Blanford Slams the Board and the District at TFA ("Alumni") Event
Editor's note: this event was not sponsored by TFA but by their Washington Alumni group. I'll just note that the TFA website has pages with links to all alumni groups.)
end of update
Dear Directors,
I am tracking the school board elections and I attended two events last night.
One was at the NAACP where they hosted the national education director who was speaking on ESSA and how states will be enacting those regulations. I was unable to stay for the full program as I had planned to go to another event and the NAACP program started late.
The other program was at a group called General Assembly and it was sponsored by Teach for America Washington Alumni. They allegedly invited all the candidates (but I heard from at least one who only got the reminder, not the invite) but only two came and, of course, were both former TFA members. That would be Oscar Vasquez in the 5th and Chelsea Byers in the 7th.
The moderator for the evening was Director Blanford who had been asked - at the last minute - to come and fill in the group (of about 40 people) about the Seattle School Board. What he said about the Board and the district, I found appalling. Keep in mind, he knew I was there and taking notes. I'm only going to speak to what he said about the Board and district and not all his speaking points about running for school board.
Oddly, he started by saying that "hopefully, I can speak without being negative" and then proceeded to do exactly that.
He also noted - and this is the first time I have heard any Board member say this in public - that the next Board "will likely be engaged in a superintendent search." I'm not sure that was appropriate to say but he said that.
He then said that he had traveled a lot to conferences, both in state and nationally, and such and that Seattle's school district and board does not have a good reputation "it's not positive." He said that the the reputation of the Board is that it "frequently oversteps its bounds" and "is not appropriate in its relationships with superintendents." He inferred that it would be hard to get good superintendent candidates because of this reputation.
He said that "strong leadership is what the district desperately needs." I would take that to mean he does not believe the superintendent or the Board are currently operating under strong leadership.
He also misspoke on the issue of the district having the 5th largest achievement gap, saying it was about "students of color" when it is about black students. He said the district is "allowing" these students to do poorly. I would take that to mean that he believes the district leadership, which includes him, and teachers don't care about students of color and their academic performance.
He said the role of the the School Board is two-fold; to be able to help guide a $1B organization and to know their role vis a vis the superintendent and staff.
Then, he got personal. He said that in his four years that he had been at the wrong end of many 6-1 votes and he was the "only" director voting thru an equity lens every time.
First of all, he did not tell these voters that he HAD been on the winning end of voting during most of his first 2 years. And, that statement about "the only director" I believe is a direct slap against each and every one of you.
When asked about the deficit in the district's budget, he said that it was related to the teachers contract that somehow the district/Board was forced to sign because of the strike. He said that the pressure to end the strike had driven that. I had never heard that the teachers contract was beyond what the district could deliver and the only reason it was signed was to end the strike.
Only after that issue did he mention McCleary.
I thought it was against Board policy to speak ill of another director especially in public. But perhaps he thinks he is out the door and, at this point, can say anything he pleases in his zeal to either strike back at those he believes are wrong and/or get the people in power he thinks are right.
Sincerely,
Melissa Westbrook
Editor's note:
My take on this is that Blanford's remarks were appalling and insulting to the Board he serves on and the individual members. I'm thinking he's aiming for something bigger and better and just can't wait to get there. I wish he'd just leave now if he thinks so little of this district and the Board.
He also stated that Ms. Byers and Mr. Vasquez "found the time to come and speak with you today" to the TFA crowd. Well, first, there are generally many events that candidates find themselves faced with attending and are just not able to attend all of them.
Two, Eden Mack, running in District IV, and Andre Helmstetter, running in District V, were at the NAACP event.
Given how clubby and chummy the General Assembly/TFA event was - with Vasquez and Byers quickly noting their service in TFA to the TFA only crowd - I'm thinking Mack and Helmstetter probably made the better choice in listening to the issues of the NAACP about ESSA.
end of update
Dear Directors,
I am tracking the school board elections and I attended two events last night.
One was at the NAACP where they hosted the national education director who was speaking on ESSA and how states will be enacting those regulations. I was unable to stay for the full program as I had planned to go to another event and the NAACP program started late.
