Seattle Student Union - What Did the Candidates Say?

This event was a bit bumpy as the Seattle Student Union had various people/groups asking questions so the moderation jumped around. Plus, they did it by district so it was a little tedious having to go through the same questions each time. They also did not name which candidate should start speaking so there was a stutter start for almost every question. But I give these students a lot of credit for hosting such a large event and congrats to lead Chetan Soni.

All the candidates were in attendance except Michael Christophersen and Blaine Parse (District 1) and Maryanne Wood (District 6) .  (It was interesting in the Seattle Times endorsement piece for District 6 - they went with Gina Topp - that Wood DID show up for that.) I was disappointed that Parse didn't show because I had looked forward to hearing from her in person.

I'm not going through all the Q&A but I'll try for highlights.

District 1

Debbie Carlsen had a pretty thoughtful answer about funding for mental health issues. She suggested that the district needed to do "a mapping" of the district so that they know what they have and where. Plus she advocates talking to stakeholders in school communities who know their school better than the district does.

On budget cuts, Director Liza Rankin said she thought it important "to educate people on what is a 'building level decision' versus a district decision." That might have been a good thing to do way back when the budgeting started. I don't think there was anything stopping a director from having a community meeting and explaining this. 

A gun responsibility group lead, Carly, asked about "tools and policies in reducing firearm deaths." Rankin spoke of "evidenced-based" tools without noting a single one. There was an interesting juxaposition between Rankin and Carlsen as Rankin said, "I spend a lot of time out in our school buildings" and talking about advocating about the Hale lunch hour. (The Hale thing is weird in and of itself since that would seem to be "micromanaging" for the district. I wish Rankin would say that directors actually DO have a role in listening to school communities.) Carlsen came in saying that the parents at Ingraham do not feel heard. Ingraham is in this district so Rankin does have some answering to do on that.

One of the student board members, Luna Crone-Baron, said she was transgendered (I hadn't realized that at all during her time on the Board) and if the directors would support "with all their might" transgendered athletes. Both Carlsen and Rankin said yes but Rankin went on to say that pronouns should be noted in "Teams" (and I assume she means Microsoft Teams which SPS uses) but not used in communications home in case the student "may need to be protected from family members." 

I'll just say that this issue - of the teacher/school knowing one thing about a student that apparently the parent/guardian does not - is huge out in the right-wing atmosphere. It is hard for some parents to realize that their child may not feel comfortable/safe in telling their parent everything including things like birth control or gender identity. 

I wonder if this might not be a big court case someday. There are issues that would fall into the "educational record" like birth control but I don't know that, unless a student goes goes on record with the school's counselor (which would create an educational record that is protected), that just a casual understanding with teachers would suffice to be an educational record that a parent could not access. 

District 2

Director Lisa Rivera Smith answered the mental health question in a somewhat odd way saying that "the Board doesn't control revenue" but the Board "tries to make best use of that money, efficiently and effectively." Well, the Board does control the spending via the budget, although with SOFG, they have given away more of that power.

Challenger Christina Posten had a good answer and one that she came back to in a couple of questions. Namely, that there needs to be better alignment across all levels of schools. That would seem to be important as students transition from elementary to middle to high school for the district to have a way to give students the best transitions they can have, not just leaving it up to schools to figure out.

Rivera Smith said that that Board members can't be "telling schools how to spend money." And, that "the values of the schools is reflected in the budget." That may be true on a small level but schools often have a Sophie's Choice when it comes to their spending, not "hey kids, what should we spend all this dough on?" 

I also want to note here a mistake I made in another post where I incorrectly attributed something Rivera Smith said to Rankin. Namely, that it was Rivera Smith, not Rankin, who said that the Board saw the deficient coming.

On school safety, Rivera Smith talked about "school safety teams" but then went into saying, "it's hard for Board members to figure out how creating policy works." That's one of the top three things Board directors do and Rivera Smith still doesn't know how to do it? 

District 3

On the mental health issue, Ben Gitenstein said that it is important for the Board/district to go to the "gun violence community" and ask what THEY think would be the most important steps for the district to take. 

Evan Briggs noted that Washington State ranks among the lowest in mental health spending/services (not sure which one she meant) and there needed to be "robust" interaction with community services. 

Evan Briggs also mentioned the whole Sand Point Elementary School invasion a year ago June and how frightening it was to students. I find that interesting that a Sand Point parent is finally publicly acknowledging this event did happen. 

On the budget, Christie Robertson gave a careful, thoughtful answer, saying that she had spoken with a state legislator who wasn't sure of the budget numbers. As well, she said one issue during the SEA strike was that the SEA didn't trust the numbers either. She said that the $131 deficient is the same amount in Special Education spending and that Board members had been asking for the breakdown of spending in that area for a year, they never received that breakdown.

I'm going to interject here that this is EXACTLY what you want in a director. Someone who will not accept a pat answer or a low data answer from staff. But with the current Board handing over more power to the staff, it weakens the Board's ability to ask for data.

This is all interesting because the Board and the district will tell you that all the numbers are available. What is NOT available is how - for any given category - the money is spent. I suspect if parents and the public knew what each pot was paying for, they might disagree with that spending. 

District 6

I have very little to report here because Rosie McCarter read all her (brief) answers and gave no real specifics on any question. Topp wasn't a lot better.

Gina Topp did mention including the Alliance for Gun Responsibility as one community partners on gun violence in schools. She did mentioned that the question asked about not just policy, but actual tools that could be enacted to stem the violence which was a good catch on her part.

Wrap-Up

At the end, the Seattle Student Union had yes/no questions but again, it got confusing in an online format. All the candidates said yes to no armed cops or SRO in buildings, yes to 16 year olds voting (that would have been a no from me), and yes to supporting community violence intervention.