Director Rankin Sets Off A Firestorm of Disagreement in Times Op-Ed
I’m on the Seattle School Board. Here’s what we need to do to improve
Yes, that's the headline.
My first question would be - does President Gina Topp know about this? It's kinda ironic because Rankin used to be ALL about team unity and NOT speaking out of turn.
Frankly, you can read the op-ed and then just go to the comments because 95% of them think it nonsense and/or can't even figure out what she is really saying.
Several thoughts I have:
- I cannot believe how former director Chandra Hampson and now Director Liza Rankin love to badmouth the people who sat up on the dais before them. It's disrespectful. She complains there was a lack of accountability from former boards. Well, the board previous to this one AND this current one haven't done much in that direction and I'd like to know what she thinks the current Board has done.
I note that other boards HAVE fired/let go previous superintendents. We all know she's trying mightily to push Superintendent Brent Jones out. For someone who likes accountability, she's sure trying to do this on the downlow.
- There were issues of previous board directors trying to micro-manage the superintendent and/or staff. But that is pretty much long gone. She knows that.
She says that policy should put forth values that create the superintendent's procedure should be. But she knows that it's near-impossible to write either policy or procedure for every single issue. So what then?
- She tries to equate being on "a board" with being on a SCHOOL board. A corporation or nonprofit board is a completely different animal from a school board (save Roberts Rules and clear organizational issues).
- An assessment by Moss Adams presented in December 2024 revealed why: While the board had adopted SOFG, the central office did not follow with agreed-upon administrative changes.
I, for one, had thought that SOFG was ONLY for the Board. But now we come to find that the Superintendent and senior staff are supposed to be spending precious time journaling their efforts. And, eventually, they want all this to trickle down to principals. Can you imagine a principal that would have the time for their ideas about self-reflection? Nothing wrong with some of that but SOFG demands a lot of time.
- We haven’t lost our way; the path is right in front of us. We just need the collective will and discipline to follow it.
What I would love to hear is an honest discussion - in public - among the directors about their feelings for SOFG. That would be accountability. Plus, how much the Board is spending on the consultants and the trainings; that would be accountability.
- Her bio at the bottom says she has a certificate on effective school board governance from BOTH Harvard School of Education and Council of Great City Schools. It appears for a 4-day Harvard online course, the cost is $13,000. I'm sure CGCS is cheaper but how much did all that cost and who paid for these courses that would set Rankin up to be a consultant when she leaves office?
Also, who helped Rankin write this op-ed because you sure hear an SOFG tone in it.
Assorted Comments (I didn't really need to cherry-pick).
When your Op Ed attracts 70+ comments and not a single one is supportive, that should tell you something. Please resign. No one wants to hear you spewing this word salad for another two years.
I have voted for Liza, once. That’s it. She lost my support. I asked her once about honors programs and she went into the talking out of both sides of her mouth speech. They are good, but here is what the others are saying. Well they canceled a lot of those programs. She is a leftist wolf in sheep’s clothing. She is not accountable. Since she has been on the board schools have consistently gotten worse. Never voting for her again and I’m done listening to her nonsense word salad responses.
There was absolutely nothing substantive or actionable in this piece. Empty, non-sensical assemblage of words that do nothing but fill space- which is totally on brand for Ms. Rankin.
But one simple fact remains: at the forefront of any school's job is the education of its kids. How about looking at those school systems that work and following that? An expensive and self-serving advisor on all things education is not the way to go. Look at other country's education systems. Finland has a system that has been a model of excellence for some time.
This is why Rankin almost got recalled last November. Next time, the judge will surely see the misfeasance in every board member who abdicates their moral and fiscal responsibility and goes along with SOFG. Let’s get back to talk about kids, Liza!
To note, there is a regular commenter on public education stories in the Times who goes by the handle, OSPI Retired Professional. This person knows their stuff and has cogent, informative comments. I found their comment for this op-ed odd.
After reading this, I asked myself just who does Rankin want to be???
Nothing in state law prevents a school board from involving itself in the actual running of its schools. A school board cannot simply set policy and judge how well the executive management implements the policy without the board involving itself in the actual running of its schools.
There’s a common thread in both phases of Rankin's career—an unwavering belief in controlling spending and firm accountability in resource allocation—but the emphasis and context have shifted.
