Conversing with Rep Tomiko Santos on Breaking up the Seattle School District
I spoke with Tomiko Santos about this issue this morning. It was a concerning conversation because of several things she said:
1) She had been thinking about the idea for years as she has felt that her district (and its schools) have not been respected by the school district.
I find this a very odd reason to upend an entire district. One legislative region does not a district make (at least as I see it).
2) She believes this will bring "equity" to her area. I wasn't able to ask her what faith she has dividing the district up is the way for that to happen.
I also would ask the question about equity. Years ago, I very much thought things were not as equitable throughout the district but I think things are much better. I see the inequity not so much in what the district proves as what PTAs do. (That said, RBHS has been at the bottom of the "to do" list for waaay too long.)
3) The "emergency" clause was put in by "technical" people. Well, I don't care who did it - there is no burning reason to do this kind of massive overhaul. If they need the word "emergency" in there to put this bill forth, then something's wrong.
4) She made it sound like there would be a process to the change almost as if parents/communities would be involved but the bill proves zero guarantee of that. So the sausage making will happen probably behind the scenes.
5) She said that most exceptions in the law for schools are for Seattle and other legislators had questioned that. I'm not sure I get it.
6) She said it isn't class size that matters but school size. I can only say that Seattle had many small schools just a decade or less ago and they were not all beacons of success.
7) She feels it's important for communities to support the central administration. I would agree.
I also told her this sounds a lot like a charter district coming. She said no, she was against charters (and she has been consistent on this point).
I told her - it is a massive gamble and I'm not hearing real reasoning backed up with real data.
My belief is that this - along with the City's Pre-k, the mayoral appointment of school board directors - is a power play of the highest order by those who want to control the district and the discussion about public education in Seattle.
Does that discussion include parents, staff and communities? I guess not.
1) She had been thinking about the idea for years as she has felt that her district (and its schools) have not been respected by the school district.
I find this a very odd reason to upend an entire district. One legislative region does not a district make (at least as I see it).
2) She believes this will bring "equity" to her area. I wasn't able to ask her what faith she has dividing the district up is the way for that to happen.
I also would ask the question about equity. Years ago, I very much thought things were not as equitable throughout the district but I think things are much better. I see the inequity not so much in what the district proves as what PTAs do. (That said, RBHS has been at the bottom of the "to do" list for waaay too long.)
3) The "emergency" clause was put in by "technical" people. Well, I don't care who did it - there is no burning reason to do this kind of massive overhaul. If they need the word "emergency" in there to put this bill forth, then something's wrong.
4) She made it sound like there would be a process to the change almost as if parents/communities would be involved but the bill proves zero guarantee of that. So the sausage making will happen probably behind the scenes.
5) She said that most exceptions in the law for schools are for Seattle and other legislators had questioned that. I'm not sure I get it.
6) She said it isn't class size that matters but school size. I can only say that Seattle had many small schools just a decade or less ago and they were not all beacons of success.
7) She feels it's important for communities to support the central administration. I would agree.
I also told her this sounds a lot like a charter district coming. She said no, she was against charters (and she has been consistent on this point).
I told her - it is a massive gamble and I'm not hearing real reasoning backed up with real data.
My belief is that this - along with the City's Pre-k, the mayoral appointment of school board directors - is a power play of the highest order by those who want to control the district and the discussion about public education in Seattle.
Does that discussion include parents, staff and communities? I guess not.
Comments
SPS has problems. Many of them stem from the Legislature's failure to properly fund the schools. Others stem from a central staff culture of profound hostility to parents. It's possible that a split district might be good. But there's also a lot of reason to believe it would be bad. And there's no reason at all to rush this process.
There needs to be a broader community discussion before something like this is done. It should not be imposed from above, certainly not by a Legislature that is facing contempt charges for failing to fund our schools.
It would be Apartheid Seattle.
Is that honestly what Tomiko wants?
Pettigrew I get. He's been bought and paid for, but Santos?
There's more to this story than meets the eye.
If they focused on that, what problems there might be could more easily be resolved.
As it stands now watching these two reps, I don't think their taking their responsbilities very seriously, at least when it comes to our children and ensuring adequate and equitable funding.
That is what they need to focus on, not bills that don't make any sense.
If you can't strip voters of control over all of SPS, split into smaller pieces. Exert control over the non-white, lower-income, low-parental involvement district and freely apply Randian principles to the profit of various corporations.
