Rankin and Hampson Dismiss SEAMEC Ratings
This came up in a different post today:
The discussion was around the SEAMAC ratings that I discussed in this thread. SEAMAC is a political organization for LGBTQ folks.
SEAMEC evaluates candidates on their knowledge of, record of proven activism for, and commitment to the concerns of the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered (GLBT) communities.
And just to note, this was not an endorsement process per se, but was to rank candidates, finding out what candidates know as well as helping to educate them.
In short, apparently SEAMEC created an overly long questionnaire and, from the look of the comments, it got little respect from Rankin and Hampson and their supporters.
You'd have to wonder - if this was the King County Dems questionnaire, would this be the attitude from candidates?
Now apparently there was some lateness to SEAMEC's questionnaire but this could have happened to almost any other org. But it allowed both Rankin and Hampson to make excuses about why their rankings were not good.
Meanwhile, Eric Blumhagen got it done in spades and Lisa Rivera Smith was able to get most of it done. And their scores reflect that effort.
Let's see what was said:
Tracy Castro-Gill - This is misleading since every person of the Seattle LGBTQ community didn't get to vote - only a few people in SEAMAC.
News to me: I was not aware there was a Seattle database of LGBTQ folks available so that they could all be surveyed at once.
And one comment was, "Oh, like with SEA, right?"
Hampson chimes in, "There are never more than a handful of members of any organization or union that do any endorsement so this is a meaningless point. They have elected member (sic) and committees just like your PTA."
So wait, all endorsements by groups are mostly bogus because it's just a few people voting? Hmmmm.
Another commenter said: "So it's like 7 people asked to run around a track to see who finishes first. One person is competing, one person isn't competing, and the other 5 are busy doing other stuff and don't participate...so we're going to celebrate that the one person who was competing and opt'd to participate won? Yay! Good for you, Eric, glad you had time to complete the survey."
Except that all the people in the race ASKED to be in the race. Some just chose to sit out a lap of the race while others didn't. That's maybe another way to see it.
Rankin gives Blumhagen some props but dilutes it down by saying "In this case, it looks like SEAMEC publishes ratings for whichever candidates complete the questionnaire." A political group basing its rankings on people actually doing the whole thing? I know, weird, right?
Blumhagen says, "FWIW, I contacted SEMEC in late May to ask about their endorsement process. They sent the questionnaire in late July and gave me 5 days to complete it. "
So Blumhagen got it earlier than other candidates but had the same amount of time to complete it. Which he did and got all As and their second to highest ranking.
Au put up a laughing emoji at Blumhagen's score but that feels like the general tone here.
(To note, Wayne Au is a UW professor at Bothell in the School of Educational Studies. I have no idea if he does have a connection to SPS except for his alignment with Tracy Castro-Gill, head of Ethnic Studies for SPS.)
Hampson showed a screenshot of the SEAMEC email to her, apologizing for "the lateness of this questionnaire, we just learned of a systemic failure in sending out this year's questionnaires." The date shows October 17th which was a Thursday and they asked for it by Sunday afternoon.
Kathy Smith, a long-time parent advocate, says this:
SEAMEC is a highly regarded organization. They are known for putting candidates through a rigorous process. They are know for taking their work very seriously. Eric's straight A rating is an honor and worthy of mention.
Kate Eads, a librarian and SEA union rep, says if candidates declined to fill it out, "How does this make for something to celebrate, when Blumhagen was the only one who submitted a survey?
Oh, I don't know. Maybe it shows his willingness to follow-thru for every group including LGBTQ folks.
Rankin says she didn't deliberately decline but "I did not complete their questionnaire for consideration." She says she asked in August about an endorsement from them but never received a response until now. She said she had too much campaigning and family responsibilities to fill out the questionnaire when she received it.
Hampson continues to complain - she says the questionnaire was 80 questions - "It's irresponsible for them to put out when so few in any race turned it in given that they failed to provide in a timely way. Most other groups that sent questionnaires out late at least sent out a reminder and gave grace periods. This was a process that wasn't."
So there, SEAMEC.
And, apparently Hampson didn't bother to ask for a grace period but Lisa Rivera Smith, who got a decent score, did ask for an extension and SEAMEC was fine with it.
I have been blocked from this Facebook page, SPS Community Discussion and Resource Exchange, but someone sent me screenshots.LGBTQ Dad said...
As a father of a LGBTQ child, it saddens me to see Rankin supporters laughing at SEAMEC's candidate ratings on the SPS Community facebook page (formerly Soup for Teachers).
