tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post116345894357648411..comments2024-03-28T02:21:17.452-07:00Comments on Seattle Schools Community Forum: Is the School Board Incompetent?Melissa Westbrookhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17179994245880629080noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post-1163522577776913742006-11-14T08:42:00.000-08:002006-11-14T08:42:00.000-08:00I don't know who, outside of the Times and Don Nie...I don't know who, outside of the Times and Don Nielsen, is suggesting that the Seattle School Board is incompetent. I see the idea repeated on blogs here and there, but mostly by whackos. No one who makes the statement, including the Times, can back it up.<BR/><BR/>I feel a bit out of my element defending the Board.<BR/><BR/>The fact is that the Board is lucky that I'm not the one calling them incompetent, because I could back it up.<BR/><BR/>The Board has two jobs: they are supposed to set policy and they are supposed to supervise the Superintendent. They don't do either particularly well.<BR/><BR/>The Board WRITES policy but if the Board does not ENFORCE policy, then the Board has not SET policy. Without the tools and the will to enforce policy, the Board is meaningless. To date, this Board has not consistently demonstrated the tools or will to enforce policy. Policies are violated ALL THE TIME. The Superintendent has the charge to enforce policy, but he is commonly the one committing the violations, so then it falls to the Board. They have not chosen to step up. I can cite a number of examples, but here's a big one: about 900 high school students were reclassified from 10th graders to 9th graders completely outside the District Policy on the Promotion/Non-Promotion of High School Students. Here's another, the Superintendent routinely violates the District Policy that requires him to implement recommendations from advisory committees within 90 days or explain why he hasn't or won't.<BR/><BR/>These failures to enforce policy are also failures to properly supervise the Superintendent. This is how and when the Board fails to complete their assigned tasks. This is how and when the Board proves incompetent. Ironically, the Times is upset because the Board voted down the Phase II closures. The Phase II closures did not meet the closure criteria set by the Board. Consequently, voting them down constitutes enforcing Policy and managing the Superintendent. It was a strong indicator of the Board functioning properly - the exact opposite of the incompetence that the Times sees.<BR/><BR/>The Times seems to want a rubber-stamp Board that simply complies with everything that the District staff proposes. That's not what the public wants, that's not what the District needs. Some parts of Seattle Public Schools are dysfunctional, but it isn't the Board when they insist that the District operate in an open, honest, transparent, accountable, and engaged manner. On the contrary - the District's failure to do their business in this way is the dysfunction.Charlie Mashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17173903762962067277noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post-1163469835157345942006-11-13T18:03:00.000-08:002006-11-13T18:03:00.000-08:00Here's the letter I sent to the Times' editorial b...Here's the letter I sent to the Times' editorial board:<BR/><BR/>Dear Editorial Board,<BR/> <BR/>First, forgive me for not including everyone listed on your editorial page as members of the editorial board. I couldn't find their addresses at your website.<BR/> <BR/>If you read the Times at all, you'd have to be completely dim to not get that the editorial board of the Seattle Times DOES NOT like the Seattle School Board or their actions. We get it. What's next, you guys standing out by freeway entrances with sandwich board signs reading, "Resign School Board!"?<BR/> <BR/>To those of us who are education activists (even social activists which, I know, to you all is a terrible thing), two things are painfully obivious. <BR/> <BR/>One, you haven't gotten over the school board elections nearly 3 years ago when a majority of the board changed. Many of the powers that be in this city thought before the elections that surely no one would vote against the incumbents for a bunch of nobodies. Well, like last Tuesday, your base betrayed you and actually voted their conscience. People of good faith and intellect will do that. You failed to see the perfect storm that was brewing. <BR/> <BR/>Two, you refuse (and it doesn't matter which one of you is writing the editorial) that this Board for all its failings (the number one being that they don't think like a team and they don't realize that compromise and consensus are the order of the day) has stepped up. They stepped up in the face of a financial crisis which, in case you haven't been listening, is way behind us. (We have other problems looming but not the same crisis that Superintendent Olchefske, He Who Must Not Be Named, left us in.) They stepped up in the face of a water quality crisis that is still on-going. They stepped up to the task of trying to close schools which the Superintendent's Committee recommended. (I served on the Closure and Consolidation Committee so I know how hard it was. There is no easy process to closing schools.) They are also willing to take on what is the Holy Grail in this district (but costing us much in transportation dollars). That is, the school enrollment process. Where, oh where, were previous boards? Oh that's right, hiding or dodging or ignoring these problems. Someone had to take them on and this Board has. Do the right thing and at least acknowledge that, if not to the public at least to yourselves.<BR/> <BR/>About TAF Academy, I think it sounds great. However, I attended the TAF Academy meeting at Rainier Beach Community Center on Thursday night. It was a mess. Some of it was the district's fault but much of it is in how TAF is dealing with the very community they purport to be helping. And the devil is in the details and the way it is playing out, Rainier Beach High School will be ignored and marginalized. As well, the district will not be getting a fair deal out the agreement (not if you carefully read TAF's website and check out their seven "non-negiotiable" issues). I'm not against public/private partnerships but I don't want the district to be dazzled by dollars by a deal with too many strings attached. We need to keep the public in public schools (unless, of course, your goal is to privatize schools). <BR/><BR/>You conclude that the board has committed no malfeasance but is simply ineffective. Sorry, that's what we have elections for and four members of the Board will be up for reelection next fall. You'll have to cool your heels until then. <BR/> <BR/>One thing you are right about and that's the levy/bond measures coming up in February. I see another perfect storm coming with the voters just taxing themselves for Seattle roads and streets and now here comes the district/board asking for more money. I suspect the general public will be wary of a district they perceive is not well-run (and I can see how they might get that impression from your pages). There are many parents in this district who, for both specific and general reasons, dislike school closures and may not show up to vote or vote against the measure. And then there are people like me who are going to campaign against the bond measure for captial building funds because of the unfairness and lack of logic in the BEX III list. That's a lot of people mistrustful or unhappy with the district. The sad thing is that people who don't understand the difference between the levy (operating) and the bond (capital funds) might vote against both and that would be a disaster for the district. But for myself, I'm not going to be bullied or shamed into voting for a measure I cannot, on principle, support. <BR/> <BR/>Fasten your seatbelts, it's going to be a bumpy night.<BR/> <BR/> <BR/>Sincerely,<BR/>Melissa WestbrookAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post-1163462818019996052006-11-13T16:06:00.000-08:002006-11-13T16:06:00.000-08:00Wow, they really went all out on this one. I agre...Wow, they really went all out on this one. I agree they went too far with many exaggerated and unsupported claims. Not exactly up to fair reporting standards, and makes me think less of the Times coverage. (They didn't even toss in the easy bit about 2 of the Board members participating in a lawsuit against the district.) We certainly need leadership change, but that starts with the Superintendent. Hopefully this district can find a strong Superintendent like they found a strong CAO. It seems unlikely the Board is going to resign any time soon, but hard to imagine they will choose to run for re-election... even the good ones. Will anybody run for this Board? Maybe Mike the Mover will sign up?Andrew Kwatinetzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03963324854632142715noreply@blogger.com