kids, without getting into the business of running the School Board.
Also, if you forward my comments on to the Mayor, please correct my grammatical and punctuation errors. I should have proof-read it before posting. Thanks!
- North-end Mom
This violent reaction to the mere suggestion of city management of schools is surprising to me. The district is known nationally for its dysfunction, so why not make a change? I've got no great faith in city administration, but can it really be much worse?
-Anonymous Today
City control would be worse. You would not pick your Board. You likely could not go to them with a problem/issue if it wasn't something the Mayor/City Council thought important. And, since the Mayor would control the majority, the Mayor would be picking the superintendent as well.
Go ask Chicago or NYC or LA how they liked mayoral control.
Re: Repercussions' comments about SPS dysfunction affecting the caliber of hires moving to the city - really? Not from what I see. In the over-educated NE of the city (that's supposed to be a joke, but I am clarifying that in case someone is offended), there are tons of SPS students with parents at UW/Microsoft/Amazon/NOAA/the big medical providers and many of those kids are in advanced learning, despite its flaws.
-flibbertigibbet
That said, the Board can be blamed for their failure to enforce policy. Enforcing policy is policy work and it is their job and they simply don't do it. If the Board would enforce policy, then the District would be better managed, but that doesn't make them responsible for the mismanagement.
Take Special Education as an example. The Board can hold a work session on Special Education to daylight the problems and clarify the lines of authority and responsibility. But it would be totally inappropriate for them to adopt a hands-on approach to correcting the problems in that department. It would be wrong of them to take over the day-to-day administration and management of the department.
This comment makes me a little crazy. The Seattle School District is NOT known nationally for being dysfunctional (not that I am touting them as paragons of functionality). There are MANY FAR FAR worse, in Georgia, Kansas, Missouri, etc.
The link you provide is to a ST article (now, THERE is an unbiased source) citing a study by (or financed by) the US Chamber of Commerce and some other "conservative business group" (the ST's description -- not mine). This is just more ed reform spin. It it the exact example of the problem -- the scam -- that is going on here -- where supposedly pro ed, or benign entities (the A4E, Sara Morris's group, the ST, etc.) all trash the District and undermine it -- and then crow that it doesn't work well so we should turn things over to them.
Am I alone in thinking this is just blatantly underhanded and wrong?
Jan
Sub
I think that is happening. I think from within and without, there is now a concentrate push/drumbeat in order to flip the district somehow. Do not fall for it.