On Friday, the Seattle Times editorial board joined a chorus of critics demanding the resignation of Seattle Public Schools Superintendent Maria Goodloe-Johnson:
THE emerging details of the financial scandal at the Seattle Public Schools suggest one conclusion: Superintendent Maria Goodloe-Johnson should resign. If she doesn't, the board should fire her.
She was brought here from South Carolina in 2007 to fix several problems, the first of which was the district's lax control of its money. The latest mess shows the task has not been done.
Let's see... arrived in 2007... it's now 2011... yeah, that tenure seems about right for a school district that has managed to run through five superintendents in less than 20 years. Yes, I know that one of those superintendents literally died in office, but still, I'm kinda surprised Goodloe-Johnson lasted this long.
Now, I'm not a big fan of Goodloe-Johnson, having never really understood what recommended her for the job in the first place, and I was certainly more than ready to bid good riddance to her predecessor Raj Manhas by the time he stepped down. But you gotta wonder how much of the district's management woes are due to the incessant turnover at the top? I mean, it's hard to be surprised to see the Seattle Public Schools consistently miss the target on its various "Five Year Plans," when no superintendent in recent years has managed to survive for more than four.
Then again, according to a 2008 study (PDF) conducted by the Council of Greater City Schools, Seattle's no outlier, with the average tenure of an urban school superintendent lasting only 3.5 years.
I dunno, you'd think a little management stability might pay dividends in the long run. Or perhaps the district should just come to terms with the city's impatience, and pragmatically shoot for "Three and a Half Year Plans" from hereon out?