Analysis of Seattle Schools and Its Issues with Principals, Part 2

I have frequently written about that one issue that scares ALL parents with kids at schools with a good principal. And that issue is the district deciding to poach a good principal to prop up a troubled school. Even a principal retirement is reason to sound the alarm. Why?

Because the broad issue is the refusal - by ALL superintendents - to explain to parents how principal selection and placement works. This issue has come up again and again. 

It is especially galling to parents who see some school communities participate in the selection of their next principal and then just have a principal plopped into their own school. (I used to say that the district always allows high school communities to be part of principal selection because, for a long time, it was true. Today, not so much.)

One problem is simply that there is no Board policy on principal placement. Most would say, nor should there be because that is purely a superintendent decision. It is a personnel decision and, except for extreme situations, it remains in the superintendent's purview. 

I note this from the Times' story on the Board meeting:

District 1 Director Liza Rankin requested that the board conduct an audit of the district’s human resources protocols, including timelines of and investigations, hiring decisions and leaves. 

I appreciate that Rankin wants to do this but my sources say there have been not one but two audits already. But maybe they did not cover what Rankin would like to see and given how many investigations go nowhere, it might be a good idea. 

Naturally, principal placement is situational. A superintendent wants to match up that school's community vibe (for both teachers/staff and parents/students). What's the right Goldie Locks fit for this school? The superintendent does want to get it right because if you have the right fit, it might be the beginning of a long tenure for a principal. So when that fit is right, the school is on much more solid ground to make positive advances for their school population. 

Plus, it's one fewer school for the superintendent to worry about if he knows it's in good hands.

I want to point out that in the Times' story they are asking this:

What questions do you have about the appointment process for Seattle Public Schools principals?

So to the issue at hand - Principal Anitra Jones at Adams Elementary School. 

In this situation, the current principal, Doug Sohn, is retiring for medical reasons and is beloved at the school. My intel says Principal Sohn may be gone before the end of the school year so not a long crossover time with him guiding Principal Jones. 

At the same time, Jones had either been pressuring the district for another school and/or the district felt it was time to get her back into a school. (She had been removed from Rainier View ES, going first to the district to do what? and then to Rainier Beach HS on some "special" placement.) 

At the Board meeting, Shuldiner referenced that Jones was an award-winning principal. That is true except that the groups that gave her praise and awards did it in her earlier tenure at Rainier View ES. It's interesting that she received a Milken Educator Award AND an Alliance for Education award all in the same school year, 2018-2019. 

So what happened between 2018-2019 and 2023-2024 to cause this kind of upheaval at a school that was doing so well? 

Of course, what is problematic for the current situation is this knowledge (comes from The Seattle Times):

Earlier this month, the district appointed Jones to be the new principal at Adams Elementary, shocking community members who were surprised she still had a job after an onslaught of complaints arose in 2024, including allegations she created a “toxic” learning environment at Rainier View Elementary in Southeast Seattle, and a state agency’s determination that she unlawfully discriminated against staff.  

The district had what I would have believed is a mountain of evidence against Jones but none of it made it to her personnel file. That "state agency" report came from a Labor RelationsAdjudicator/Mediator at the state who concluded that Jones had "targeted" 3 employees with negative and disparaging comments in their evaluations and had recommended to HR that they should have even harsher evaluations. 

Plus, she was found to trying to discriminate against an employee when the employee talked in an email about union activity. 

The examiner directed SPS to stop interfering with employees’ right to organize and collectively bargain and to no longer consider employees’ union activities in job evaluations.

The examiner also told SPS that it cannot discipline employees for including union representatives and co-workers on emails about wages, hours, working conditions or potential grievances. 

But what of all the complaints that came from parents/guardians? Maybe some were just verbal but I'd bet many parents wrote an email or letter. How did all those get disregarded at that time? In March of 2024, there were many RVES parents coming to Board meetings begging for help. Those pleas are on record.

One thing I can tell you from personal experience is that you can write a letter of complaint about a teacher or principal and it will NOT make it into their personnel file. I know this because I wrote one about a teacher at my son's school who would not allow my husband who was in the hospital to view a test my son had taken. (This was around math and my husband had tutored my son in math so he wanted to see the test to see where our son failed.) 

I don't know where it is in the contracts for teachers and principals that any written complaint will not go in their file but it seems to be true. 

What did the district do when these issue were revealed in 2024?

SPS said in a statement that it was still reviewing the findings. While some of the allegations had been dismissed, “district leadership is considering next steps due to the allegations that were upheld,” the statement read.

One key that the district, somehow, did not do much is to be found in current superintendent Ben Shuldiner's remarks at the Board meeting. He was explaining why he couldn't discipline Jones now if there was nothing in her personnel file to warrant it AND he mentioned "an internal document." 

Nothing about ANYTHING at RVES in her file? How could the state findings NOT be in there?

And, where did this internal document in Jones' file come from? Superintendent Brent Jones? HR head Sarah Pritchett? SPS HR is one place where it seems some people get protection from real consequences. 

SPS needs an HR professional at its head. By that I mean, someone who has real training background in human relations, not just someone who the district  (again) needed to place.

Shuldiner says that's one department that needs a very hard look and good for him.

Next up, my analysis about what was actually said at the last Seattle School Board meeting on this topic.