Seattle Times Endorses Debbie Carlsen for District 1

 (Editor's note: Some comments came in from readers who saw this story before I wrote this post and the comments would have appeared elsewhere. I am entering those comments in this post.)

Frankly, after all the swipes that the Seattle Times Editorial Board has taken at the current Board, I can't say I'm surprised at their endorsement of Debbie Carlsen for Seattle School Board District 1 over incumbent Liza Rankin.

Some comments that came into this blog note that the Times doesn't have a great track record with its endorsements for school board. However, here's what I think is going to happen.

I believe The Stranger will follow suit and endorse Carlsen. I believe that because

 1) I think Carlsen is a more compelling candidate than Rankin, 

2) I'd like to think after Rankin's stunt of putting endorsements from groups that she got in 2019 on her current webpage (including The Stranger) just isn't going to sit well with The Stranger and

 3) I think The Stranger may have their own doubts about the student outcome focused governance.

To the Times' endorsement. First, they point out the obvious:

Two things, however, remain the same as ever: miserable outcomes for kids who are the “farthest from educational justice” — as the district describes low-income students of color — and a persistent lack of transparency on areas of major concern.

Also obvious:

To be sure, Rankin is deeply knowledgeable about education policy — she can cite Seattle’s school regulations by number. But that wonkiness mattered little to families who found her inaccessible at precisely the moment when connection to community was needed most: in the wake of a fatal school shooting in Rankin’s district.

In District 1, many of them lost trust in Seattle Public Schools after the shooting at Ingraham High School last fall. That was the moment to convene a community meeting where worried parents could voice their concerns.

But there was no such response, perhaps because Rankin sees gun violence as a societal issue, rather than a problem for schools to tackle. Maybe so. But the persistent disconnect while parents begged for information was disturbing.

Again, obvious lack of action on Rankin's part:

Rankin says she felt “nauseous” voting in favor of the current teachers contract, because she knew it would lead to the draconian budget cuts Seattle schools face today. Yet, she did not act on her discomfort. Instead, she fell in line with the recommendations of Superintendent Brent Jones and labor leaders.

But the time for that kind of seriousness around money was last summer, when the teachers contract was being negotiated, since salaries — as Rankin knows — determine the bulk of school district spending.

Taxpayers of Seattle, Rankin voted for a contract that she admits she KNEW was unsustainable. Where was the courage of her convictions? (But I will say that I believe Superintendent Brent Jones went along with the contract because I think he will, at some point, blame "greedy" teachers for these deficits.)

What do they like about Carlsen?

In contrast, Carlsen offers an urgency to right the district’s financial ship and a full-throated call for greater community engagement. 

During what is sure to be a fractious year of tough choices, Carlsen’s emphasis on connection will be much needed to bring families back into the fold.

Whatever Rankin’s personal position, communicating with one’s constituents in a forthright and public manner about something of this magnitude that happened inside a school is a board member’s job.

I think I might have to write an op-ed to explain that "communicating with one's constituents" is NOT in the student outcome focused governance in any real and meaningful way.

Good for the Times.


Comments

Anonymous said…
Good on the Times.

There is room for debate for how “in the weeds” a Board should get managing a district. But it is very clear that the core functions of the Board are to 1) Pass a budget and 2) Appoint a superintendent. Rankin’s record fails on both accounts. Approving a CBA she knew would be disastrous (this is very clear at the board meeting when the TA was presented) and installing a superintendent without a robust search process. Rankin’s rubber stamping of these basic deliverables are a failure to her constituents and families, and to her own goals of improving outcomes for struggling students. A bankrupted district doesn’t serve anyone.

Accountability
Anonymous said…
I love it. The more dysfunction the sooner SPS can die. Does she think she can stop SOFG? hahaha

It's voucher time.

Lets go
Outsider said…
I would be the last one to defend the Seattle school board, but the disastrous CBA part seems unfair. The teachers' union holds all the cards, and will always get what they want. Everyone loves teachers when they are on strike. You will never elect a board that will endure a weeks-long or months-long teacher strike for the sake of sustainable finances.