As school board president:
Her approach was defined by the necessity to make hard and sometimes unpopular fiscal decisions under severe budget constraints.
In that role, she was willing to or even compelled to implement measures like consolidating or closing schools—decisions that, although controversial, were aimed at balancing a challenging budget.
This was a time when the pressure to act decisively pushed her towards solutions that some community members felt were executed in a top-down manner without enough community engagement.
Her strong focus on fiscal discipline sometimes came at the cost of broader consensus, which later fueled criticism and recall efforts.
In her current position:
Her recent remarks—emphasizing “we have a lot of control over how we spend our money” and expressing disappointment that the budget proposal makes no changes in staffing, instructional approaches, or professional development—reveal a delicate shift in emphasis.
Today, she appears to be advocating more forcefully for a budget process that’s responsive to the prolonged, community-driven dialogue of the past year and a half.
Rather than endorsing a purely technocratic fix, she’s highlighting the need for the proposal to evolve from a status quo that ignores fresh input and community needs.
This isn’t so much a reversal in her principles as it’s an adaptation that reflects a broader call for inclusive and thoughtful reform in the budgeting process.
In comparison:
Core Belief: Both stages reflect her steadfast commitment to fiscal responsibility—ensuring decisions about money are made carefully and with a view toward long-term accountability.
Approach to Decision-Making: As board president, her decision-making was characterized by tough, rapid interventions that were necessary in a crisis, even if they risked alienating parts of the community. Now, while the goal remains responsible financial management, there’s a stronger insistence on aligning the budget with community feedback and evolving educational needs.
Community Engagement: Previously criticized for a centralized, non-transparent approach, she now insists18 months of community dialogue must prompt tangible changes, even if it means rethinking established practices.
Once notorious for her opaque, centralized decisions, she now shockingly champions community input and fiscal discipline—18 long months of dialogue apparently remade her tactics overnight.
“Both stages reflect her steadfast commitment to fiscal responsibility—ensuring decisions about money are made carefully and with a view toward long-term accountability.”
To which I say, please. She voted for a teachers contract that drove the district even further into debt.
Yes, that's the headline.
My first question would be - does President Gina Topp know about this? It's kinda ironic because Rankin used to be ALL about team unity and NOT speaking out of turn.
Frankly, you can read the op-ed and then just go to the comments because 95% of them think it nonsense and/or can't even figure out what she is really saying.
Several thoughts I have:
- I cannot believe how former director Chandra Hampson and now Director Liza Rankin love to badmouth the people who sat up on the dais before them. It's disrespectful. She complains there was a lack of accountability from former boards. Well, the board previous to this one AND this current one haven't done much in that direction and I'd like to know what she thinks the current Board has done.
I note that other boards HAVE fired/let go previous superintendents. We all know she's trying mightily to push Superintendent Brent Jones out. For someone who likes accountability, she's sure trying to do this on the downlow.
- There were issues of previous board directors trying to micro-manage the superintendent and/or staff. But that is pretty much long gone. She knows that.
She says that policy should put forth values that create the superintendent's procedure should be. But she knows that it's near-impossible to write either policy or procedure for every single issue. So what then?
- She tries to equate being on "a board" with being on a SCHOOL board. A corporation or nonprofit board is a completely different animal from a school board (save Roberts Rules and clear organizational issues).
- An assessment by Moss Adams presented in December 2024 revealed why: While the board had adopted SOFG, the central office did not follow with agreed-upon administrative changes.
I, for one, had thought that SOFG was ONLY for the Board. But now we come to find that the Superintendent and senior staff are supposed to be spending precious time journaling their efforts. And, eventually, they want all this to trickle down to principals. Can you imagine a principal that would have the time for their ideas about self-reflection? Nothing wrong with some of that but SOFG demands a lot of time.
- We haven’t lost our way; the path is right in front of us. We just need the collective will and discipline to follow it.
What I would love to hear is an honest discussion - in public - among the directors about their feelings for SOFG. That would be accountability. Plus, how much the Board is spending on the consultants and the trainings; that would be accountability.
- Her bio at the bottom says she has a certificate on effective school board governance from BOTH Harvard School of Education and Council of Great City Schools. It appears for a 4-day Harvard online course, the cost is $13,000. I'm sure CGCS is cheaper but how much did all that cost and who paid for these courses that would set Rankin up to be a consultant when she leaves office?
