Seattle Schools Community Forum

Keep in mind here, that I came in late and yet I still hit the wall at two hours.  But not to get ahead of myself. I came in as the Executive Committee was discussing the MOU with the Alliance for Education .  You might recall from the last Executive Committee meeting (Charlie and I were both present) that the Alliance wants to raise its fee to oversee school and ed groups finances from 5% to 7.5%.  This comes out of the General Fund.  Charlie had said he would do it for 5%. This really isn't the main focus of work for the Alliance so why is it such a big deal for them to keep on doing it?   Now the Alliance says that the cap at 5% was not enough.  I'll let them explain it:

Any thoughts for the Focus Group committee for questions that might elicit the most useful information from superintendent finalists? What about media questions? (I have not confirmed that I will be allowed in but I hope to be. That said, I suspect there will be 15 minutes per finalist and I will be jockeying with other media.)

No, hell hasn't frozen over but it is a bit chilly as I find that I actually agree with the Times' editorial board on an education issue .   We all agree the public should have the opportunity to hear and/or meet the superintendent finalists.  Then they go and spoil it by showing their motivation to get an ed reformer in there but I am glad they are standing up for more transparency.  They have a great quote from 2003 when the district was again looking for a superintendent. We warned then that, "Seattle Schools' number-one goal ought to be regaining public trust and confidence. The district compromises this goal when it promises citizen input but fails to deliver." Amen, brothers and sisters.  But it would seem that in other cases, the Times works to make sure to protect those at the top like Goodloe-Johnson, Sundquist and Maier.  That endangers public trust and confidence as well. Then they bring out one of their most old and tired lines: Bo...

I was notified by Lesley Rodgers, head of SPS Communications, that there was an error in the figure being circulated on the number of applications SPS received for superintendent.  While there were over 100 inquires, there are 36 applications.   I appreciate the update as I had received the figure from the Board office and the Crosscut article also reflected the same high figure. On the subject of the Focus Group Committee , I have to point out that BOTH the ed reformers and the progressives (not "traditionalists") are seemingly unhappy.  Hey, will you take a look at that? We all have something in common. Even as yet another school district hones in on its choice for a new Superintendent, Seattle is sorting through its search “process.” Originally limiting “stakeholders” to the PTSA and school district employees, the School Board has decided that they will allow for broader community perspective after all. But only at the last minute.  To meet with the th...

In my rush to put up the Crosscut article about the superintendent search, I had only skimmed the article. My mistake as I found what is likely to be a key issue (especially, it seems, to Crosscut); ed reform. From the article: The meeting, whose agenda included many other items, ran nearly two hours overtime. By the end the board members were either punch-drunk or giddy. But they’d squared the circle: Save for that Muslim/African omission, they had assembled a broadly balanced and representative roster seeded with institutional memory, heavy-hitters, and critics rather than pushovers. The question remains: How much can a late-inning focus group guided by search doctors do to temper the influence of the staff and unions, keep reform in sight, and, just maybe, build support for whoever gets the job? But regardless of that outcome, this coalition of coalitions has won something just by coalescing in an orderly, unified intervention. They’ve built a base for pressing the...

Charlie and I held back on this info but not Crosscut. And that's okay; as has been said, it was a public meeting (and I was wondering who that other guy in the room was).   For myself, I held back in order to allow the Board time to contact potential committee members and firm up the group.   There is the expectation a couple of them might have to say no.  (Also, it was done in such a haphazard manner I thought I might get some of those picked mixed up with alternates.) I also held back because honestly, I feared if I stated them, then later on if things go rough, this blog would be accused of hurting the process.  I guess I should not allow that kind of worry to dominate what gets printed it but getting attacked on a regular basis for printing what is actually public information can get tough. The author, Eric Scigliano, gets it mostly right but he still didn't understand that there are(were) three committees.  Definitely on the committee:...