Seattle Schools Updates
The Seattle Times has a story about the Anitra Jones issue. The headline:
Here are the documents SPS says mandate keeping controversial principalAn SPS spokesperson confirmed the district received complaints about this alleged “toxic” environment on June 13, 2023, and subsequently hired an independent contractor to investigate the allegations surrounding Jones’ disciplinary policies and allegedly discriminatory conduct. That investigator’s report, dated Sept. 27, 2024, concluded “that there was insufficient evidence to substantiate any of those allegations,” according to the district spokesperson.
In addition, the state’s Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction investigated community complaints from Rainier View families in 2023. The state agency conducted three investigations into allegations that Rainier View staff failed to appropriately identify and support students requiring special education services. The OSPI investigations identified a violation related to special education disciplinary requirements, and mandated that staff — including Jones — complete a training, and develop a schedule to provide “compensatory education” for students whose rights had been violated.
In November 2024, a state labor relations adjudicator found that Jones unlawfully discriminated against three Rainier View staff members for protected union activity.
The Seattle Times obtained a copy of that agreement from former superintendent Brent Jones (no relation to Anitra Jones), and a copy of Anitra Jones’ current contract, through public records requests.
On first read, neither document appears to explicitly compel the district to place Anitra Jones in a principalship for the 2026-27 school year, but legal experts point to three portions of state law that they say, when read together, explain why the district’s hands are tied.
In January 2025, then-Superintendent Brent Jones wrote a letter to Anitra Jones that read: “For the 2025-2026 school year, I will evaluate principal position openings and assign you a building to be a principal. The assignment will likely be back to an elementary school, but I reserve the right to place you into another school level (e.g., middle or alternative), if such a principal placement is in the best interest of SPS and matches our organizational needs.”
So he left before he made that placement but, as the Times notes, it was for one year. Maybe that Superintendent had his doubts.Legal notes:
The letter Brent Jones wrote is not an official employee contract, nor was it approved or considered by the School Board, as principal hires fall under the superintendent’s purview.
Multiple lawyers who reviewed the Brent Jones letter said it was unusual, and not a typical part of the district’s hiring or appointment protocols.
However, in a statement provided to The Seattle Times, spokespeople for Seattle Public Schools note that Washington law recognizes the concept of “promissory estoppel,” which means that if someone makes a promise on which another person reasonably relies, the promise may be legally enforceable. The district does not concede that this principle applies in this situation, but stated that “this is the legal theory at issue with respect to the letter” from the former superintendent.
Okay but I note that the document also says, based on the issues that the state labor relations adjudicator found that Jones would be working with Jon Hafaker, SPS Labor and Employee relations. The Superintendent also notes that she has already made progress on that work.More legalities:
Legal experts point to a section of Washington code that establishes a concept known as “continuing contract” — meaning certificated school district employees (including principals) have one-year contracts, which are expected to be renewed automatically unless the district has sufficient cause not to renew.
Another section of Washington code applies uniquely to Seattle Public Schools — as it’s the only public school district in the state with more than 35,000 students enrolled. According to that law, any principal who has worked at the district for at least three consecutive school years cannot be transferred to a subordinate position unless the principal’s annual performance evaluation indicates such a demotion is appropriate.
Finally, a third section of code outlines what school districts must do if there is probable cause to terminate a teacher, principal or other district employee who holds a professional certification — including providing formal notice of the probable cause, and a hearing to address the findings, where the employee may have legal representation.
Also in the Times today:
Before the sexual abuse allegedly started, the former student was identified by the district as particularly vulnerable and suffering from an emotional disability. The complaint defined emotional disability as “a broad term used in the field of special education to describe a range of mental health issues, including emotional instability, behavioral challenges, social difficulties, and academic struggles.” She had an individualized education plan to provide her academic and social support in school.
Two judges presided over Jones’ trials — and one key difference was that in the first trial, the defense was not allowed to cross-examine the former student about previous sexual assaults committed against her by other men while cross-examination was allowed in the second trial, court records show.
What happened in the case with the other coach Marvin Hall?
The lawsuit claimed Hall, another coach, entered an abusive relationship with the former student and sexually exploited her from when she was 17 until after her 21st birthday. Hall, then 43, was the assistant coach of Garfield’s boys basketball team when he met the former student and later assisted Garfield’s girls team, the lawsuit said.
Hall pleaded guilty last June to sexual misconduct with a minor and was released from the King County Jail in December, according to court and jail records.
The victim certainly didn't get a lot of justice from the court system.
Comments
According to reporting on the meeting, Shuldiner described the audience as "almost all white" and contrasted that with "a Black principal saying these things and being interrupted." Bev Redmond, SPS Chief of Staff and Public Affairs, added that, "as a Black female, sitting in that space, watching another Black female being addressed in a way that was insulting, undignified," was "discouraging for the Seattle I had grown to know."
Those comments matter because staff overseen by Redmond and Shuldiner have drafted "anti-racist values" into the District's proposed Guardrails — while the fight over Jones' placement at Adams Elementary has been playing out. Shuldiner's name is on it, although the Board hasn't yet voted. That's twice he's already turned to race.
