Before moving to Seattle in 2005, I lived in Charleston, South Carolina (where the Gullah word, kumbaya comes from), where I witnessed the school district’s search for — and eventual selection of — a new Superintendent for the Charleston South Carolina School District. Her name was Dr. Maria Goodloe-Johnson. She talked about accountability, and diversity, and improving students’ education, all of which Charleston sorely needed.
Some of my neighbors did not like her, though. I kept hearing “she’s black” or “she’s a woman” or “she’s a black woman” until finally, the worst of all “a black woman living in sin.”
The Charleston Post & Courier quoted parents bemoaning the fact that the Superintendent was a terrible role model for the kids, who didn’t know she wasn’t married until those parents got all vocal about it in the press. It made me sick. (I can’t find any of those old Post & Courier articles, the archives are busted, but you get a hint of it in this 2007 Seattle P-I piece).
So I was excited to see Dr. Goodloe-Johnson on the list of candidates to serve as Seattle’s Superintendent a couple of years ago. I thought, “At least here, she won’t seen as a black woman living in sin. Maybe the locals will give her shot, based on how she does her job.”
And maybe they did. It’s hard to tell. I do not have children in the Seattle Public Schools.
Again, I will quote the neighbors. A shopper at Wally Pets told me that Seattle doesn’t like anyone authoritative, anyone who doesn’t allow group think (surveys, parents meetings, etc) to rule the day. “No kumbaya.” Another shopper explained that Seattle doesn’t “need no academic” who didn’t work her way up through the Seattle Public Schools.
Really?
Regardless, a group known as the “Seattle Shadow School Board” is calling for a No Confidence vote for Dr. Goodloe-Johnson at the July 16th school board meeting where a proposal to extend Dr. Goodloe-Johnson’s contract will be considered.
The No Confidence language/petition is available here. Some of the points on the petition are rather ambiguous, leaving me with more questions than I came with. Examples:
- Whereas the Superintendent’s New Student Assignment Plan will result in increased racial and economic segregation, and… (Are you sure about that?)
- Whereas the Superintendent allowed Seattle Public Schools to give out the names of parents and teachers to a public relations firm for a politically-motivated survey carried out by a commercial enterprise, and… (Got any sources to go with that one?)
- Whereas the Superintendent’s performance management plan relies on MAP testing purchased from the NWEA, of which organization the Superintendent is a board director, and (And!?)
- Whereas the Superintendent is a member of the board of directors of the Broad Foundation, which lobbies for and financially supports the privatization of public education via charter schools across the nation, and… (Again, And!?)
- Whereas the Superintendent’s poor management resulted in laying off, then rehiring needed teachers, and… (I suppose the economy & budget cuts didn’t have anything to do with this one?)
- Whereas the Superintendent’s poor judgment resulted in the need to open five schools just six months after closing five schools/programs, which mismanagement will cost the District an estimated $48M, rather than saving $3M in closures, with the added subsequent effect of shuffling staff, resources, equipment and children around the District, and… (I’m sure there’s more to this. Different locations, yes?)
If you’ve got kids in the Seattle Public Schools, or if you care about our education system and how it fuels our future, it’s time to catch up and decide for yourself:
The Seattle Public Schools community blog has more information, there is some recent background about her upcoming performance review on the Seattle Weekly blog and Seattle Public Television have some videos, as well.
All I can say as a parent is that many of the changes SPS has enacted over the last couple of years have felt very hand-wavy or smoke-screeny, with stated reasons for policy changes not bearing up well under closer examination. We’ve been left with the feeling that there was some other, unstated agenda at work – an impression that Goodloe-Johnson wants to kill all forms of alternative schools, as well as other forms of all-city schools, particularly those that she sees as being disproportionately advantaged to more affluent families.
As for the first point above, given how insular many neighborhoods are, the increased focus on neighborhood schools to the exclusion of all other options strikes me as something that can’t help but lead to increased racial and economic segregation.