As for the superintendent -- a robust Seattle search process only guarantees a highly intersectional candidate from out of town. It does not guarantee effective leadership. A back-room deal doesn't guarantee effective leadership either, but honestly, I think the odds are equal or better.
Anonymous said…
If you don't pay teachers well, if you don't give them the resources and staffing ratios they need, then you will lose teachers and SPS will struggle to fill the classrooms with good educators. The CBA wasn't disastrous, as SPS has indeed managed its way through the next school year by cutting the central office and spending reserves. The problem is that corporate Democrats in the state legislature don't want to fund the schools, want teacher salaries to be cut, want every child to have a 23 year old teacher fresh out of college who sticks around for two years before going on to some other career.

The bigger problem is that it should never have gotten to a strike in the first place. Liza Rankin won the SEA endorsement in 2019 and then proceeded to vote against them at every opportunity. She should have worked to build better collaboration with SEA so that when last year's bargaining came around, everyone would have agreed on the available cash and could have reached a good deal without a strike. But that would have required Rankin to be something other than a rubber stamp for the SPS administration.

Support Teachers
D1 Voter said…
@lets go

I've always been opposed to vouchers but I'm warming up to them now. I just don't think SPS as it exist today is what people want. A vouchers system is better than voting because each family can vote with their vouchers and each voucher counts, unlike voting. I would add that we would need to stop busing students for free, so if you want to go to a school across town you would need to supplement your voucher or maybe transportation could be included with the vouchers. A school that draws from the neighbor hood would have more funds because they don't need to pay for busing.

As for SPS , Ive watched SPS for 20 years and I have to say I think it's either at rock bottom or this next year will be rock bottom. The woe is me crowned has worn out their woe welcome and adding yet another activist virtue signalling board member should be the last straw for any parent on the fence.
SmokeN Mirrors said…
I personally had a hard time with teachers striking because students were out of school for a year during the pandemic and we all know that kids suffered academically, emotionally etc.

SEA mislead their members they claimed that an inclusion model would be in the classroom and teachers rightfully were concerned about inadequate staffing levels. In truth, the district wasn't going to institute a full inclusion model this year and SEA would vote on any proposal that would be put forth.

I'd say that we have two board members that are concerned about transparency. One of our directors thankfully called attention to the fact that a committee is meeting to discuss inclusion; SEA sits on the committee. The board member complained that she has heard NOTHING about what is going on in the committee meeting. Nothing. It seems to me that the director is trying to get ahead of another debacle before the next CBA. Do I dare say that these are the types of things that should be discussed in our now defunct committee structure??

The superintendent and board allowed SEA to swipe Covid Relief dollars and Rainy Day funds. C'mon.

Let's Go and D1 Voter, I'm a big no on vouchers. I would prefer the city or the state take over SPS than vouchers. Why?

1) Well, as D1 Voter points out, transportation. Vouchers would favor those who could pay for transportation.
2) Vouchers have not proven to make any difference in places that have had them long-term.
3) Private schools, the minute there are vouchers, raise their prices. A voucher amount will generally get you very little in private schools.
4) In AZ, 75% of the people who enrolled in the universal voucher program already had their kids in private. That means, it something of a rebate for them.
5) Public dollars for religious education? Nope.

And the biggest two reasons?

1) If private schools don't have to take state tests, how does a state know how its K-12 population is doing for education?
2) Vouchers allow public dollars to private schools that can freely discriminate against protected classes of children like homeless, Special Education and LGBTQ children. That's just plain wrong.
Reprinting from another post as this comment is on-topic here.

Welp, Seattle Times did not give Rankin their endorsement. I thought the criticism was measured and could have rattled off a long list of times Rankin wandered outside the "guardrails" of being a School Board Director (homelessness, climate change), and pointed out that while test scores are THE measures of success now, WHAT has the Board done to bolster them? But above all, good call out on the lack of transparency and responsiveness to constituents. She is complicit in runaway expenditures. Lady got to own that.

But Her Record

Popular posts from this blog

Tuesday Open Thread

Breaking It Down: Where the District Might Close Schools

MEETING CANCELED - Hey Kids, A Meeting with Three(!) Seattle Schools Board Directors