The other program was at a group called General Assembly and it was sponsored by Teach for America Washington Alumni. They allegedly invited all the candidates (but I heard from at least one who only got the reminder, not the invite) but only two came and, of course, were both former TFA members. That would be Oscar Vasquez in the 5th and Chelsea Byers in the 7th.
The moderator for the evening was Director Blanford who had been asked - at the last minute - to come and fill in the group (of about 40 people) about the Seattle School Board. What he said about the Board and the district, I found appalling. Keep in mind, he knew I was there and taking notes. I'm only going to speak to what he said about the Board and district and not all his speaking points about running for school board.
Oddly, he started by saying that "hopefully, I can speak without being negative" and then proceeded to do exactly that.
He also noted - and this is the first time I have heard any Board member say this in public - that the next Board "will likely be engaged in a superintendent search." I'm not sure that was appropriate to say but he said that.
He then said that he had traveled a lot to conferences, both in state and nationally, and such and that Seattle's school district and board does not have a good reputation "it's not positive." He said that the the reputation of the Board is that it "frequently oversteps its bounds" and "is not appropriate in its relationships with superintendents." He inferred that it would be hard to get good superintendent candidates because of this reputation.
He said that "strong leadership is what the district desperately needs." I would take that to mean he does not believe the superintendent or the Board are currently operating under strong leadership.
He also misspoke on the issue of the district having the 5th largest achievement gap, saying it was about "students of color" when it is about black students. He said the district is "allowing" these students to do poorly. I would take that to mean that he believes the district leadership, which includes him, and teachers don't care about students of color and their academic performance.
He said the role of the the School Board is two-fold; to be able to help guide a $1B organization and to know their role vis a vis the superintendent and staff.
Then, he got personal. He said that in his four years that he had been at the wrong end of many 6-1 votes and he was the "only" director voting thru an equity lens every time.
First of all, he did not tell these voters that he HAD been on the winning end of voting during most of his first 2 years. And, that statement about "the only director" I believe is a direct slap against each and every one of you.
When asked about the deficit in the district's budget, he said that it was related to the teachers contract that somehow the district/Board was forced to sign because of the strike. He said that the pressure to end the strike had driven that. I had never heard that the teachers contract was beyond what the district could deliver and the only reason it was signed was to end the strike.
Only after that issue did he mention McCleary.
I thought it was against Board policy to speak ill of another director especially in public. But perhaps he thinks he is out the door and, at this point, can say anything he pleases in his zeal to either strike back at those he believes are wrong and/or get the people in power he thinks are right.
Sincerely,
Melissa Westbrook
Editor's note:
My take on this is that Blanford's remarks were appalling and insulting to the Board he serves on and the individual members. I'm thinking he's aiming for something bigger and better and just can't wait to get there. I wish he'd just leave now if he thinks so little of this district and the Board.
He also stated that Ms. Byers and Mr. Vasquez "found the time to come and speak with you today" to the TFA crowd. Well, first, there are generally many events that candidates find themselves faced with attending and are just not able to attend all of them.
Two, Eden Mack, running in District IV, and Andre Helmstetter, running in District V, were at the NAACP event.
Given how clubby and chummy the General Assembly/TFA event was - with Vasquez and Byers quickly noting their service in TFA to the TFA only crowd - I'm thinking Mack and Helmstetter probably made the better choice in listening to the issues of the NAACP about ESSA.
Comments
Obvious
I believe we on the board are used to Director Blanford's remarks out in the public. He seems to take every public opportunity to slam the board even when it is tone deaf to the audience; he made such comment at the Naramore event to the students there to receive awards for art.
I do have to wonder if the rest of the country thinks we have such a difficult board or if he is just telling everyone around the country we have a difficult board. Given that he seems to be the one ready to bring up the subject at every opportunity, perhaps he is getting the reaction from others that he has laid the ground work for. Moreover, reputations are not built overnight - and our board had a majority turn over less than two years ago - so was it the former board that was so bad or the current one? From all I have heard, the two boards could not be more different in the majority's focus. Or is it just that he feels he has not been appropriately appreciated? It is really hard to tease out what his point is in all of this.