Not to be a nitpicker, but the Wally Pets link takes the user to a Wallaby supplier in New Caney, Texas.
Thanks Robby. You’re totally right.
Yes, the petition language is very weak- it’s a conspiritorial laundry list of complaints about everything she has ever done.
My own take is that she has made many good structural changes that were difficult to pull off. In particular, the return to neighborhood schools, school building reductions in the south end, and administration cuts were all sound ways to shrink the budget without damaging schools.
On the down side, she is very much a “top down” administrator, which just isn’t working given the size and diversity of the district. John Stanford had the correct model I believe, which was to value good principals above all else, and then focus on supporting them and being a good cheerleader for the schools.
It may be time for someone new, but the petition makes me worry about the lessons that will be taken from her time at the top.
Whoa. Way to tug at the old white-liberal-guilt strings in your opening paragraphs, there. Which is ironic, seeing as one of the biggest changes Goodloe-Johnson pushed for in the school district results in a defact0 <a href=http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/education/2004453782_reseg03m.html>resegregation</a> of our schools.
This is not as simple as a bunch of insular thugs resisting change. I’m glad to see that you linked the Seattle Public Schools community blog. Any reader who’s curious can find tons more information on there about why the community has its doubts about this superintendent — regardless of her race, marital status, or the “outsider/academic” thing.
Like you, I don’t have kids in the Seattle Public Schools, so maybe I’m not as vested in this and I may be missing the bigger point, but I will say that if you’re the type to lead in a top down manner and not run things in a collective decision making, “kumbaya” manner, then of course you’re going to get vocal criticism of this type. You’re going to offend some group and many people aren’t going to like you. That’s the risk you take in being a leader (as opposed to a consensus builder). Successful people of this type are hailed and praised for their decisive action, as arrogant fools and misguided autocrats. That’s the way she chooses to lead and I’ll bet she doesn’t care that some folks have a organized a “Shadow School Board” to give her a vote of no-confidence.
I honestly don’t know which leadership style is best and certainly it depends on the circumstances. But to whine about a petition doesn’t seem particularly useful (neither does the petition, but whatever…). How about instead focusing on the objective metrics by which we can judge Ms. Goodloe-Johnson? How about instead of we determine the specific things we think should be changed and determine how we can judge her success in those area?
Also, I find your analogies to people questioning her in marital status in Charleston to Wallingford people questioning her for her leadership style, a little strained and exaggerated. It seems clear to me that this ISN’T personal. It’s a disagreement on executive style and leadership and is a legitimate point of discussion for our public leaders.
I taught in Seattle Schools for 12 years. I had experience with major budget cuts constantly. Ths superintendent does not have the respect or following any other superintendents had. In fact, while some of the language of the list may not be clear, it is a clear indication of serious dissatisfaction. NO CONFIDENCE She is not a school district leader.
I taught at Summit K-12 – the only district K-12 school which was also an alternative school. It was closed against much parent and public outcry. I t was one of a kind.
I hope the contract is not approved and another leader with a better ability to reach people, be straight with them and to make hard decisions while using and respecting others input is found. We had John Stanford – we followed and loved him. We can find a better superintendent than the current one.
To respond to your responses point by point:
Whereas the Superintendent’s New Student Assignment Plan will result in increased racial and economic segregation, and… (Are you sure about that?)
Well, yes. The city is divided economically and racially. The north and south might as well be two separate school districts. Keeping everyone in their neighborhood school in a divided city is a definition of de facto segregation. Remember, school choice was instituted in part as a solution for segregation. There used to be schools outside regions that were considered “assignment schools” for different regions–for example, students from the southeast area could apply to BF Day as if it were an area school for them. Now everyone pretty much has to go to school with people who live in a neighborhood just like theirs, because it is theirs.