This was a deal that was done behind closed doors and I've lost my respect for Tomiko-Santos.
At this point, what difference does it make if Tomiko Santos opposes charter schools?
I agree with Melissa's assessment. Legislators that support this deal will own the outcome and it isn't going to be pretty.
That was my thought also.
Easier to prey on those who don't have the wherewithal to push back or see what's going on.
Open season.
Because we know the north end won't stand for Teach for America, high stakes testing (for very long), the drill and kill of Common Core Standards (again, not for long) or the cheap charter schools and online schools who promise everything but give nothing back in terms of a real education.
I'm trying to make sense out of why Santos sponsored this bill and then comes up with such limp excuses for it.
If you want to fix educational inequity, fully fund K12 education first.
If you want to fix the "rest" of SPS, vote for School Board members that clearly and strongly hold the Supt. accountable for mismanaging staff, and that includes, as Robert so aptly notes, their history of "profound hostility to parents"
But splitting this District up? That will fix things? Hogwash.
reader47
That also includes hostility towards school board members by central staff playing around with budget numbers so that proposals won't require a public hearing by the school board and also providing inaccurate and sometimes misleading information to board members to further personal/professional agendas.
Joe Public
Who can move those dollars from downtown to the schools?
Joe Public
Santo's website
http://housedemocrats.wa.gov/roster/rep-Sharon-Tomiko-Santos/
there is a link to the bill, it's short and concise, takes effect July 1
sounds like she and Pettigrew are saying buzz-off northend, we'll take of our own, thank you very much.
Back to boundaries, do they want downtown taxes in their district? Maybe the two districts will split downtown SLU to the northend Stewart and south to the southend district.
Crazy
Ideally, you want a mix of property types to keep costs down for homeowners. When the bill hits homeowners hard, the levies are harder to pass.
-Ramona H
Tomiko- Santos indicated that SPS has a corporate culture and she wants a community culture.
Clearly, she understands the influence of the Chamber of Commerce, Ballmer, Matt Griffin, Gates, Ed Murray, Tim Burgess and their corporate backers etc.
We have outside interests, hidden agendas, Ed Murray, Tim Burgess, The Alliance For Education, LEV - and their worker bees inside the John Stanford Center. We've watched special interests get their plans "embedded" into the strategic plan etc. No one can deny that there is a lack of transparency and attempts at end runs around the board. This is one way to break-up the rats.
Westside
None of our legislators are committed to their responsibility to raise revenue and adequately fund schools. This is desperate.
Westside
I can see how the dumb ideas of Pettigrew & others get traction - the track record of those managing this educational fiasco only shines if you're handing out rewards for obfuscation. However, to think that the well credentialed pilfering crowd is going to improve anything, beyond their personal net worth, is beyond laughable.
WhoKnows
Please make the following effective changes instead:
Fully fund education.
Pay directors and their staff ( = city council )
Clean out headquarters.
Improve the teaching corps.
Adjust curriculum and instruction (to effectively serve all children).
Support access to community based Success Coordinators (Personal Development Plans - Birth to 30).
The key question is who is actually writing these bills? Pettigrew doesn't know the first thing about Public Ed, yet he leads the charge to destroy it from his privileged position on the outside, with his own children free and clear of the consequences sure to befall others. This is the absolute worst kind of "leadership," i.e., selling out others when you have no skin in the game.
Simply disgusting. WSDWG
I’m not really able to take that leap of faith when our legislators who can’t even follow a court order to fully fund education (which if it happens, I believe the outcomes Santos and Pettirgrew are upset about, will be improved)
If this were a serious bill, and they really wanted any kind of buy in from voters, the analysis and details would be pinned down first.
I am disappointed that this is how these legislators are choosing to spend our collective time and enerty when fully funding education should be their first priority.
-katydid
One more way to disenfranchise the voting public by taking away their right to subject the legislation to a popular vote.
The "emergency" clause is THE RED FLAG in this legislation that should tip everyone off that the tail is trying to wag the dog again, knows they don't have the popular support, and wants to ram this down our throats like totalitarian dictators.
Shame on Tomiko-Santos and Pettigrew.
WSDWG
Pettigrew has never even been on the Education Committee!
He is simply a shill for LEV and charters.
Rica
www.imarksweb.org