Equity: As I travel around the state and country, Seattle is seen as an equity leader in many ways. We were one of the first districts to have an Equity Policy. We are moving forward on an Ethnic Studies Policy. We make closing the gap our top priority. We are frequently thanked by our staff for supporting the initiatives they believe will help us in that goal - even while I know some board members have doubts about the methods. We send teams to other districts doing the work to get ideas. We have teams for trauma and positive behavioral interventions, community building, family outreach, African American Male Intitiative. While we have a long ways to go, in the only city growing whiter and with self-separation on the rise (as you say elsewhere) our focus on closing the gap is a good thing and something that with little effort could easily be celebrated. Sure we have a long way to go, but don't forget that SPS's policies and efforts have brought the floor up for all and our students of color are beating the state averages for many kids, as our white students seem to also respond very positively to our interventions.
And finally, while I think folks love to hear the dirt, I wonder if when it comes time to build a team they want to include the person who so frequently threw his or her colleagues under the bus. If you always focus on the 10% bad, eventually it will grow to the 90%. There is so many positive things to bring constructive energy to, and in an ever tightening budget, we need our families and community to bring their positive energy to each and every school to keep our kids on a good trajectory. It seems a shame, and frankly all to easy, to wallow in the negative in order to prop oneself up as better than everyone else. Our kids, teachers, staff, leaders and board all deserve better.
With these kinds of on-going remarks -which serve who, as Director Geary points out - I wonder who is the lame-duck here.
But all that aside, the worst thing you can do for an organization you hope to improve the culture of is gossip publicly, one sidedly, about your colleagues in that organization. That just drags everyone down and erodes public confidence in the institution, and it is not like SPS has plenty to spare.
-sleeper
Good to know that Helmstettler and Mack were at the NAACP/ ESSA event. Did other candidates attend the NAACP event?
For progress
- The event took place on the General Assembly Seattle campus but was not sponsored or endorsed by GA in any way.
- The event was organized by a group of TFA alumni (myself included) but was not sponsored by or endorsed by Teach For America.
- We invited both TFA alums and their friends/colleagues to the event. Not everyone in attendance was an alumni or even affiliated with TFA.
- We invited every candidate running for School Board in this summer's primary. We provided information on all candidates and strived to make the event informational, not political.
As a lifelong educator (who got my start with TFA 17 years ago) and a parent of an SPS student, I'm very much committed to understanding and contributing to solving the issues that face SPS. Thanks again for being part of that dialog.
--updated to fix typos--
If you are trying to understand TfA and Seattle, understand that families want trained and experienced teachers with our children.
TfA is a mechanism to create educational "leaders". Some of these individuals have spent two years in classrooms.
Jones neglected to mention that one candidate (Byers) works for General Assembly.
Blanford is "sophisticated?" Well, maybe so, but he's not so savvy.
For Progress, tell us what Blanford has accomplished in his four years. Where has he worked with colleagues to further any initiative? What has he seen thru to completion?
I didn't say General Assembly sponsored the event; I said it was at the site.
The majority of people at the event were TFA; I heard conversations and that was readily apparent.
If the TFA alum invited every candidate, it certainly wasn't clear to all candidates but I suspect that many might not have come because of the TFA-affiliation. They probably know that the district hasn't really embraced TFA teachers nor does the district have the funds to pay the fees to have TFA teachers.
He has been a voice of reason and for the dispossessed. He has voted against countless foolish initiatives and amendments. He has supported Honors For All at Garfield and inclusion at Thurgood Marshall. He has reminded Director Peters of her privilege. He has led by example.
For progress
Think about it. At schools that send large numbers of students to HCC (i.e., higher income schools, more white/Asian schools), the influx of HC students might or might not result in the provision of more opportunities for advanced students. If it does, some students not previously in HCC might benefit. You might end up with higher scores for some of those non-HCC neighborhood kids who get the new opportunities, while you're not likely to see much of a decrease in scores for HCC students on grade-level tests, even if they lose rigor and challenge in the process. (There may be other negative effects on their education, though, particularly for outliers.) Overall, returning large numbers of HCC students to more well-off, whiter schools might mean those schools get a little stronger.
