Candidate Interviews, District 3

District 3 - the seat currently held by Chandra Hampson - is an open one as Hampson wisely chose not to run. (I am taking bets that she ends up doing some kind of SOFG work, maybe as a coach. Not sure she can ever run for office again.)

There are three candidates - Ben Gitenstein, Christie Robertson, and Evan Briggs. I interviewed Gitenstein and Robertson and never heard back from Briggs. 

After interviewing both Christie and Ben and reading Evan's campaign website, here's my recommendation for the primary - vote for Christie and Ben, if only because they are far more qualified to understand and do the work than Evan. Christie because she has a PhD in neurobiology and Ben because his work has been about managing people and budgets. These attributes would be useful on the Seattle School Board.

Ben Gitenstein

Here's his campaign website

"Seattle is a great city. We deserve great schools."

After interviewing Ben, I came away very impressed. He is blunt to a point (shades of former director Betty Patu) and calls out the need for change on the Board (no matter who wins). He said he hopes voters and parents will ask the hard questions to candidates.

His background is varied. He served as the Executive Director of the Washington Low Income Housing Alliance and yet has been a product manager for startups, building enterprise software. 

Ben has two children, one in private school and one in SPS. 

I asked him about what he thinks the role of a school board director should be. He said, "The number one role is accountability and oversight of the district." He said directors are elected for "people to have voice in approving that large institutions are going in the right direction."

He is running because his two kids have seen him be mad about district issues and he decided he needed to step up. He also thinks SPS is in "an existential crisis" with the enrollment drops. He thinks that keeping SPS closed longer than other area districts during the pandemic was a mistake and may have led to some parents leaving.

It was interesting to hear that he is friends with long-time district watchdog, Chris Jackins. (I am as well.) Chris knows more about this district than anyone and that Ben has that kind of relationship with someone in the know is good. 

Like the other candidates, Ben doesn't know a lot about the new governance model, Student Outcome Focused Governance (SOFG). He did say that he found it "curious that more actual decisions are being made outside of Board meetings." He said that the directors' job is "to see if the district is headed in the direction publicly stated, matching words with deeds."

As far as well-resourced schools, he, like Blaine Parse, said that it was important to be in touch with what individual communities may need. He said that closing schools hits neighborhoods in "a visceral way because they are embedded in neighborhoods." But overall, "small class sizes, good Special Education, and good support staff are important as are amazing programs."

Christie Robertson

Here is her campaign website. Here's the bio from the home page.

I'm Christie Robertson, and I'm not just your candidate for the Seattle School Board in District 3, I'm also a fellow parent, a passionate advocate, and a community member just like you. With my PhD in Neurobiology and Behavior and a background in software, I want to put my unique perspective to work for our kids. 

She has a child with a disability and she has been serving on the Special Education PTSA for two years. 

My platform prioritizes centering children, engaging the community, increasing oversight, and creating a welcoming school environment where every child can thrive.

Inclusivity is at the heart of my mission. I believe that our schools are currently failing our most marginalized kids, and these are the children we need to focus on. My campaign is guided by the principle "Nothing About Us Without Us," ensuring that those most impacted are involved in the decision-making processes. I plan to establish a system for the community to participate in planning and decision-making, with a focus on the communities most impacted.

One impressive item on her campaign website is a Resource page on Education Systems, Justice, and Disability.

She is running for director because she has seen the dysfunction in Seattle Schools from trying to help her child with Special Education services. 

She says she has "faith in inclusive teaching." 

She doesn't believe that the current Board is doing enough oversight. She says directors are elected to represent all voters, answer to constituents (and not just the loudest voices). She believes communities feel "left out" and that "it's the Board's job to bring them in." 

On SOFG she says there had been community meetings for the Strategic Plan so why not for this change? She has been watching meetings where it has been discussed and that there is value at looking at student outcomes in everything. But she says the Board also needs to be responsive to what is happening on the ground in schools. 

She said in her work with the Special Education PTSA, she had reached out to Superintendent Brent Jones to talk about isolation and restraint that some Special Education students are experiencing but he never got back to her.

She said on well-resourced schools much that some other candidates stated - communities are different from school to school. She did mention smaller classrooms. She said the emphasis should be on inclusion and how "we serve ALL kids." 

I was interesting that she mentioned that she heard Director Liza Rankin say that people love their school but hate the district. This is akin to people who love their House representative but hate Congress. It would be interesting to see a survey that asks parents what they like and dislike in SPS from a micro level up. 

She would urge the district to "listen to parent voices."

She doesn't believe that being a Board director is a part-time job but pointed out that not everyone can put in the time that is needed to do the job well because it's an unpaid position.

Evan Briggs

Here is her campaign website. She has three children in Seattle Schools. Her community experience is mostly centered around PTA work at Sand Point Elementary. From her issues page:

" ...we must align our district to focus on student outcomes ..." "Systems function effectively when everyone understand their role."

Shades of SOFG. 

Her endorsements are telling and include...Director Chandra Hampson.

Comments

Anonymous said…
Thanks. Ben sounds fantastic. The Board has chased the district too far after niche populations over whole district needs, aspirational ideals (which are interesting but not a priority) and has not held the Superintendent accountable for anything. The system is teetering on financial collapse, and Board members are still following dog whistles.

Chandra, see your way out of education policy. You are harmful.

District 3 Voter
Upcoming Election said…
Ben and Christie both have something to offer.

We sorely need a board member interested in fiscal oversight and Ben would fill the void. As we know, the current board ELIMINATED committee meetings with the exception of state required Audit meetings every FOUR months. It was interesting to watch the board meeting and watch Rankin fumble over an increase capital cost of $20M (!!). She was unsure if the BEX oversight committee viewed the information and she was unsure if the BEX committee commented on increased costs. We are talking about $20M (!). Committee meetings must return.

Christie appears to have the ability to figure out oversight etc. As we know, the district is in the midst of figuring out an inclusion model. It was interesting to hear Director Harris mention that there appears committee members were told to keep meetings confidential. What? Task Force committee meetings should be open to the public and transparent.

Anonymous said…
I think we do need some nuts and bolts people on the board and certainly not more activist or whatever types are currently running the board. Ben seems perfect but the work load at Amazon is huge and with the big layoffs just announced could mean even more work load for Ben. A word of caution here because in the past we have seen numerous candidates make so many promises that go unfulfilled. We had a very good member Eden Mack who I guess had enough and resigned and I fear that any no nonsense person will also resign once they get a peek under the hood.

new board
Anonymous said…
Great point from Ben. The enrollment drop is existential and must be stopped before it becomes a death spiral. The superintendent should be evaluated on no other metric than does enrollment go up. Everything else fits under that umbrella.

Emile

Popular posts from this blog

Tuesday Open Thread

Who Is A. J. Crabill (and why should you care)?

Why the Majority of the Board Needs to be Filled with New Faces