Whereas the Superintendent allowed Seattle Public Schools to give out the names of parents and teachers to a public relations firm for a politically-motivated survey carried out by a commercial enterprise, and… (Got any sources to go with that one?)
Yeah, this one is lame. On the other hand, I was called for a “poll” on the superintendent that was the most blatant push poll I ever heard. “The plan for excellence would improve math and science instruction in all schools. Do you approve or disapprove?” Welllll, how ’bout I call bull on the entire premise? Oh, that’s somehow not in the poll…
Whereas the Superintendent’s performance management plan relies on MAP testing purchased from the NWEA, of which organization the Superintendent is a board director, and (And!?)
Um, conflict of interest? I’m OK with the MAP tests, but why is a superintendent on boards of organizations from which her district might purchase services?
Whereas the Superintendent is a member of the board of directors of the Broad Foundation, which lobbies for and financially supports the privatization of public education via charter schools across the nation, and… (Again, And!?)
See conflict of interest, above. Also see Washington State votes on charter schools
Whereas the Superintendent’s poor management resulted in laying off, then rehiring needed teachers, and… (I suppose the economy & budget cuts didn’t have anything to do with this one?)
Laying off then rehiring in the same year IS poor management. Flat layoffs is the economy, not getting a grip on actual demand is failing Management 101
Whereas the Superintendent’s poor judgment resulted in the need to open five schools just six months after closing five schools/programs, which mismanagement will cost the District an estimated $48M, rather than saving $3M in closures, with the added subsequent effect of shuffling staff, resources, equipment and children around the District, and… (I’m sure there’s more to this. Different locations, yes?
Like, oh say, Viewlands? Closed in ’08, re-opening in fall of ’10? And how much did it cost to shut it, then have to fix the vandalizing that happened during the closure, despite the costs of ongoing maintenance? Have we the taxpayers seen an accounting of the costs of the closures, with or without reopenings? BTW, i don’t see a lot of new construction, just re-openings; granted, some, like MacDonald, are of school shuttered more than three years ago.
So that’s just the points you shoce to argue.
You didn’t say anything about the lousy academics Goodlow-Johnson has continued to foist on the SPS (granted, she didn’t start it, but she sure didn’t stop it.) or the lawsuit the District lost because the High School math adoption was so poorly considered (as were the middle school and elementary, but the statute of limitations didn’t allow for those…) Academics are the heart of the schools (well, duh!), and Seattle is sinking under a morass of bad choices made uniform. How many schools are trying to opt out of Everyday Math?
This petition is a mix of spot-on complaints about emptiness at the core of the superintendent and the District as a whole, and of real but more trivial complaints. Don’t let the trivial distract you from the deep problems with the Supe and the sad majority (not all) of the School Board. There are deep deep problems in the district.
Yes, I am the parent of a Seattle Public School student. It does behoove those of you without children in the public schools to also pay attention, as you will have to live with the under-prepared citizens of tomorrow graduating (or not) from them.
Laying off and rehiring in the same year is not poor management…it is due to the nature of school funding. School districts (in many states) have to issue lay off notices based on worst case scenarios. Then as actual attendance numbers come in as students register, people can be rehired if numbers are better since schools are paid per student. This is not the Sup’s fault. It is the fault of how we fund our schools.
Well, I write for the Save Seattle Schools blog so yes, I have an opinion. First, Dr. Goodloe-Johnson’s race or martial status has NEVER been an issue or discussed at our blog. It’s got nothing to do with her abilities or her job performance. What we did do is read reports that were in the Charleston newspapers about her job performance. She left with many unhappy people (her yes rating by teachers was 35% compared to the woman now in charge who received about 68%, – big difference). She also did bring along several Charleston staff and sometimes it feels she is quite insular in her thinking.
Second, I didn’t agree with all that was stated in the petition. However, it is true and was on the website of the company that did the poll for the Alliance for Education that they got names and phone number of SPS parents from the district. This is wrong and should not have happened.