Returning HCC students to schools that don't send many to HCC, however--generally our poorer, more minority-heavy schools--would not have the same effect due to small numbers. If a handful of HCC students return, so what? The curriculum and instruction aren't likely to change. These ex-HCC students will have fewer opportunities, and the neighborhood students will continue to get what they've been getting. Overall, returning small numbers of HCC students to poorer, less white schools won't have much impact on those schools, although it'll have negative impacts on those kids who return.
Comparing those likely results, the gap is likely to widen, not shrink. Since HCC students disproportionately come from certain schools, disbanding HCC essentially turns richer schools into HCC-lite, leaving poorer schools as they are. The disparities persist.
HCC includes a small percentage of the district's population. If we were to pack up all those HCC kids and ship them off to another district, we'd still have all the same disparities.
for reality
My Opinion
I'm trying to understand how I -- as an educator and a parent -- can help make sure my daughter attends diverse, inclusive and high-quality schools. I assume that desire is shared by most, if not all, SPS parents.
Also, Chelsea Byers works for Galvanize. She formerly worked for General Assembly. I work for General Assembly currently.
You're correct, many attendees at the event were TFA alumni. But there's a difference between the alumni (who are folks who served as TFA educators in the past) and TFA the organization. Just wanted to be clear on the distinction.
Seattle voters did not support charter schools.
Melissa J., your views - broadly speaking - are probably shared by parents. However, you'd have to define all those words about schools because many people might have different meanings.
NoTFA, Byers did work for General Assembly; she now works at Galvanzie which does similiar work.
We start hearing school board candidates state that they do not support charter schools. Listen closely, those words are minced between for profit and non profit charter schools.
Fix AL
Please clarify. Are you talking about charter schools?
Don't tell me you want to harm educational outcomes for Black gifted kids in the name of equity.
Not sure they will reward his next candidacy after taking his blame on the way out.
He was a big hit with Lisa McFarland and Schools First.
Agree with my opinion.
For progress" Regarding Blanford "reminding Peters of her privilege". Blanford needs someone to remind him of his own privilege. Guess what? He has male, socioeconomic, educational elite privileges and does not have a disability.
-other privileges
Two things I genuinely don't understand:
Why does your family participate in HCC if you feel the program fosters privilege and not inclusion?
Your Thurgood Marshall principal has the power in this decentralized district to eliminate the separate HCC program at TM and and achieve instant diversity. If the TM gen-Ed teachers were required by the principal to assess and instruct at each student's appropriate level, wouldn't that be a more direct path to your goals albeit on a smaller scale?
@Why
As to Blanford, he was basically running unopposed in 2013 because his only opponent had a record of saying awful things about people. The Stranger didn't want to endorse him but had no choice because that opponent wasn't credible. Thankfully there are several good people running for that seat this year. I'm personally backing Andre Helmstetter but Zach would also be good, maybe Alec too though I know less about him.
No connection to HCC whatsoever.
For progress
Experienced
I am still waiting for Melissa Jones to clarify her statement:
"I'm trying to understand how I -- as an educator and a parent -- can help make sure my daughter attends diverse, inclusive and high-quality schools"
Sounds like code language for charter schools, to me.
@Jill Geary
Pot, meet kettle. Sounds like you are trying to distance yourself from linkage to Director Blanford on the KUOW broadcast. Waiting for you to scale back your comments about HCC disgraces (which have been spot-on) now that you are politically stuck in SPS for the foreseeable future. You seem fully aware of the power centers in this district.
This is a reality television gossip fest, seeping with opportunism.
Conduct Unbecoming
Is that helpful?
--B-Rig
Unlike charter schools, public schools do not have the luxury of capping enrollment. At times of increasing enrollment, Seattle Public Schools are busting at the seams. Charter school parents like smaller schools. Wouldn't that be nice for everyone?
