Two Upcoming School Board Candidate Discussions
Update: Gitenstein and Carlsen are having yet another discussion.
Oct. 22nd, Sunday, 1pm, Youngstown Cultural Art Center
Moderator: TBA
end of update
Candidate Ben Gitenstein (D3) and Candidate Debbie Carlsen (D6) have joined forces to hold not one but two community discussions about school closures.
The first discussion is Wednesday, October 18th at the Garfield Community Center starting at 6 pm, with doors opening at 5:45 pm. RSVP @ futuretownhall@gmail.com
The moderator will be Andrew Ashiofu. Mr. Ashiofu is a former City Council candidate in D3 and social activist.
The second discussion will be Wednesday, October 25th at the Green Lake Community Center starting at 6 pm with doors opening at 5:45 pm. RSVP @ futuretownhall@gmail.com.
The moderator will be Sandeep Kaushik. Mr. Kaushik is a political and public affairs consultant.
Both forums appear to be in-person so do try to get out and talk to candidates in person.
Learn more about Debbie Carlsen at www.debbie4seattleschools.org.
Learn more about Ben Gitenstein at www.wedeservebetterschools.org.
Comments
- All candidates were asked the same questions and had the questions in advance. Given they had a minute to answer, that seems fair.
- Liza Rankin said she wanted to see "positive progress" in SPS. Apparently she missed the latest word on how the Black Male Initiative is going.
- Gina Topp said she looked forward to being "a team player." In the current state of the Board, I would ask, "Which team?"
- The first question was about SOFG. Lisa Rivera Smith tried to hedge, saying she did support it but pushed back when Hampson tried to say no policy work until it was fully implemented. This is true. But Rivera Smith also said the work should reflect "community values" when she knows full well there has been no real community engagement on it. She said that the Board still had oversight over enrollment and bell times.
Christina Posten said she wasn't sure but she felt that SOFG was not even well-known to staff who will be working within it.
Gina Topp said, after talking to the public, "no on really cares how SPS is governed, they want a Board that operates well." She went on to say that a study on the Board said they needed clarity (sure, but that study said nothing about SOFG). She said it places "vision on the Board and gives the Superintendent "more discretion." Or power. She could have said power. She said her two concerns were 1) finding a good way to make policy and 2) a clear understanding of place for community engagement.
Debbie Carlsen also said community engagement was important and there was "inaccessible language in the guardrails."
Liza Rankin said it was still in process and transitional. She mentioned something about "well-established researched facts" that I didn't understand. She said previously that there was "confrontational governance." I do not agree at all.
Evan Briggs said the "hugest" pros were it was the first time that they were evaluating the superintendent based on student outcomes and time use for the Board. Superintendents HAVE been previously evaluated and just because the wording didn't state "student outcomes" doesn't mean previous Board didn't do their jobs.
Ben Gitenstein said there does need to be an operating model for boards but the outcomes currently are not good enough.