Third, most of us wouldn’t have a problem with a strong leader. However, she ignores everyone. She has publicly said she doesn’t need to hear from more than one parent on the same subject, that parents can’t be objective about their kids and their schools and she allows staff to be at public meetings and yet not listen to public input. Initially, she used to read her Blackberry during public comment at School Board meetings. She had to be told by the Board to stop doing that. It’s that kind of attitude that is off-putting, not that she is a strong leader.
Fourth, many of us DID want an academic leader. I have no idea why someone would say our superintendent would have to come from Seattle because many haven’t.
Fifth, about school closures (and this one is close to me because I served on the first Closure committee during Raj Manhas’ tenure. It is a very odd thing to say close schools to save money and then, less than a year later, reopen 5 schools all throughout the district. And, because their buildings are in such poor condition (because we don’t do regular maintenance on our buildings and have nearly $500M in backlogged maintenance), we have to spend about $50M to reopen them. This doesn’t appear to be sound leadership.
The Superintendent is a bright person with the skill set to be superintendent. I have said from the first time I was asked during her interview process that I did not feel she was the right fit for our district. She has created a lot of churn in our district all under the umbrella of a “Strategic Plan” that has many moving parts and no one can quite be sure what fits where and how it all holds together. Much of what she does looks like bullet points on a resume. Ask your neighbors in Wallingford how much they understand her plan and see the blank looks.
What is interesting is if you ask most SPS parents, they do like their schools. They would like nothing more than to just send their student to school and be good parents there. But this mistrust and worry over the management of our district is nothing new and, with Dr. Goodloe-Johnson, has gotten worse. I have never seen so many parents with younger students getting involved. That she has managed to alienate parents in all corners of the district and many teachers as well (at least 6 schools teachers have voted no confidence in her in addition to two different parent/community surveys that expressed low confidence in her) should tell you something.
Dr. Goodloe-Johnson needs to be an academic leader who motivates and inspires our teaching corps. That confidence from teachers will make parents feel good about the school their child attends. Parents who feel good about their schools tell other parents and the larger community feels that as well. The public face and attitude she presents DOES matter in her job.
Tomorrow night the School Board will present her annual review and it will be very telling what they do (and do not) say.
Sorry, I hit send before I identified myself.
Things might be OK out in Wallyhood but the superintendent has been a disaster for West Seattle – at least you get re-opened schools in the North, “premium” programs such as JSIS, option schools, spectrum access, etc, while we in West Seattle we are getting a load of portables… and a rock. The assignment plan boundaries are completely illogical (sometimes cutting people off who live a mere block or two from the local school), and the High School/Middle school boundaries seem to have purposefully grouped the elementaries with the highest FRL rate into one group, and the lowest into another!
I think of the Seattle School District as an island, or a secular Vatican. An elected board ebbs and flows and theoretically supervises the Superintendent? Or is it the other way around. District staff is the constant and in the case of Facilities – the people who manage the properties and build and remodel – my experience when them is that they are the man behind the curtain with plans in place well before the next board member is elected. I believe that the Mayor’s Office oversees Seattle Public Schools as a quasi city department, but even that isn’t clear. Unless property is in line to get swapped it isn’t a job for the City Council; the Department of Neighborhoods gets involved slightly if a school gets renovated or built, and in extreme cases the Department of Planning and Development steps in. There needs to be a there here, especially as their funding almost always gets a big YES Wallingford/city vote. By comparison to other large cities, it is a pretty small district enrollment-wise. It could work much better and be way more transparent. I write as a retired artist-in-the-(public)schools. Please feel free to correct any assumptions of mine, this is my feel from attending many many meetings run by the District and watching the Board meetings on the local feed. Oh yeah, and, historically, they do not and are not mandated to pay attention to Neighborhood Plans, no matter how detailed and well researched. (What do you suppose will happen with Lincoln School? Anybody’s guess.)