It is really disturbing to see Wayne Au laugh and mock SEAMEC's desire to support strong candidates. Isn't AU a UW professor that works with the district? Are these truly the people that support Rankin? Why does she not reign in her supporters?
LGBTQ students must feel safe. We need Eric Blumhagen to support our children.
LGBTQ are a vulnerable group of kids. I just can't get over the lack of sensitivity shown by Wayne Au and other Rankin supporters. I am truly upset.
The discussion was around the SEAMAC ratings that I discussed in this thread. SEAMAC is a political organization for LGBTQ folks.
SEAMEC evaluates candidates on their knowledge of, record of proven activism for, and commitment to the concerns of the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered (GLBT) communities.
And just to note, this was not an endorsement process per se, but was to rank candidates, finding out what candidates know as well as helping to educate them.
In short, apparently SEAMEC created an overly long questionnaire and, from the look of the comments, it got little respect from Rankin and Hampson and their supporters.
You'd have to wonder - if this was the King County Dems questionnaire, would this be the attitude from candidates?
Now apparently there was some lateness to SEAMEC's questionnaire but this could have happened to almost any other org. But it allowed both Rankin and Hampson to make excuses about why their rankings were not good.
Meanwhile, Eric Blumhagen got it done in spades and Lisa Rivera Smith was able to get most of it done. And their scores reflect that effort.
Let's see what was said:
Tracy Castro-Gill - This is misleading since every person of the Seattle LGBTQ community didn't get to vote - only a few people in SEAMAC.
News to me: I was not aware there was a Seattle database of LGBTQ folks available so that they could all be surveyed at once.
And one comment was, "Oh, like with SEA, right?"
Hampson chimes in, "There are never more than a handful of members of any organization or union that do any endorsement so this is a meaningless point. They have elected member (sic) and committees just like your PTA."
So wait, all endorsements by groups are mostly bogus because it's just a few people voting? Hmmmm.
Another commenter said: "So it's like 7 people asked to run around a track to see who finishes first. One person is competing, one person isn't competing, and the other 5 are busy doing other stuff and don't participate...so we're going to celebrate that the one person who was competing and opt'd to participate won? Yay! Good for you, Eric, glad you had time to complete the survey."
Except that all the people in the race ASKED to be in the race. Some just chose to sit out a lap of the race while others didn't. That's maybe another way to see it.
Rankin gives Blumhagen some props but dilutes it down by saying "In this case, it looks like SEAMEC publishes ratings for whichever candidates complete the questionnaire." A political group basing its rankings on people actually doing the whole thing? I know, weird, right?
Blumhagen says, "FWIW, I contacted SEMEC in late May to ask about their endorsement process. They sent the questionnaire in late July and gave me 5 days to complete it. "
So Blumhagen got it earlier than other candidates but had the same amount of time to complete it. Which he did and got all As and their second to highest ranking.
Au put up a laughing emoji at Blumhagen's score but that feels like the general tone here.
(To note, Wayne Au is a UW professor at Bothell in the School of Educational Studies. I have no idea if he does have a connection to SPS except for his alignment with Tracy Castro-Gill, head of Ethnic Studies for SPS.)
Hampson showed a screenshot of the SEAMEC email to her, apologizing for "the lateness of this questionnaire, we just learned of a systemic failure in sending out this year's questionnaires." The date shows October 17th which was a Thursday and they asked for it by Sunday afternoon.
Kathy Smith, a long-time parent advocate, says this:
SEAMEC is a highly regarded organization. They are known for putting candidates through a rigorous process. They are know for taking their work very seriously. Eric's straight A rating is an honor and worthy of mention.
Kate Eads, a librarian and SEA union rep, says if candidates declined to fill it out, "How does this make for something to celebrate, when Blumhagen was the only one who submitted a survey?
Oh, I don't know. Maybe it shows his willingness to follow-thru for every group including LGBTQ folks.
Rankin says she didn't deliberately decline but "I did not complete their questionnaire for consideration." She says she asked in August about an endorsement from them but never received a response until now. She said she had too much campaigning and family responsibilities to fill out the questionnaire when she received it.
Hampson continues to complain - she says the questionnaire was 80 questions - "It's irresponsible for them to put out when so few in any race turned it in given that they failed to provide in a timely way. Most other groups that sent questionnaires out late at least sent out a reminder and gave grace periods. This was a process that wasn't."
So there, SEAMEC.
