Endorsements and Candidate Stands for Seattle School Board

To again state - I urge you to consider voting for:

D1 - Debbie Carlsen

D2 - close call here but I would go for Christina Posten 

D3 - Ben Gitenstein

D6 - Gina Topp

A couple of people asked about candidates' stands on different issues so I've checked their campaign websites. 

Kids in SPS

Topp and Posten both have one child and both are under two. So neither have experience being an SPS parent but Posten was a teacher and principal in SPS so she knows the landscape.

Rankin, Rivera Smith, Briggs, and Carlsen have their children in SPS.

I believe Gitenstein has one child in private and one in SPS.

HCC

This was a question at an HCC Facebook page - who supports HCC?

Clearly, Liza Rankin is not a fan so she's not a friend to HCC. She says at her website:

All students should have access to unique and advanced learning opportunities, and equitable pathways to success with the opportunity to pursue their goals and interests. 

Racial bias in the areas of special education, advanced learning, and discipline needs to be addressed so that students of color have their academic needs appropriately met and are not being stigmatized or denied access to resources.

That doesn't really tell you a lot about whether she supports HCC.  

And again, just like so many things about Lisa Rivera Smith, she's so namby pamby, it's hard to say. She certainly hasn't demonstrated support in her four years on the Board.  

Debbie Carlsen supports bringing back Walk to Math.

Evan Briggs is an acolyte of Director Hampson who is no friend at all to HCC. 

Saw this comment from Gitenstein:

“I hate to try to boil down a topic as complex as both special education and advanced learning into something as short as a soundbite, but since I'm running for office I'll try..... It's irresponsible of the district to dismantle HCC and Advanced Learning without any real plan to replace them. Doing this in the name of equity is a disservice to equity. 

Kids who need advanced learning are not getting the education they deserve in the current system. We need to do better. Was the previous system broken and unfair (in some ways)? Yes. Does that mean we should do away with it without any real plan to replace it? No. 

I do not pretend to be an education policy expert or the guy who should be designing the right new system for advanced education. But if elected to the board I will work to insist that we do better. “

As an aside, there was an interesting comment at the Facebook page:

A few weeks ago, we decided to leave our neighborhood school and enroll in Cascade Parent Partnership. I highly suggest checking it out as part of your big dig into this. We've been able to meet our kids needs that way and he is thriving.

Director Hampson said the move to homeschooling had increased. I wonder if SPS has data on that for the Cascade Parent Partnership. 

 

Special Education:

Briggs' website says this "our opportunity gap and outcomes for special ed students rank among the worst in the nation." And that's it.

Rankin says that she has "increased inclusion for students with disabilities." Is that true? I don't think so yet.

 

Closing Schools

The discussion over at a Facebook page for Special Education was the worry over closing smaller schools and how there are many Special Education students who would not do well in a very large school. One person did note that Special Education spending is not a major reason that schools might be closed. That's probably true but again, the ripples from school closures will be felt everywhere. 

I have heard careful wording from Gitenstein and Carlsen in the form of "we have to have more information and listen to the communities." So they aren't say no but they do want to involve communities. Right now, that is simply not the plan from senior leaders at SPS.

Rivera Smith, at her webpage, talks about transparency and yet lets things go. She also talks about "deep budget analysis." When the district doesn't do full engagement and budget analysis over closing schools, will she speak up? Refuse to vote for it until that engagement happens? Hmm

Topp has said that it's really important to sussed it out, for example, whether there is a nearby school to take students in from a closed building and what additional costs there might be for transportation as well as unique populations and programs. 

I did listen to most of the Seattle-King County League of Women Voters forums with the candidates. 

Highlights of statements:

- A question was asked about working with the City and I was amused to hear Rankin and Rivera Smith said there used to be a Joint Committee and that it should be brought back. Somehow they don't seem to know (or have asked) but the reason it was dissolved was that City Council members were annoyed that the meetings were a dog-and-pony show and didn't fill them in on issues/challenges that the district faces. 

Unless the Board/staff are committed to being honest about the state of the district, I can't see why Council members would waste their time.

- A question was asked about committee work being public. Briggs said she thought that while the work was getting done that they "absolutely" are not keeping communities up-to-date.

Gitenstein pointed out how several committees had been cut because of SOFG. He said committees are good to have for "oversight." 

Rivera Smith said she "missed them." 

- On closing schools, Rankin said something about SPS being a "string of schools" and not a system. Wow, quite the slam at past administrations and boards. I would not say that is a true statement. 

But, on well-resourced schools, she said their should be "foundational programming" as well as "music like band/orchestra and Mock Trial." Please remember this for later on. She might need to be reminded of this. Rivera Smith also agreed on arts in schools.

- On well-resourced schools, Carlsen pointed out that absenteeism is rising and that maybe it's because schools are losing programs that matter to kids.

Gitenstein said that there needs to be "clear and direct guidance to the Superintendent" on keeping arts in schools and that these programs are the "crown jewels" of the district. 

- On the budget, Rivera Smith said that there are public meetings but not enough ones that involve the public (aka work sessions where you can observe but there is no interaction with the public).

Rankin said SOFG was "exciting" because they are working on "policy development around public engagement" ( and this has dragged on and on for months and months).  

Surprisingly, Briggs called out the issue of NOT telling parents at those 50 schools affected by teacher shifts sooner. Rivera Smith and Rankin sat stone-faced. 

Other Thoughts

About Topp, she is a careful speaker. The vibe I get is that she wants to be a team player. Given where the Board is, she may have to pick a team. I think she might go along to get along until she gets her footing but I think she's going to find SPS a very different place than King County where she works.  It's hard to know what specific stands she may have.

As for Lisa Rivera Smith, I see various comments about how nice she is and that she listens. Both make her a decent person but an effective director? Not really.

Rankin says at her website:

- that she support sOption Schools but when Hampson made comments at the last Budget Work Session against them, Rankin stayed silent. I would not call that support.

- Gun violence is preventable, and I will keep fighting for solutions that help keep gun violence in all its forms out of our schools and communities.

Really? What has she done to "fight for solutions" except to say it's a societal problem.