If you don’t have a child in the school, you may not realize that our schools are vastly different – not just quality, but programs. We chose to send our son to a school in Ballard because of it’s arts-integration. He’s taught through visual art, dance, music, and theatre. He takes a full week of music every other week. It’s also looser and more tolerant of our child, who has a tendency to break into song.
At Stanford (our assignment school), it’s far stricter, focused on multi-language learning, and he would be living in the principal’s office. Both great schools, but only one that would be right for our son. We’d rather drive the almost one-hour round trip to take him to his current school than yank him out because someone decided he needs to go to the neighborhood school.
We’re thrilled that he’ll go to Hamilton/Roosevelt (assuming they don’t change that, too), but until he’s done, we’ll keep hauling him to Adams… until the superintendent succeeds in shutting down our arts program. And yes, the district is already putting pressure on us to “be normal” and get rid of those nasty old music classes. Because, you know, other schools don’t have them.
I don’t want homogenization. I love that we could choose a school that was a little different, like our child. I wish it was located in Wallingford (It should be!), but it’s not. I chose the school, just like I chose our neighborhood. The Superintendent has yanked away that option from many of your future children, and she’s continuing to tear down the programs that make so many schools unique.
Yes, there’s the whole reserve a couple spots thing – but when you know a school is right for your child (or not right), just remember how many others are thinking the same thing… we literally won the school lottery. A lot fewer children will be able to say the same going forward. And it’s a shame.
<i>Laying off and rehiring in the same year is not poor management…it is due to the nature of school funding. </i>
This is not exactly true in this case. It is true that the district drew up a budget based on preliminary numbers from the state and laid off teachers, rehiring them when the state gave new numbers. <i>But</i> at the same time, the Superintendent was spending <i>millions</i> of dollars on <i>new</i> initiatives like the MAP test ($4.5 million!), her new performance management plan, and buying canned curriculum for the new STEM school she wants to open in Cleveland ($800K).
Who spends millions on new initiatives, not essential to the operation of the district, during the worst recession in 70 years? An incompetent manager, that’s who. Without those extras, we could have avoided the layoffs all together.
Not only have her spending priorities caused planning problems, but they have also failed to reflect what parents want ( not really a surprise, since the district, in contrast to neighboring districts, didn’t even gather input from families until after all the decisions were made) and will not give the district what it really needs, which is more resources for struggling students to help close the horrific achievement gap.
The $800,000.00 she spent on Cleveland wasn’t even for canned curriculum. It was for consultants and specialty bureaucrats (because we don’t have enough of our own). Everyone (School Board, Supe, whoever else spoke at the board vote about this) was adamant that this money was NOT buying a curriculum–as if that makes it even better to flush away those scarce dollars.
It is this lack of reasonable priorities or any sign of meaningful long-term planning that make the superintendent a failure. And the majority of our elected school board do not supervise the superintendent, and do not scrutinize District proposals from the point of view of the public that elected them (parents and taxpayers)–but instead just rubber-stamp whatever tomfoolery the District is handing out any particular month.
All we as the general public can do about the superintendent right now is rally, sign petitions and demand that she be replaced. The next thing we can do is get some more people with brains and spines on the school board.
It’s obvious that the new student assignment plan will increase segregation. Seattle is still segregated by economic class and race. Confining students to the school in their neighborhood means no chance to take advantage of programs appropriate to their ability. Want to go to a language immersion school? No chance, unless you move to the neighborhood of one. A brilliant high school student who happens to live in the south end wants to take lots of AP classes? Sorry, but there’s not enough AP students at your high school to offer more than one or two AP classes.
The telephone push poll on the superintendent’s policies was done by a newly formed group called “Our Schools Coalition”. On their website, they said the poll was done with contact information provided by the school district. I saw it there. After several bloggers noticed that, “Our Schools Coalition” changed the website to hide where the contact information came from… but one blogger thought to save a copy before it was changed. See https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=1700759739148195651&postID=6590863441192311337and see the entry for May 30 at 4:14 PM. It should be obvious to anyone working for any public agency that you don’t release the mailing address to a political organization or to a for-profit polling firm.
