Who's in Charge of Seattle Schools? Part Three

 Then we come to President Liza Rankin. She looked pale and seemed muddled (this may have been because she needed to get on a plane right after the meeting to attend the WSSDA conference in Spokane.)

What happened in that period of public testimony was that the veil of SOFG got lifted from her and out came the real Liza Rankin (or at least the one I met many years ago). 

She was crying and it was not just a few tears.  She said:

- We don't have a system that welcomes all kids at every school. 

This might be true, especially for Special Education students. However, she knows that not every school can serve every student. That would surely be financially impossible. It would have helped if she were a little more nuanced in her statements but again, she was crying. 

- If the community can understand the challenges and see that at the center are our kids, they can be brought along and they can actually help us come up with stronger solutions. 

And I’m so angry to be right here in a completely preventable place and I’m so sorry that you all have to take your time to come down here when for a year, we have on behalf of you and your children and the entire Seattle community, demanded that we acknowledge that there are issues and demanded that we get a plan that centers students.

Your questions haven’t been answered, our questions haven’t been answered.

To which I would ask - so where were you as the person in direct leadership for parents and community? 

I do not believe that any of what Rankin did or said was a performance. Do I think it helped the meeting or the conversation?  I do not.

 And it sure was wrong to act mystified at where the district is on closures, especially when SHE is the one who is pushing hard on SOFG. That governance plan takes away the oversight that is necessary especially in hard times.

- She said she was neuro-diverse and "it takes a ton of masking." She said she was trying to be "professional but I don't know what that means."  I would assume her gum chewing was a calming mechanism but I would also say that it - and she brought up the word - was not professional. 

I note that I have a neuro-divergent son. 

- I can’t take five years of it has been too much for me to continue to believe in a system that keeps letting so many of us and our kids down.

What is interesting to me as a long-time observer is how there has never been a true Special Education champion on the Board. Oh there have been those who ran for the Board and said they would be but not really.  (See Jill Geary.). 

Here's Rankin with her own personal experience as well as one of her own children and yet, she says she doesn't know what to do. And again, her focus has been on SOFG when all the while there were real issues out there. But somehow it's not the Board's job to point out issues or engage with staff. 

This whole incident shows how SOFG does NOT work for parents and communities. I hope she sees that.

 I can’t see how the plan that we have right now is in alignment with any of the things that we’ve asked for.

Applause for that from the audience.

- She went into a detailed explanation of Sacajawea's program which is 40% Special Education students. 

It's a real missed opportunity if we had started the conversation where we did start it, does it mean to have a school that is well-resourced, what does it mean to have a school that can serve every kid? It would have been recognized that Sacajawea has a special program to replicate. And I think it still can but it’s not up to me to have ideas but you know what, I have nothing to lose at this point. 

Read her words. "It's not up to me to have ideas." If that's not an acknowledgement of rubberstamping the Superintendent's work, I don't know what is.

We have an opportunity and what if we learned from Sacajawea and use that model to train more educators in inclusionary practices? What if we rebuilt that school? At a size of 300-350 and take out best practices. Sanislo has a great outdoor space, what if that was an environmental learning center.?

One, I'm a bit confused if this was her first visit to Sacajawea which is in her district. (And I believe that  every single director, in their first year, should visit every single school in their region.) Because if she HAD visited before, wouldn't she have known about how that school works and championed it long ago?

I absolutely LOVE the idea of looking around the district and SEEING WHAT IS WORKING AND REPLICATING IT. Parents have asked for this for decades.

But staff is going to pull their hair out by handfuls and say, "Are you kidding?" We have all we can do to try to close this gap and now is not the time for new initiatives." And they would be right but it sure looked good for her in the moment to say that. 

And then Director Michelle Sarju jumped in with her usual flare for speechifying. 

"I so appreciate Liza losing it because what you’re witnessing is it was going to happen and that there are seven humans on this dais who made a decision to be a public servant. I’m looking in my emails right now and I have so many bullying messages from parents, people who I thought were my friends. And we are doing the hard work and this is not easy work and unfortunately, what’s about to come after Jan 20th, 2025 is going to be devastating to this district because we actually didn’t do our work that we needed to do before that."

Is she saying that the Board is justified in "losing it" on the dais? That would make for many messy Board meetings if that's true.

"This board is not trying to just close your kid’s school and destroy communities but save a system for all of your kids. We want high quality public school education for every kid in this district."

That may be true but clearly, that is not what the Superintendent and staff seem to be getting to in their work. They very specifically said their recommendations had nothing to do with academics which, I would assume, is part of a high quality public education.

"There isn’t a plan and we can’t do this if we can’t assure parents that we’re not going to damage their children. Not once again, have a child who’s going to be on their 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, school. Not healthy."

I hate to break it to the staff and the Board - if they want to close schools, it will surely hurt some kids. Damage? I can't say but they can't act all protective if they know that's what needs to be done.

"We will take a public vote, up or down, that’s what we are gonna do in public. I am not interested in abandoning this, I want an up or down vote. We need to speak to the community because we have not been speaking to the community. I ran for this office for kids and I have not been able to lean into that. This job should not be political or hard."