Also, who helped Rankin write this op-ed because you sure hear an SOFG tone in it.
Assorted Comments (I didn't really need to cherry-pick).
When your Op Ed attracts 70+ comments and not a single one is supportive, that should tell you something. Please resign. No one wants to hear you spewing this word salad for another two years.
I have voted for Liza, once. That’s it. She lost my support. I asked her once about honors programs and she went into the talking out of both sides of her mouth speech. They are good, but here is what the others are saying. Well they canceled a lot of those programs. She is a leftist wolf in sheep’s clothing. She is not accountable. Since she has been on the board schools have consistently gotten worse. Never voting for her again and I’m done listening to her nonsense word salad responses.
There was absolutely nothing substantive or actionable in this piece. Empty, non-sensical assemblage of words that do nothing but fill space- which is totally on brand for Ms. Rankin.
But one simple fact remains: at the forefront of any school's job is the education of its kids. How about looking at those school systems that work and following that? An expensive and self-serving advisor on all things education is not the way to go. Look at other country's education systems. Finland has a system that has been a model of excellence for some time.
This is why Rankin almost got recalled last November. Next time, the judge will surely see the misfeasance in every board member who abdicates their moral and fiscal responsibility and goes along with SOFG. Let’s get back to talk about kids, Liza!
To note, there is a regular commenter on public education stories in the Times who goes by the handle, OSPI Retired Professional. This person knows their stuff and has cogent, informative comments. I found their comment for this op-ed odd.
After reading this, I asked myself just who does Rankin want to be???
Nothing in state law prevents a school board from involving itself in the actual running of its schools. A school board cannot simply set policy and judge how well the executive management implements the policy without the board involving itself in the actual running of its schools.
There’s a common thread in both phases of Rankin's career—an unwavering belief in controlling spending and firm accountability in resource allocation—but the emphasis and context have shifted.
As school board president:
Her approach was defined by the necessity to make hard and sometimes unpopular fiscal decisions under severe budget constraints.
In that role, she was willing to or even compelled to implement measures like consolidating or closing schools—decisions that, although controversial, were aimed at balancing a challenging budget.
This was a time when the pressure to act decisively pushed her towards solutions that some community members felt were executed in a top-down manner without enough community engagement.
Her strong focus on fiscal discipline sometimes came at the cost of broader consensus, which later fueled criticism and recall efforts.
In her current position:
Her recent remarks—emphasizing “we have a lot of control over how we spend our money” and expressing disappointment that the budget proposal makes no changes in staffing, instructional approaches, or professional development—reveal a delicate shift in emphasis.
Today, she appears to be advocating more forcefully for a budget process that’s responsive to the prolonged, community-driven dialogue of the past year and a half.
Rather than endorsing a purely technocratic fix, she’s highlighting the need for the proposal to evolve from a status quo that ignores fresh input and community needs.
This isn’t so much a reversal in her principles as it’s an adaptation that reflects a broader call for inclusive and thoughtful reform in the budgeting process.
In comparison:
Core Belief: Both stages reflect her steadfast commitment to fiscal responsibility—ensuring decisions about money are made carefully and with a view toward long-term accountability.
Approach to Decision-Making: As board president, her decision-making was characterized by tough, rapid interventions that were necessary in a crisis, even if they risked alienating parts of the community. Now, while the goal remains responsible financial management, there’s a stronger insistence on aligning the budget with community feedback and evolving educational needs.
Community Engagement: Previously criticized for a centralized, non-transparent approach, she now insists18 months of community dialogue must prompt tangible changes, even if it means rethinking established practices.
Once notorious for her opaque, centralized decisions, she now shockingly champions community input and fiscal discipline—18 long months of dialogue apparently remade her tactics overnight.
“Both stages reflect her steadfast commitment to fiscal responsibility—ensuring decisions about money are made carefully and with a view toward long-term accountability.”
To which I say, please. She voted for a teachers contract that drove the district even further into debt.
Comments
2.5 Years
No more raises for poor performance. No pay at all.
SP
Taking a class from Harvard (whoop- de- doo) doesn't make anyone an expert; not in the long run.
I thought SOFG was limited to the board, as well. I had no idea that it was going to trickle down to the principals.
I'd bet Chandra Hampson had a hand in writing this piece.
Signed, Oy.