I await the day when charter schools accept medically fragile students. Those with high and expensive needs are left in public schools.
Lastly, charter authorization only adds to administrative costs and charter schools drain funding from public schools.
Charter schools want public funds without public oversight.
To your other points:
1) There's a lot that would be nice for everyone. Great schools would be nice for everyone. If you are a parent/guardian and want you child in a smaller school, then advocate for some type of change to your school board that would allow for that. Too slow? They don't listen? That's one reason charters exist.
2) I think that is an important anti-charter position.
3) I am not sure I believe charter authorization adds to admin costs overall. Maybe in the first couple of years.
4) The authorizer is public oversight, no?
I am not pro-charter. I have personally seen some incredible charter schools for low-income students of color; I have also seen some really terrible charters. I've also seen many really bad low-income schools, and fewer really good traditional schools for low-income students of color. I find the anti-charter hysteria in Seattle to be illogical, and at times hypocritical.
--B-Rig
The old choice system, was effectively a system where every school operated as a charter school. Hence the "hysteria." There are a lot of folks who are painfully familiar with the downside of the charter system. This is a well informed and easy to substantiate point of view and not hypocritical.
That said, if you don't know the ins and out of the old system, it would look odd.
Here is my point on hypocrisy: Families with wealth have choice. Families with enough money to move to 'nicer' neighborhoods have choice. If they are unhappy with schools they can move or enroll in private schools. Low-income families do not have that choice. I often find that progressive, anti-charter folks rant about charters without acknowledging that many low-income families of color are feeling frustrated, trapped and don't have the means/access to exercise choice. Charters are not THE solution. Let's at least acknowledge that choice already exists for many families now.
--B-Rig
B-Rig, boy, you are really trying to stretch and qualify just to get someone to say that it might be okay to support someone for the Board who supports charter schools? I say no. I've met with, listened to, read about charter supporters. I've said thru many meetings about charters and visited charter schools. I don't believe in limited charter support unless it is very specific and "for-profit" is not one of those terms.
Vasquez is trying to dodge and weave on this issue. He's on the board of a charter GROUP, not just a school. (More on his behavior to come because at the Board meeting he did something he should not have done to further his goals.)
SPS, like all districts in this state, is underfunded. So the main premise of charters - districts not offering what parents want - is not valid in this state because we don't have fully-funded schools. Give me 5-8 years of full funding and THEN come back tell me charters are needed. Families can't wait? That's valid but it's not a good reason to create a whole new charter system.
And, it does not appear that many charter supporters -either in state or from out of state - want to be here. The charter growth is quite sluggish.
Our district already struggles, they don't need the distraction or extra work of being a charter authorizer. That involves tremendous oversight if you do the job correctly. Go ask Spokane SD.
And if all you care about is "choice", meet my friend, Betsy DeVos.
As an aside, is it true that Vasquez lied to King County Young Democrats? Did Vasquez tell King County Young Democrats that he did not support charter schools? Did Vasquez delete his bio of charter schools? If so, we are seeing real character flaws.
There are lines between charter authorization and charter oversight. If you are unaware of the costs associated with charter authorization, than you have not done your research.
I am exiting the conversation.
As mayoral candidate Nikkita Oliver (whom you said you support) said, per your blog post, about charters: "It's complicated." Why the grace for Ms. Oliver and not Mr. Vasquez? Especially is he's opposed to for-profit charters, and opposed to SPS becoming an authorizer... Appreciate the back-and-forth on this. Thanks again,
--B-Rig
My answer - for the last time - is to fully fund and support the school system we already have. That's my answer.
I didn't give Oliver grace - I fully reported what she said. She's on the same page as many others - that our school system isn't fully funded and that she sees many families of color who don't want to wait for it to be so and want charters. I cannot fault those families for their feelings even as I think they are wrong.
As for that "for-profit charters" it's nothing but a dog whistle to ed reformers.
Yes, I'm going to call out Vasquez hard on that badge - stupid, dumb move.