And, apparently Hampson didn't bother to ask for a grace period but Lisa Rivera Smith, who got a decent score, did ask for an extension and SEAMEC was fine with it.
Comments
GET REAL
So Fetch
Only candidate Eric had the thoughtfulness to reach out to this group? While the others are actually complaining and supporters of those people are posting those kind of comments? How about an apology instead? This kind of rationalizing would not hold up if it was an analogous group that focused on POC. Hmmm...I know who has my vote!!
Some people
Get Real
HP
Some people
I rarely bother to comment on or even read your blog anymore since it has descended into exactly this kind of insinuating attack based on the most ridiculous stuff. You do realize that you are using a hot take from an entirely anonymous source to smear me. For fairness, you could at least have done your research and posted my follow up response in the Facebook post. I’ll share it for you here:
“ And for whomever is lurking here and then going and talking sh*t on Melissa Westbrook’s blog - I’m looking at you “LGBQT dad” - My laughing comment above is entirely directed at the idea that anyone can fairly compare these ratings between candidates when Blumhagen admits he got his questions to answer in July and was given five full days to answer, when other candidates were not afforded the same number of days AND were asked to answer in the height of campaign season when they had less time (and kids in school, etc.). So while it may in fact be laudable that Blumhagen got high marks, it actually says nothing meaningful about Liza Rankin or other candidates listed as DI (like Chandra Hampson), other than perhaps she and Chandra were not given an equitable opportunity to fill it out and get a grade.
So, again, “LGBQT dad” you are just trolling if you think that I or Liza or Chandra do not support LGBQT kids and communities. That is far from the truth you ignoramus. Instead, check your BS, and recognize that you just can’t make meaningful comparisons using the SEAMAC questionnaire and grades because they did not treat the candidates equitably.”
But I’m pretty sure none of this matters to you, Melissa. You seemed to have lost any sense of ethics in your blogging by using anonymous hot takes to guide your work. Literally, at this point, any random person saying anything to under whatever name seems to be reported seriously here. I know you’ve also quoted a personal email exchange we had, which is also totally unethical. You may be mad at me for critiquing the politics of you and your blog, but at least I offered a substantive critique and also engaged you seriously by email. And even invited you to further critical conversation. But you never responded, only quoted my personal email back to your anonymous followers here (yes, I saw the screenshots).
For the record, I’ve got nothing against Blumhagen or Muniz. I’ve never spoken or written a word against them, and I’m sure they are good, generally progressive people. I also respect SEAMAC and the questionnaire as being important. But, as I point out above, the grade comparisons are meaningless unless SEAMAC makes efforts to give all the candidates the same opportunity to answer their questionnaire. And if SEAMAC was interested in really getting answers from all candidates, then they would have made extra effort to hear from all candidates. That doesn’t take away from Blumhagen’s good grades. That’s great. It just doesn’t mean we can make meaningful comparisons.
But like I said, I’m sure none of this matters to you.
Fed up Dad, not to be confused with someone else.
If you're going to respond here, how about also talking about the proposed "ethnic studies" curriculum, which from everything we've seen thus far seems to be fairly racist? I believe we've seen comments from you, cited in articles by the Seattle Times (?), that suggest you support the divisive approach being taken. Is that true? Do you feel that stoking division is the way to promote unity and equity? As an academic, can you provide links to articles that support that? Can you also provide links to research that shows that an integrated approach that builds "ethnic studies" into all subjects across all grade levels is effective, and if so, for improving what outcomes? Are there also studies on the effectiveness (and cost-effectiveness) of training a whole district's worth of teachers and administrators to implement such challenging work? Is there research that supports this approach over more traditional ethnic studies classes, or is Seattle attempting to do something "innovative" here?
As the parent of minority students who don't "look" the part and are thus likely to be seen as the "oppressors" in these proposed racially inflammatory classroom lessons, I'm very concerned. I'm also not convinced teachers have, or will have, the tools to handle these challenging conversations effectively, since a quick PD is not going to do the trick. Things are not so black and white, yet children and teens can't see the nuance.
If the Seattle approach is truly a good one, please help demonstrate that. The current leader of SPS's ethnic studies efforts has been unable to make a convincing case that this approach is a best or even promising approach (and indeed cites research that is irrelevant), and SPS's current superintendent also appears to be stoking race-based divisions as well. One would hope that, as an academic, you must be looking at things more even-handedly and with an emphasis on the evidence base, the feasibility of implementation, the development of something that teachers can actually implement with fidelity, a pilot phase with meaningful evaluation of both process and outcomes, community engagement, etc. Right?
please share
It sounds like Candidates Rankin and Hampson undervalued the importance of this organization and questionnaire and didn’t prioritize it. That’s their choice, but it reflects poorly on them. I agree with @Some People and @Fed up Dad, what does this say about their support of LGBTQ students? Maybe “equity” in their world doesn’t apply to everybody. To whine about it afterward and to hear their supporters call it “inequitable” is embarrassing.