The MAP test may or may not be any good. The test results all over the city dropped drastically from the fall test to the winter test. The MAP people have no explanation. All they say is “They all do that, don’t worry about it.” Was there a unbiased evaluation of the MAP test validity? Probably not, because the boss is on their board. Does even more standardized testing improve outcomes for students? Probably not. If the teacher is any good, they give assignments and tests in class that tell exactly how the student is doing on very specific tasks — for instance, adding fractions, spelling words. The MAP test gives a very general score on a whole category, like “math computation”. The teacher and the student don’t get the test back so they can’t see the particular areas where the student did well or poorly.
Charter schools aren’t really public schools. They operate without public oversight. They can kick out any student for any reason. Given that, you’d expect that they would perform much better than public schools — but actually they perform about the same. I happen to think the superintendent of a public school district ought to be all about improving public education, not turning it over to the private sector.
About the closed and then reopened schools, no, they aren’t all in different areas. Two of the five that are reopening were closed in 2007, Viewlands and Rainier View. What’s the rest of the story? Partly politics: There’s a surplus of school capacity in the south end, while the north end schools are overcrowded. The 2007 board faced with closing schools wanted at least one closed in the north end to give the appearance of not singling out the south end. And partly the school district’s demographic projections were just plain lousy.
Part of the problem with Seattle schools is ultimately the public. Like the author of this blog, most of the households in Seattle do not have kids. So they tend to ignore the schools’ issues. When it comes time to vote on the school board, it’s very hard to get good information about the candidates, especially in the primaries. The Seattle Times’ coverage is spotty and one-sided. That leaves the voters easily swayed by paid ads and mailers. The blogs help… but how many people without kids take the time to read blogs about the schools?
I’m offended that the author felt it necessary to bring up the superintendent’s marital status. I knew she was unmarried, but I didn’t know until now whether she was divorced, widowed, or what; and I don’t care. She’s had more than a fair shake here.
Dr. Goodloe-Johnson married before moving to Seattle. The point of bringing up marital status, race, and top-down management is to ask whether she’s the target of a no confidence campaign for appropriate reasons, or not. In Charleston, they made it personal first.
I’ve never heard anyone in Seattle complain, or for that matter, comment, about Goodloe-Johnson’s race, gender or marital status.
I frequently hear people complain about her manner, which is icy and dismissive to say the least.
You might consider that complaint personal, but, in what amounts to a political position, personal style is relevant. If your demeanor, undercuts your ability to draw support from teachers, principals and families, your personality becomes a leadership problem, not a personal one.
That’s interesting, Patrick–when I complained to School Board members about the push poll, they told me it was the Alliance for Education. I never heard of Our Schools coalition. Interesting…
Chris–This is Seattle. Most Seattelites, any race, are happy with the idea of a minority Superintendent. Maybe some people would be turned off by a suggestion that she is gay (which I suppose it the marital-status issue), but not enough to make a huge difference. This is all about lack of effective management.
And, again, Paritck–you are right that a huge amount of Seattle households do not have childred. People need to remember that it affects their whole lives if other people’s children are well educated. Remember, folks, today’s kids are your co-workers, auto mechanics and nursing-home attendants tomorrow.
As a BF Day parent, I too dread the homogenity that will result from the new boundaries. we sent my son there precisely because it wasn’t lilly white as we want him to be accepting and tolerant of, and enriched by, other cultures and ethnicities. But I must admit, if we look at this long term, which I would hope a Strategic Plan is doing, schooling kids in their home neighborhoods is exactly the right thing to do. The old “well you can always petition to go to another school” plan was a band-aid over an ulcer of disparity and petitioning to get into a public school is lunacy. (One that had people pissed they can’t get into John Stanford when they could go to 4 other schools in their region that are all pretty comparable schools.).
