The Fast and the Furious in Seattle School Closures

Has it just been a week since the last Board meeting? So what has happened?

Actually, let's go back further and see what President Liza Rankin said on Facebook after the recall notice but before the Board meeting.

I am comfortable being dismissive of efforts to maintain the status quo and undermine effective governance in service to students and not trying to weaponize the board as customer service for the loudest voices. There is a lot of air between Moms for Liberty and "progressives" who refuse to change for those who have been consistently and historically marginalized people supported via the democratic will of the people.

Shades of Chandra Hampson (who probably wrote that) with that arrogant tone. Let's take that statement apart. 

I know of NO ONE with a child in SPS who wants to maintain the status quo. There might be a few who are happy with their child's school now, but recognize all the churn happening in the district. 

"Effective governance?" Who says SPS has that now? Was crying during a Board meeting effective? Was bumbling around on the dais trying to figure out if she could make a motion to immediately halt the closure process good governance? I think she's way ahead of the rest of us on her beliefs that the Board is providing "effective governance."

The current board is sooooooo far from customer service to parents. She knows this because there are near zero ways to interact with the Board and she's the one who cut them off.  

And what an insult to parents to line up those who want a voice with the obnoxious Moms for Liberty. 

Yes, she did get elected. But she ALSO did not take any real time during that election cycle to explain SOFG and what it is. Curious thing that is because it drives everything she does as a board member and she is trying to bend the will of parents and staff - including the Superintendent - to enact it. 

So what's the current state of things

The Superintendent has withdrawn his closure plan. Here's the story from Monday in the Seattle Times:

Seattle Public Schools Superintendent Brent Jones is pulling his proposal to close four elementary schools, saying he “no longer saw a pathway for this approach” for the 2025-26 school year. 

“This decision was not made lightly and reflects the Board and my shared priority: the needs and well-being of our students, families, and community,” Jones wrote in a note to parents on Monday. 

“While our Board recognized the vision for the proposed changes, and many in our community understood the need for stability behind them, this decision allows us to clarify the process, deepen our understanding of the potential impacts, and thoughtfully determine our next steps.”

Jumping in here, I hope Jones really means it - he and the staff HAVE TO do better. That said, where is the simple declarative - "We need to listen to parents and include them in the planning." 

Tonight, November 26th, at 5 pm the Board will have a "special meeting" on the whole issue of the process for school closures. I see that the agenda has been amended to reflect what the Superintendent announced. 

Instead of "withdrawing direction provided to the Superintendent regarding the presentation of preliminary recommendations for school closures," it reads:

I move that the School Board accept the Superintnedent's withdrawal of the preliminary recommendations for school closures for the 2025-2026 school year. The School Board will not hold public hearings on the preliminary recommendations.

I note that again there is no one credited as the author of this BAR.

The hearing for the recall action is scheduled for Monday, December 2nd in King Country Superior Court. 

Into the fray comes the Seattle Times editorial board with this piece about the recall effort against President Liza Rankin:

Is it really worth it to recall Seattle's school board president?

It's an editorial that's a bit all over the place including saying that one parent on the recall effort, Ben Gitenstein, who ran for the board and lost. might be thought of initially as "vindictive." There might be a ring of truth to that if Gitenstein was trying to recall the person he lost to who was Evan Briggs. He's not trying to recall her. 

But Gitenstein has laid out a cogent argument about the board’s subversion of democracy, and that is the basis for his effort.

On December 2nd, a King County Superior judge, after listening to arguments from a lawyer representing the recall petitioners and one from Seattle Public Schools defending Rankin (at an estimated cost of $25,000), will decide whether the recall can move forward. 

If so, Gitenstein and his crew will then need to collect nearly 50,000 signatures to get the question in front of voters.

The Editorial Board questions moving forward and then answers their own question.

With all that work ahead — not to mention the fact that Rankin last week appeared to back away from closing any schools next year — one might wonder why the petitioners want to move ahead.

The answer is that this recall effort is not about any particular decision but, rather, how the school board led by Rankin is making them — without transparency or even a finance committee to comb through the books. The board summarily ended that work group last year, despite its responsibility for a $1.2 billion budget affecting 50,000 students and their families.

With stakes so high, and no chance for voters to elect new board members until November 2025, who knows how deep in the pit Seattle Public Schools will be by then?

One item I'm unclear on - if the recall effort gets the necessary number of signatures (48,659), when does it go on the ballot? Ballotpedia has some interesting recall stats.