Professor Au says it’s not “equitable” that a candidate (Blumhagen) was conscientious enough to reach out to the city’s main LGBTQ organization back in July – rather than wait until the last minute like some other candidates -- and got 5 days to fill out their questionnaire. Au’s candidates didn’t bother to reach out to SEAMAC until months later. That’s on them. Still they also got multiple days to answer it. Rankin says she got it on a Thursday and it was due on Sunday. That’s 3-4 days, should be enough time. She said she contacted them in August but didn’t hear back. Why didn’t she follow up? If she waited until October to follow up with this organization, who’s to blame for that?
It's also weird to see a UW professor use emojis to mock an organization or candidate and call parents “ignoramus” and accuse people of “talking sh*t” on social media. Not very professional. That whole exchange is very disappointing.
What happens if these people get on the school board and have to regularly read long documents with little time, or if they don’t get a response to their questions from the superintendent or district staff, or if parents or teachers ask them for help with an issue? Will they follow up? Or will they have excuses and emojis for not doing any of that work too?
This is not a good sign.
Excuses, Excuses
Spike
Here is my district by district analysis of the School board races in the city wide general for the D1 candidates.
Rankin
D1- Rankin won the D1 primary and she will win a close one in the D1 general.
D5- Will go to Rankin by 15 points.
D6- Will go big for Rankin by 40 points.
D7- Will be a landslide for Rankin as much as 60 points.
Blumhagen
D2- Will go to Blumhagen by 20 points.
D3- Will District 3 will lean Blumhagen by 5 points.
D4- Will go to Blumhagen by 20 points.
There are just are not enough votes for Blumhagen. The D7 and D6 landslide count for Rankin will be too large to overcome for Blumhagen. Plus, I think Rankin will win the UW student vote.
Hopefully Blumhagen will be willing to help Board member Rankin in the future.
Just Facts
No mention that candidates probably shouldn't be in quasi-public forums bad-mouthing political groups?
Honestly, will Rankin and Hampson keep this up if they are elected?
Get Real:
"one who is good at filling out forms" - and this shows that, like Rankin and Hampson, this person doesn't really care about this group and their concerns. This was not about filing out forms; it was an exploration of candidates' knowledge about LGBTQ issues and public education in Seattle.
Some People, Rankin claims she apologized to the group and that gender identity was "a priority" for her. It doesn't say that under her "Issues" at her campaign website but that's what she says.
I was not "kicked out of for bad behavior" from this Facebook group. I asked them to not allow personal attacks and they said I am a public person so fair game. And after that, they took me off the list.
Dr. Au:
"...recognize that you just can’t make meaningful comparisons using the SEAMAC questionnaire and grades because they did not treat the candidates equitably.”
And there you have it. The equity issue raises its head. Somehow SEAMEC, for whatever reason, chose to treat Blumhagen different from Rankin and Hampson and it's about equity.
I'm unethical? Go look in the mirror. I never responded to your email because you could have come to me years ago to talk about my stances but no, you just jumped on the Tracy train to try to turn others against me. Clearly, that didn't work.
"And if SEAMAC was interested in really getting answers from all candidates, then they would have made extra effort to hear from all candidates."
You must not know politics much because it is the candidate's job to go after the endorsements, not the the people handing them out. Go ask any LD leader and they'll tell you they have no time for that.
Spike, you make a good point about SPS employees. I'll have a separate thread on Director Geary's use of Facebook soon. I don't get it.
Just Facts, I'll just note for readers that you don't give any rationale for these numbers so it's just political spin. Also, do not reprint exact comments you have already made elsewhere.
Bigot much
Fake Equity
It's also weird to see a UW professor use emojis to mock an organization or candidate and call parents “ignoramus” and accuse people of “talking sh*t” on social media. Not very professional. That whole exchange is very disappointing."
So True. #SocialMediaResponsibleBehavior
Melissa W. please delete that imposter's comment. Thank you.
