The Seattle Times editorial board spent much of the past year or so heaping abuse on the Seattle Public Schools for a string of significant, if fiscally inconsequential, financial mismanagement scandals, even as they failed to use their platform to defend the district and others from yet another round of painful state funding cuts. It was as if to say: “Don’t worry about the funding cuts in Olympia, the district would just piss away the money anyway.”
And then today, they enthusiastically endorse the entire slate of school board incumbents. “Critics of the board,” the editors dismiss, “offer little more than dwelling on past controversies.” A criticism, ironically, that was egged on by the paper’s own reporting and editorializing. But better “stable and consistent leadership,” however inadequate, the endorsement argues, than (gasp) “activist politics.”
Personally, I think what’s currently lacking on the board is a little diversity. Not a current board member ever taught in the Seattle Public Schools; in fact, only one has any teaching experience at all. And while the board certainly benefits from having some members with corporate executive experience, these run-the-district-more-like-a-business types have come to dominate the board over the past few elections.
Yes, there are some aspects of the district’s operations that needed to be run more like a well-run business. But schools are not businesses. They aren’t expected to turn profits. And competition between teachers and schools is not the key to producing a better academic profit. So yeah, I wouldn’t mind seeing a little more activism and diversity on the board.
More in NEWS
Local (and not-so-local) news from your favorite writers.
A 180 degree nosedive is stable and consistent too. — a straight line downward.
Challengers have ideas and vision, they just don’t share the Times’ politics.
The comments for the Times’ WTF endorsement are much more telling, as they’re made by people who’ve attended school board meetings, have children in public schools, and pay attention to decisions made, unlike the blinded-by-ideology editorialist at the Seattle Times.
Until the Seattle school district addresses the institutionalized racism, the imbalance of resources, and the culture of firing new teachers after one year, everything else is just window dressing.
I think a school board populated by parents is pretty much the worst thing you can have – parents tend to have a very narrow focus that informed almost entirely by their own and their child’s experience as students. A board needs to have a the big picture in mind – and that means dealing with stuff that they haven’t been personally touched by.
@Soupytwist, Nearly everyone now on the board is the parent of a student in the district.
The Board has refused to perform their duties. They should get out of the way and allow the job to go to someone who wants to actually do it.
The Times doesn’t know what they are talking about, plain and simple. Or rather they do but they just want to keep in people who are ed reformers and not looking at trends through the lens of what is good for OUR district.
I’m not for the challengers – Buetow, McLaren, Martin and Peaslee – because I’m against the incumbents. I’m for them because I know they will do a better job of oversight, transparency and accountability. Those are all things the current incumbents candidates have NOT done.
The Times notably overlooks huge issues as “past controversies.” What!?
Pottergate isn’t even over. The King County Prosecutor’s office is still sifting through evidence. Peter Maier KNEW there were issues (via a report that only he received) and yet did not tell a SINGLE other Board member about the report and his concerns. Even AFTER the damning state audit in July 2010, he said nothing to his fellow Board members.
The Board voted to sell a school property for less than it was worth (by far) on the basis that the buyers (First AME Church) would be providing youth services. Still no visible youth services.
These incumbents spent far too much time championing TFA (Teach for America) and yet the schools’ hiring committees only hired 6 of them. Where is that effort for other issues in our district?
The New Student Assignment Plan? They are in year two and already have reopened 5 schools (previously closed so there’s a huge amount in closure costs) at a cost of (just rehabing the buildings) of $50M. They are going to reopen yet more buildings and have to redraw boundary lines thus confusing parents.
The one thing I know I can count on the challengers to do is to ENFORCE Board policy which rarely happens. Without enforcement, Board policies, the guidelines for how this district operates, are just a pile of paper. The Superintendent and staff must have oversight. That they didn’t is how Maria Goodloe-Johnson and her staff got in trouble.
We need stability in this district. We have great things going on in our schools. It is the leadership, the management of the district at issue. Please support candidates who will bring focus and stability to our district.
Three weeks later, they are still stumping for the incumbents, claiming that the voters eager for change are but a small group.
Honestly, the two banners I’ve seen waved in Seattle promote Michelle Buetow and Sharon Peaslee.
The one candidate whose two volunteers serendipitously had flyers and cards at a children’s sport arena yet had never met each other before? Sharon Peaslee.
The one candidate whose volunteer has doorbelled us? Sharon Peaslee.
I’ve not, in my twelve years of living in Seattle, nor in my five years as a Seattle Schools parent, ever encountered as much enthusiasm among Seattle voters for School Board candidates like there is for Ms. Peaslee.
I know there are pro-incumbent voters in Seattle, but none has introduced themselves to us nor left flyers, but if they’re expecting fellow voters to re-elect the incumbents based on accomplishments and successes, they may be let down at the polls.