Not speaking to community? That is what parents have complained about for months. If it's SOFG that is holding directors back, they should say it out loud. 

Also, the Board work IS hard. There was a pandemic, there are high numbers of students not attending class, etc. There is a world of work in being a Board director unless you don't want to talk to community and just rubberstamp the Superintendent's work. That does not sound like what Sarju wants but I've never heard her disagree on using SOFG.

"100% focused on kids, instead we have weaponization, parents attacking parents. School board members attacking school board members."

This is fascinating because I do NOT see parents attacking each other. Maybe board members are but I have seen none of that publicly either.

"Do we need to close schools? The answer to that is yes - I see you shaking your head  (she was looking out into the audience)- but we do but we to do it to benefit all kids, not just some. That’s our work. "

"We are going to take an up or down vote, period, on the current situation."

Then Rankin seemed confused about what she could do and asked about making a motion (presumably for the Board to vote against the preliminary plan). Sarju said, off -mic, "I don't care" and asked whoever came forward to speak to use a microphone. This from the director who repeatedly speaks off mic at Work Sessions. 

Legal counsel Greg Narver said there was no Action item for a vote to take place. Rankin explained that she would like a motion now, rather than in January, to reject this plan. Garver said there was Board Policy 6883 that lays out what is supposed to happen. He did say she had the power to schedule a special board meeting where such a motion could happen.

Rankin, who had calmed down, now seemed jokey and said, "So powerful I can schedule meetings." 

Narver added that "I do not think it would be appropriate for the board to come to a final vote tonight when that process has not played out. 

The second thing is the board in October passed a resolution that directed the superintendent to come forward with prelim recommendation and following that there would be site-based hearings. So I do not believe it can be put on the agenda tonight to come to a final vote.

What you CAN do is postpone those hearings although the sooner the better because notice of them has already gone out and is in the Seattle Times."

What is hard to see at nearly every meeting is how confused Rankin is about what she can or can't do and when. She asked, "So if I were to, in my role as president, postpone the hearings, the preliminary recommendations would be rescinded and that would halt this current process?"

Sadly, the camera was never on the Superintendent because I would have liked to see his face. 

Narver answered by saying, "For school closures the responsibility  for the first action is by the Superintendent. I am his attorney as well and he has not asked me for advice and he has a right to have confidential attorney client communications."

Rankin said she would be happy to take a recess and "I see no objections from anyone."

Or the other Board members decided the best course of action for them was to stay silent. What would they say after her tearful and emotional outburst and then, she says, I want us to vote against this now? She created a situation where chiming in was not possible because the directors may have wanted to allow her to calm down.

Narver then played along and said, "You do have the incredible power to declare a recess" and Rankin said jokingly, "Drunk with power." I could see Sarju trying to signal to Rankin but I am unsure if Rankin saw it.

Rankin said, "I propose officially in this moment that we are delaying the scheduled hearings. I guess in consultation with the superintendent will determine if the recommendations are going to change or be rescinded."

Sarju asked, "Why would you rescind?"

Rankin pointed to Narver and said, "Because I can't, we can't vote not to accept them." As Rankin continued, Sarju said, "That's not what I want to do." 

Uh oh.

Rankin ignored her and said she doesn't think all the "directions" given in the October resolution have all been addressed or met and "so I don't anticipate that would change by January."

She then cheerily says, "Let's recess" and Director Topp quickly hobbled out of the room. It appears she has an injury. 

Sarju asks the crowd how long they want to stay. It wasn't clear what they said but it seems like most would want to stay as long as the meeting continued. Rankin expressed concern for audience members because of the coming storm.

They recessed for 20 minutes and it's unclear who spoke to whom. Nothing was said about the recess when they returned.

They voted on the Consent Agenda and apparently, Director Sarah Clark who was there virtually, had just signed out. That seemed to take them by surprised and it is unacceptable. It's one meeting a month; she should be able to handle that. 

Rankin adjusted the agenda to put the Superintendent's update on closing and consolidation so he would speak right then. 

He said, "This is not the planned update." He said "The Board gave us direction on a system of well-resourced schools.

It is is now clear that direction is shifting and I am considering withdrawing my preliminary recommendation. 

I will need to give it more consideration as to when it would come back, if does, and as you know we have scheduled meetings. I will need time to clarify the process as driven by policy. But my intent is to reconsider the preliminary recommendations."

Without looking at him, Rankin thanked him. 

The meeting continued with the most notable Action being the approval by the Board for the district to legally support President Rankin in the recall effort that has been launched against her. Mr. Narver stated that they need to get going to find an outside counsel because they only have 15 days to do so.

Rankin abstained on the vote and Sarju had to ask what "aye" would mean as a vote. She was told and voted aye as did the other directors. 

Narver again joked that because the hearings are canceled, they have free time and Rankin joked back "our schedule just got a lot more free." 

Given the gravity of the situation and that Rankin had practically been sobbing and now was joking around, it was hard to understand her actions.

I think there is now a lot of bad blood at JSCEE. I would guess the Superintendent and staff feel blindsided. 

Maybe if SOFG had not been in place there, the Board and Superintendent might have made different choices.