The original
Excuses, Excuses
HJK
They would never be able to graduate from our high schools. Where most of your grade is based on meeting homework deadlines. My kids often had multiple large assignments all assigned at once, deadlines changing, no notice ahead of time. No flexibility for a busy schedule,even if it involved work or family commitments. (Once not allowed to submit work late after traveling to grandparent's funeral) Some teachers penalize 50% off for one day late, or not accept the work at all. More emphasis on meeting the deadline than the quality of the work or demonstration of meeting academic standards.
If these people end up on the board, I will expect to see them advocate for the same flexibility for students that they expect for themselves.
-Unsympathetic
"I get a sense among certain young people on social media that the way of making change is to be as judgmental as possible about other people. If I tweet or hashtag about how you didn't do something right or used the wrong verb, then I can sit back and feel pretty good about myself because 'Man did you see how woke I was? I called you out!'"
It's not just young people doing this obviously. It's applicable to everyone. Even the ones who are doing some good things to help this district improve are limiting their ability to create positive change by their ugly behavior on social media.
"I get a sense among certain young people on social media that the way of making change is to be as judgmental as possible about other people. If I tweet or hashtag about how you didn't do something right or used the wrong verb, then I can sit back and feel pretty good about myself because 'Man did you see how woke I was? I called you out!'"
It's not just young people doing this obviously. It's applicable to everyone. Even the ones who are doing some good things to help this district improve are limiting their ability to create positive change by their ugly behavior on social media."
I believe President Obama just made this statement recently about activism. And he's right.
I think I'm probably guilty of this at times - pretty easy to hit a button to "agree."
But if Rankin complains about the paperwork, which is part and parcel to the director job, and complains if people say unpleasant things to her, which sadly, is part and parcel to the job, I don't know if I think she is ready.
And, I sure hope that if either person is elected, they get training in how to make public comments. This was only quasi-public but I'm quite surprised that people running for office are so free and easy with their comments. It won't bode well if the press realizes this.
SEAMEC is insignificant in the big picture.
The Times endorsement is usually the kiss of death.
The Times educational reporters clearly do not support Eric.
You might dis Rankin for trying to be open, but at least she is not in hiding like Eric.
It's one thing to operate under the delphi method and another to speak openly.
Eric Blumhagen has commented on this blog for years and his views are in the archives for all to search and read. Eric is not what he claims to be based off of his years of commenting on this blog.
2cents
Now, supporters of slate-S are pushing back on every endorsement with claims that the process was the same as SEA. In some ways this may be fair, but in others it is ridiculous. For example, they dismiss the Times endorsement because it is by an editorial board, not the entire Times. However, it is very clear that the endorsement represents the opinions of the editorial board, just like it is clear that the Stranger's endorsement represents the opinions of the Stranger Election Control Board. It is less clear that SEA's endorsement did not use a membership vote.
In the case of SEAMAC I think it is a weird diversion to focus on because the SEAMAC 'A' ratings for Blumhagen can be seen as affirmation for someone looking for an LGBTQ friendly candidate. Rankin could have simultaneously earned those ratings if she'd wanted to, and what we know by her 'DI' is precisely as much as 'she didn't fill out the questionaire'. I believe the folks attacking the notification on Facebook are mostly just trying to push back on this criticism of SEA rather than actually care about SEAMAC.
This election is getting very ugly. WE have a slate of candidates - (the aforementioned Slate-S made up of Rankin, Hampson, Mitchell) and other candidates who are not particularly associated except in that they are not part of a voting bloc. The truth is, many individuals may be okay as board members, but we should be very wary of the attack tactics being used to elect three directors as a single slate. It gives them undue power in each of the three races which are being run independently, and will give them undue power in decision making on the board.
-- frustrated mom
-- Owler
"SEAMEC is insignificant in the big picture."
I'm sure they will appreciate your kiss-off. In politics, it's generally not a good idea to ignore any group. Maybe you might ask Director DeWolf about his thoughts on SEAMEC.
"The Times educational reporters clearly do not support Eric."
What an incredibly odd thing to say. Reporters are not in any way, shape or form suppose to "support" any candidate. That you think that seems weird. Care to expand on that?
Eric is hiding? He has gone to nearly every event. As for his record here, if you think he is presenting differently now than he did in comments, you might have come forth - with comments in hand - earlier. Now it just sounds like you are grabbing for straws.
"Many educators disagree with some or all of the endorsement decisions SEA made."
This is exactly what I have been hearing as well from some frustrated teachers.
Of course there was no membership vote in SEA or we would have heard about that.
I concur with your last paragraph, Frustrated Mom; slates are not good and can be dangerous.
