The Seattle Times - Whose Agenda for Public Education?

I've said this a lot.  The Seattle Times has a blurred line between editorial and reporting when it comes to stories on public education in Seattle.  Their reporters deny, deny, deny this but it's too obvious to be denied. 


So what is it that is apparent?

Slant.  Pure and simple, slant.  And, to a lesser degree, omission of facts.

The Times, either via their editorial board or with the input from the Gates Foundation which solely funds their "Education Lab," is attempting to paint a picture of Seattle Schools that is neither fair nor fully fleshed out. 

Story after story, there's the same voices (which is kind of funny because they are always complaining about the same activist voices like SEA) and the same people interviewed and quoted.

It was interesting to hear the contrast between the outgoing board members - Stephan Blanford and Sue Peters - at last night's Board meeting.  Blanford talked a lot about himself and Peters talked a lot more about the work and the district.

Peters made the point - a valid one in the context of this blog thread - that it has somehow become a sport to try to take potshots at the Board and to tear the district down.  She said constructive criticism and support would be more likely to help the district. 

Blanford has been quoted by the Times in the last three stories on the district.

As if he were Board president (he's not and never was the entire time he was on the Board).

As if he is the only Board director (there are six other people). 

And the words out his mouth? Doom and gloom.  Not a good word for his colleagues or the work of the staff and students in this district.  And oddly, not a single word about initiatives for black students in the district (he said nary a word about it last night).

This week saw Superintendent Nyland give his State of the District speech.  You'd think the Times would want to cover that story.  But they didn't. 

Instead, they had a story on the release of the latest district Data Dashboard results.  Now, that's a valid story except the timing is not.  (I'll have a separate thread on Nyland's speech.) 



Here's what Nyland reported (and with each area he covered he said, "Good but we can always do better/more."  He and the Board gave recognition to the successes but have also not lost sight of ongoing work.

For example, the district - by many measures - does better overall than the rest of the state.

 For example, in the 3rd grade ELA, the state score is 53% and Seattle's is 63%. 

 For 8th grade math, the state score is 48% and Seattle's is 63%.  

Given how large this district is and how diverse it is, those are some accomplishments. 

And yet, the district admits, "We need to do continue to do better especially on closing the gap."

Also to note, that for graduation rates, the white rate has gone up a tick from 83% in 2014 to 86% in 2017.  But for black students, the rate went up from 60% to 72% in the same timeframe. 

That's a big jump (and I give some credit to Rainier Beach High School which has seen its graduation rate soar due to interventions and supports).

As well the rate of suspensions in grades 6-12 has gone down from 7.5% in 2012-2013 to 4.6% in 2016-2017.

This is not the norm in most urban school districts. 

But the Times complains about this:

Many more children walk into kindergarten ready to learn, for example, compared with three years ago. (Good.) But kindergarten-readiness rates among kids of color, while up from 2014, remain 33 percentage points behind those for whites.

Pre-K is the City's duty, not SPS' (at least, not until it is funded and the State still doesn't even fully fund K-12).  As someone who works with kindergartners several hours a week, I can testify to how kindergarten-ready students move so much faster than those who come in not ready.  (Interestingly, the class I'm in is majority minority and several of the kids in the majority came in ready.  I'm not sure it's a white versus kids of color thing.  I think that part is a parent thing.)

Then Blanford interjects this:

“Considering the wealth and resources of this community, we’re not growing at nearly the speed we should be,” said Stephan Blanford, puzzling at the data during his last evening as a member of the Seattle School Board.

(FYI, the Times had it wrong.  Blanford sat on the dais last night and voted just like any other Board member.)

Given how little he has truly done in his term - except make pronouncements like that - I'm not sure why the Times goes to him so often.

He goes on:

“Our white and Asian students are outperforming most kids in the nation,” Blanford said. “But we should also have a reasonable proportion of black and brown kids at that level, too. That’s where my outrage is focused.