These fights over "racist" and "anti-racist" already have an ugly history in this District. Staff's attempt to pass an explicit anti-racism policy — Policy 0040 — was built on language defining institutional racism as producing "advances for white people with privilege," and committed the District to dismantling "white supremacy and privilege." That fight ended with two Native American board directors, accused of racism by two Black staffers, being cleared of racism by a prominent Black attorney — who nonetheless found them guilty of harassment, intimidation, and bullying. The policy never officially passed, but staff still never seem to give up.
Does "anti-racism" mean HR may keep state findings or disciplinary concerns out of employment records because of a staff member's race?
Does it mean the Superintendent may place a principal in a school without meaningful parent input because of the staff member's race?
Does "anti-racism" mean that when white parents raise hard questions about their children's school, those questions are discounted because of the parents' race?
SPS should do everything it can to help low-income students and students who have historically been underserved, many of whom are students of color.
But helping students is different from using race to shield adult conduct, to make personnel decisions, and to allocate dollars.
During the anti-racist era from 2019 to 2026, Superintendent pay rose roughly 37% (from $310,000 to $425,000). Over the same period, the share of Black students passing the SBAC fell from 38.3% to 29.9% in ELA and from 24.7% to 19.6% in math.
Superintendent Shuldiner has only been here since February. Accusations of white privilege at Adams. "Anti-racism" — built on language targeting "white supremacy and privilege" — again being written into District governance.
Is this really how the District hopes to attract more students and raise test scores?
"Those comments matter because staff overseen by Redmond and Shuldiner have drafted "anti-racist values" into the District's proposed Guardrails — while the fight over Jones' placement at Adams Elementary has been playing out. "
And you know this how? Because the "anti-racist" wording was there a long time before Shuldiner arrived. Do I think Redmond is trying to sway him? Probably.
I agree that the District's “anti-racist values” predate Superintendent Shuldiner. That is exactly the concern.
He did not invent the phrase. He is not responsible for everything SPS did before February. But his name is now on the Board Action Report asking the School Board to carry that phrase forward in a rewritten Policy 0025, which is on the Board Agenda for June 3, 2026.
That makes it his issue now. And according to the District’s org chart, “Board Relations, Strategic Initiatives, & Policy” sits under Bev Redmond.
This is not a small housekeeping edit. The proposed Policy 0025 has been structurally rewritten. The old version was written as a set of limits: “The Superintendent will not allow…” The new version changes the structure to: “The District, led by the Superintendent, shall work towards…” That is a major change in governance language.
The new Policy 0025 uses the phrase “anti-racist values,” but does not define it. The only full Board-level attempt SPS made to define the underlying concept was draft Policy 0040, the failed Anti-Racism Policy. That policy did not treat anti-racism as a generic slogan. It treated anti-racism as an operating framework for decision-making, funding allocations, contracting, policies, procedures, and practices.
In other words, “anti-racist values” was never just about classroom kindness or treating people respectfully. In SPS documents, it meant money, contracts, staffing, procedures, programs, investigations, and discipline. It defined institutional racism in terms of “advances for white people with privilege” and committed the District to dismantling “white supremacy.”
While Policy 0040 never passed, the framework did not disappear. SPS went on to make race-conscious decisions everywhere from levy planning, to busing, to staffing. That is not rhetoric. It is in the Board materials. If SPS says “anti-racist values” now means something different from the old 0040 framework, then it should explain why the same concepts kept showing up in funding, transportation, staffing, and program decisions.
And the timing matters. This is happening while the Adams controversy is unfolding, after Shuldiner and Chief of Staff Bev Redmond publicly framed parent pushback in racial terms. Shuldiner described the audience as almost all white and contrasted that with a Black principal being interrupted. Redmond spoke as a Black woman watching another Black woman being addressed in a way she described as insulting and undignified.
If district leadership is already willing to frame parent criticism in racial terms, then parents are entitled to know what “anti-racist values” means before the Board writes it into governance policy again.
Does “anti-racist” mean HR may keep state findings or disciplinary concerns out of employment records because of a staff member’s race?
Does it mean the Superintendent may place a principal in a school without meaningful parent input because of the staff member’s race?
Does it mean that when white parents raise hard questions about their children’s school, those questions are discounted because of the parents’ race?
Those are not abstract questions anymore.
SPS should absolutely help low-income students and students who have historically been underserved, many of whom are students of color. But helping students is different from using "anti-racist values" to shield adult conduct, make personnel decisions, or deflect community concerns.
District leadership should not be asking the Board to adopt "anti-racist values" without including the only full definition leadership ever drafted.
Superintendent Shuldiner and Bev Redmond do not own the past. But they own their own actions. If they want to write "anti-racist values" into board governance, then they should attach Anti Racism Policy 0040 to the BAR and own it.
And if Board President Topp and the rest of the School Board vote to carry “anti-racist values” forward without defining how that phrase differs from the way SPS staff used it in the past, then they own how it was used in the past too.
I know people who walked out of the meeting because they were uncomfortable with the dynamics. The definition of microaggression was met. If you listen to the meeting, there was actually no questions being discounted either. Someone folks have taken it that way and others are amplifying it and that is wrong.
Should it have made it to a school board scold? Maybe or maybe not but I, for one, was relieved when I heard them speak -- especially Bev's voice.
But the problem now is the macro reaction to having a microaggression pointed out.
Stop that. And yes, I am scolding everyone.