Now you are asking for other members of the FB group to screen shot FB and email you the screen shots. You think that is ethical?
Lady you have fallen a long way.
SFT member
"Thank you to Assunta Ng and the Northwest Asian Weekly for their endorsement!
"Eric Blumhagen, candidate for the Seattle School Board, contacted the Asian Weekly and other Asian leaders and organizations right after the primary. We are impressed by Blumhagen’s eagerness to learn about the needs of the Asian community. He was the only school board candidate to take the initiative to study the issues facing Asian students in his district."
http://nwasianweekly.com/…/blog-10-reasons-you-should-vote…/
The only candidate.
As if learning and discrimination can be easily separated. Learning is influenced by all sorts of factors, including one's sense of well-being and safety. You might as well say "let's focus on learning and not teaching," or "let's focus on learning and not seismic safety of our schools," or "let's focus on learning and not unbiased curricula and teachers," and so on. Learning and its context are deeply related.
We need school environments that are conducive to learning for all students, regardless of race, ethnicity, gender identity, income, English language ability, intellectual ability, religion, political views, etc.
already real
Gotcha
Vote Eric
Get REALLY Real
I think that both Eric & Liza have tried to keep their campaigns positive. They seem to both be good people trying to help kids. They have different strengths & experience. I would say Eric is more analytical & has a broader experience of the district including history of decision making. That is why I am supporting him. But I don't hate people supporting Liza. '
I think the ugly divisiveness we are seeing on facebook & here on this blog will hurt students in the long run. The folks who did the damage will move on in a year or so & leave us all trying to put the pieces back together. Seems to be a cycle as disrupters come& go in district leadership pitting parents, staff & community against each other every time.
- HS Parent1
The District has a new Strategic Plan and I would say it's Eric that will have the steepest learning curve when it come to overseeing the plans implementation.
Lucky we have seven board members to cover all the various issues and Liza's commitment to struggling students is what sets her apart from Eric and is why you should vote for Liza.
Voting Liza
-- Ivan Weiss
I'm not on FB, and I feel uneasy that there is a quasi campaign conducted out of sight of many of us who are either don't use social media or don't want to join a FB group. This has gone on for many years. Things are said that might not be said openly in a public forum. Some people are 'in the know' and the rest of us who aren't part of the clique, are not. I have no desire to participate in that sort of forum but I feel as though parents (and I guess, teachers too) like me are left out - us ordinary, non-politically active folk, who don't have the bandwidth to closely follow everything that is happening in the district, or don't want to put our head over the parapet, are rendered largely invisible and we not privy to all the behind the scenes stuff that is going on between district employees, activists, prospective board members etc.
When we are talking about candidates for public office or district employees such as TCG, I think there the public has a right to know what they are saying behind closed doors/facebook groups, who they are insulting etc. These people are going to potentially be in a position to influence the educational path and future prospects of many thousands. These people don't have to comment or make controversial remarks. If they are uncomfortable with comments being seen outside of their echo chamber, perhaps they should think twice about making them. Nothing is truly private when you put it out their on the internet - sometimes you can see peoples true colors.
Sunlight is the best disinfectant
If this is how Pro HCC advocates like Eric think then we don't need them on the school board.
Shocking
I personally applaud school board members that have supported ALL kids. You can criticize the format of the particular program, although I doubt you are an expert, without the nastiness I have recently seen towards kids, parents or board members who support those kids.
It is what is truly shocking. This also includes a superintendent who had no awareness about how students would feel about being labeled as attending a "slave ship" insinuating and repeating such a statement that children are equivalent to slave owners and slaves! It is appalling
AND program placement is the district's decision and fault! NOT THE KIDS. All kids deserve respect and support.
An observer
Gotcha, man, that's pretty insulting to Asian Weekly - you are saying their endorsement can be bought? I will categorically say that is NOT true.
"While on the committee they have no more influence on the committee then any other member."
Actually Board members on committees DO have more influence as their vote is the one to move a BAR forward and, as well, send it forward for consideration or for a vote. Learn your Board policies. If it doesn't get to the full Board, as the AL recommendations didn't, then there's no full Board vote.
Maybe not, Ivan, but isn't that how the game is played in some quarters. Also, the candidates didn't have to answer all 80 pages worth of questions; some were specific to different races.
Shocking,what? Who cares if Benjamin has an HCC blog that Peters visits? Nothing to do with Eric.
And, to add, I don't hate anyone either. That is such a terrible word to use.
When did you ever get the idea that HCC is a protected class?, that's just crazy talk and not helpful.