Well, it's good to hear that out loud and it's a point many people miss in looking at the data. This gulf between white students and black students in our district is exacerbated by the rate of progress for white students. Meaning, if white students outcomes weren't rising at the rate they are, the gap would not look as bad.
But those last two sentences, well, they got a lot of comments from Times' readers.  Many questioned why Blanford is putting all the blame on the district (as he seems to do).  And his "outrage?"  What kind of action has that translated into from him?  Crickets.




Another Times' favorite is Mary Jean Ryan who runs the Road Map project in South King County.  Ryan is a long-time education advocate (she ran for the Board in the '90s and lost).  She's a middle-of-the-road ed reformer and someone I admire.

Mary Jean Ryan, who studies results for students across South King County as executive director of the Road Map Project, called the data “a huge call to action that what we’re doing, as a system, is not working.” 

But she noted that across South Seattle, individual schools with high poverty rates are posting standout scores.

“The trouble is, we don’t learn from them,” Ryan said. “Generally speaking, I don’t think we do enough to study success.”

As a system.  I'm not sure what she means.  Everything the district is doing as a system isn't working for kids of color? The curriculum? How it's taught? The teachers? The principals?  Given that this is a problem throughout the country, then what do we say about public education?  I think it is important to look at society as that system as well.  You cannot separate the two.

But ed reformers continue to believe that you can take any kid, put him or her in a good school and have good outcomes.  My experience is ALL kids can learn and achieve.  But some kids come in with burdens and backgrounds that making teaching and learning very difficult.  And I do not believe that schools can negate or make up for all of it. 

But Ryan does hit the nail on the head in that last statement because SPS has three of the highest rated middle schools in the state for improved outcomes in Aki Kurose, Mercer and Denny Middle School.  Those successes need to be copied.

Perhaps the most troubling number on the district’s entire 52-page scorecard involves Native American students. Fewer than half graduate from Seattle high schools in four years. They were the only student group to drop on that measure.

That is truly serious. 

But, at last night's Board meeting, there was a wonderful trio of Native American students doing a dance together.  Those three students talked about being bullied and finding strength in their identities.  (I think the new phrase is "identity safety.") Then, the head of the Native American program, Gail Morris, as well as other supporters, got up and talked about their efforts (and how they'd like more supports).

I have seen much more focus in the last 3+ years for Native American students.  We have one Board director who is Native American, Scott Pinkham, and now there is a second one, Zachary DeWolf.  Here's hoping they can help move that needle the other way for these students.

But back to the Times. 

One other thing to note is that somehow former SPS Superintendent Susan Enfield (now at Highline) seems to be getting this push from the Times.  This after the Times attempted in yet another story - with no traction and again via Blanford - to say that there shouldn't be a search for a new superintendent.  (The vote last night was 5-2 to approve a search firm with Geary and Blanford saying, "there's too much going on."  Well, the city just went through four mayors in four months so I think SPS can handle a new superintendent after Nyland being on the job for nearly four years.)

The Times had an op-ed on how great Highline is doing but folks I know in that district say those numbers are cherrypicked and skewed.  Highline is also losing teaching staff left and right and that's never a good sign.

The Times did not pick well for school board candidates.  (They did pick Eden Mack but then again, so did everyone else.)  But the ed reform candidates they picked did not do well.

Charter schools are not advancing at a rapid rate. 

I think the Times may be holding out hope that Mayor-elect Jenny Durkan may step in to shake things up.  As someone who has watched public education in this city for a long time, I'd say two things. 

If a mayor in Seattle has time to try to reshape or oversee public schools, then that mayor does not fully grasp the myriad of work before him or her already in this city. 

Two, taking over will be a lot harder than she might think, especially if she's in an echo chamber of people who think they know best. 

The Times can continue on this path.  It's sad because you would think the newspaper of record in this city might be more objective.  Fair. And wanting to cover stories from all angles and with new voices. 

But, if you are the only daily game in town (and you want big bucks from, say, the Gates Foundation), you'll only know one way to play the game.