Just Wow
Fed up Dad
It was sad for me to find 5 laughing emoji's attached to SEAMEC's ratings.
I'm personally grateful for any candidate that seeks SEAMEC rating. SEAMEC educates candidates, too.
It is really sad to see professionals(?) loose their sh$% on facebook. Someone should let them know that they are not doing themselves any favors.
https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=28A.185
HK
I support Blumhagen, simply because he has over 10 years of experience with the SPS budget process and because more than 90% of the board director job is very detailed and typically very opaque committee work.
The bulk of the overall governance happens in committee. I have seen many board members quickly turn to rubber stampers simply because the sheer volume and lack of transparency in the committee work.
I think Rankin is a good candidate, far better than many who have been elected. However, she just doesn't have the same breadth and depth of overall budget experience and capacity related experience.
But I am very clearly a single issue voter.
No one is against AL, but HCC is just excessive segregation that benefits a majority white population.
Case closed
Let's all take the high road and focus on the strengths of the people we support.
Fed Up
RDI
One of those teachers was protected by a restraining order against someone from her past, but Save Seattle Schools made her name, address, academic transcripts and more publicly available online.
Three more teachers sharing a house together were burglarized within a few weeks of having had their information posted.
Nice job
Most would support unicorns for every 4th grader too if they could be convinced (the adults, that is) that unicorns exist. Funded and functional AL/HCC in every neighborhood school is a unicorn smoking pipe dream fraud being perpetrated by people who know little about how a school functions outside of their tiny admin job, and doesn't care the most of the public knows even less.
Fed up Dad
Yes, when you can't make your own points, do go after me. Most of what is being said is not true.
Nice Job, it's an open forum and I cannot be on 24/7. I immediately took that down, apologized, told the author of it to NEVER do that as well as readers. I'm not sure all your conjecture follows.
One can argue that if program majority are white students that come from white neighborhood schools, they will return to their majority white neighborhood schools. I really don't think they were trying to escape their school due to race. That is naive. It is smoke and mirrors on the equity issue. The parents, kids and board members who support the program have complained to the district for years they want more racial diversity in the program. I guess you ignore that fact. They did not ask for a separate school either, and that is recent. If you know the history the program has always been moved around to diverse schools, more diverse racially than many of these kids neighborhood schools.
Nobody is arguing against AL? Are you kidding? You are operating in a vacuum if you believe that, and must be completely unaware of how AL in neighborhood schools has actually been disappearing!
Walk to math was eliminated, honors classes eliminated in practice, AP classes are likely next because you have the same situation as honors classes regarding who takes those classes.
The kids, parents and board members who support actual AL in neighborhood schools have been criticized heavily. The district has clearly demonstrated over the years, they cannot or will not implement "AL" in neighborhood schools in practice. You need to look at actions and you also seem to lack historical background. Do you have a young student perhaps?
Regardless, this thread is about candidates. I do support candidates such as Blumhagen who have had a long historical history engaging with the multitude of issues this district has been grappling with for years. He also has shown he reaches out to various communities and does not limit this engagement to only certain groups either. That is what is salient to me. I have nothing against Rankin except that she lacks the history and depth about constant enrollment issues, budget, and current high school related issues among other items.
An Observer
AL, as SPS defines it, is not mandated; appropriate services for HC-identified services are. Nobody said HC services must be provided in segregated buildings--and, in fact, most cohorted "HCC" services are NOT provided in segregated buildings. But SPS has determined in the past that the most feasible and cost-effective way to provide appropriate HC services is via a cohort, hence the HCC option.
Note: Since most students don't qualify for HCC services in the first place, I'm not really sure that polling all parents about how they want to serve "those" students makes a lot of sense or should be given much weight. If we run this district by majority rules, that suggests we don't need to bother worrying about any minority group--racial or not.
It's great that "most supported AL delivered in their neighborhood schools." However, AL services and HC services are different. AL is essentially SPS's new term for Spectrum, and it makes complete sense that any neighborhood school should be able to deliver services to a student working about a year or two above grade level. It's when we get into those capable of working 2, 3, 4, 5+ ahead that things get a lot more complicated. Most schools and teachers just don't have the capacity to teach those kids effectively given all the other constraints (e.g., class size, ability range, focus on bringing kids "up" to standard, lack of advanced curricular materials, etc.)
Personally, I care 0% about the skin color of who gets HCC, or how many kids are included. Find a bunch of non-white kids who might be able to work at that same level and put them in the mix and call it good. If they can't keep up, they can leave--if they can, great. But to effectively deny appropriate learning opportunities to some of our most intellectually/academically gifted students--because that IS what will happen if they are sent back to their neighborhood schools--is not equitable. Those students are just as deserving of a chance to learn as is a student operating below grade level. That some candidates seem to not be concerned with the learning of a subset of our students is upsetting.
case open
Hey it's your blog. I think I have seen enough.
Good luck
Anyhow, thanks for the blog and please don't stoop to the level of baiting out there.
-long road
Thank you for the support.
You smeared yourself with the following statements:
"...So, again, “LGBQT dad” you are just trolling if you think that I or Liza or Chandra do not support LGBQT kids and communities. That is far from the truth you ignoramus. Instead, check your BS, and recognize that you just can’t make meaningful comparisons using the SEAMAC questionnaire and grades because they did not treat the candidates equitably.”
But I’m pretty sure none of this matters to you, Melissa. You seemed to have lost any sense of ethics in your blogging by using anonymous hot takes to guide your work. Literally, at this point, any random person saying anything to under whatever name seems to be reported seriously here."
@Wayne Au, I certainly hope you are not part of the Ethnic Studies mess that is happening at SPS. When people don't agree with your opinions on identify politics, you flame out. Publicly. Just like TCG, and others within the SPS Administration.
Melissa allowed you to flame out on her blog, without being deleted for your profanity and personal attacks.
I don't blame her for not wanting to meet with you in person.
Mirror
Fed up
The election is about HCC because HCC and its privileges have become the defining political issue of the district.
The NMSF scores in SPS are pathetic and so is the current program--a self-contained system within a system that admits virtually only the children of highly educated parents.
Change is inevitable and way overdue.
This blog has been abetting rhe HCC status quo for years, accentuated by MW's mantra: "HCC is open to everyone."
William
Both are ethics violations.
The way that LGBTQ issues are being used by Westbrook to denigrate her unflavored candidates may be a new low.
Low bar
How come I didn't delete Au's? Or the other critical ones? I delete ones that are nothing more than deliberate needling. It's fine to disagree but it's not fine to write to harass. Look, I'm not deleting yours, am I?
"The election is about HCC because HCC and its privileges have become the defining political issue of the district."
No, that's the narrative you and other want to put forth when the election is about the many OTHER issues in this district that seem to be getting short shrift. Makes it easier to shut down discussion AND take the focus away from other problems.
I published a bit of that email and unless you tell me something is off the record - when you write to my blog email that is only for blog business - then you should realize I might use it. Au's a grown-up guy and I'm sure he knew that.
And I was NOT banned from Facebook. Ever. I was kicked out of one group for publishing comments. Well, friends, Facebook is a pretty open public square and I'm astonished anyone would think they are in a private place. The only time I would not do that is, for example, at sensitive Facebook pages like Seattle Special Education. They have no problem with me posting there.
Ethics violations by...your standards. Sure.
I don't know how "unflavored" any candidate is; you'd have to ask them.
But I'm not using LGBTQ issues; I'm reporting just what candidates running for the Board have said. That's called news.
So getting kicked out of a group that is adminned by an ally of Castro-Gill is really more of a badge of honor than anything. And the people there (I'm in and I know) are crazy if they think anything they say will remain private. They've chosen to create a playground for some of the ugliest bullies that SPS has to offer and not surprisingly, they are getting some less than friendly pushback. In this case, it's richly deserved as the admin there is allowing some really awful behavior to go on unchecked.
Thank you for calling out @Wayne Au. @Wayne Au had the chance to clarify his inappropriate use of laughing emojis in discussing the political endorsements of SEAMAC. Instead, he choose to attack you, and denigrate you as an "ignoramus".
@Wayne Au, you should look at yourself in the mirror. You publicly tried to humiliate a parent who is very concerned about their LGBTQ child, as well as other LGBTQ children. The mere fact that LGBTQ Dad questioned your motives in using laughing emojis set you off. Perhaps it is you who have a sense of political entitlement, given your academic rank and position.
You still have the opportunity to apologize to "LGBTQ Dad". Place yourself in his situation, the parent of a vulnerable child, and you will see that you are in the wrong. Your short fuse shows that your heart is not in the right place. Getting your friends elected to the SPS School Board does not excuse your insensitive attacks on the parent of a LGBTQ child.
Take this opportunity to admit your mistake, and move on. It would be helpful for certain SPS Staff to see you do this.
Mirror
LOL
I think on that note, we'll close the discussion.