If your child’s default school is broken, get in there, get involved and fix it. Southend schools need to be brought up to par. The Seattle school district should NOT have disparity in core curriculum or methodology from neighborhood to neighborhood to accommodate noisy parents until all kids in Seattle have access to the same core education in a safe environment. (For special programs it still makes sense to have central/regional schools that you can opt to attend, and as demand increases, the regions get closer together until it becomes part of the standard offering.)
I love that everybody so far has said that this will cause “re-segregation”, and that we should let those that want to send 90 mins to 2 hrs a day on a bus come to the north end for their education.
Clearly Dr Goodloe-Johnson doesn’t understand Seattleites. If she wanted to fix the disparities faster, she would have just put all the most exclusive gifted programs in the south end, and bussed the advantaged kids down there to solve this problem. Or even better, just randomly assigned the kids throughout the city. We’re all too passive-aggressive and [pseudo-?] liberal to admit that’s problematic for us, so the only alternative would be for parents to get more involved in raising the standards in those schools.
I keep reading all the hand-wringing over the “resegregation” of schools-yet that’s EXACTLY what parents (white, affluent ones) wanted! They took it all the way up to the US Supreme Court for the right to do so! Do a search sometime going back to the early 2000’s when the lawsuit against the district’s racial tie-breaker for school assignment was started.
The NSAP is a response to that lawsuit. Those involved in bringing the suit WANTED to keep to their neighborhood schools and keep others out. Except that now that it’s HERE, parents don’t like THAT either. Be careful what you wish for…this wasn’t MGJ’s doing, she just put into action something that had been brewing in the district for years.
A quick review of the stories on the lawsuit will show that as soon as the district stopped using the racial tiebreaker, schools started becoming more homgenous. Ballard (the school at the center of the suit) got more white, Franklin, more African American.
Every other complaint against MGJ aside-the NSAP shouldn’t be laid at her door. This is a state where I-200 passed easily and where there are still a great many north-Seattlites who wouldn’t go south of the Ship Canal if their lvies depended on it, much less send their precious gifted kids into the south end.
There is uniformity in core curriculum (at least math)–it uniformly stinks.
The district has chosed to address the disparity issue by making all schools ineffective, rather than improving the struggling schools. No point actually trying to teach and expecting students to learn…
And I’ve been beating my head against this raise-the-standards wall for years.
Maybe a new superintendent will help fix the problem. Maybe not. But this suerintendent is certainly not fixing it, only making it worse.
Banana–Well, now the Ballardites are complaining about all those Queen Anne kids filling up spaces in their precious Blalard High…
So, race played the main role in starting school choice and a big role in ending it, but there has always been more to it than that.
Some of the preference for choice has been to find a better or more suitable school.
My kid rides a bus for 45 minutes to get to one of the two elementary schools in the city that teach real math. Someone else in this comment set sends their child to Adams for the arts. Homogenizing all the schools in an attempt to make neighborhood assignment seem fair ignores the fact that children need different kinds of schools–more structure or less stucture, for example. There are alternative schools with less structure, where are the academies with more? Or magnet schools with special emphasis on art or science or language?
Nope, the idea is to have just one big undigestible lump of mediocrity, so no one wants to try another school because it will be just as bad.
Banana, that’s an intriguing point. You’re right, some parents have been insisting on “neighborhood” schools for some time (with an uncomfortable sense of gatekeeping about it in some instances). I’m guessing these aren’t the same parents who are upset about the resegregating effect of the new SAP. It’s a contentious topic among parents, still.
That Supreme Court case was downright demoralizing. I think Seattle and Kentucky were paired up as part of the same case, both fighting against affirmative action. A proud day indeed…not. So, maybe that helped lay the groundwork for the current SAP. Maybe we can’t pin the blame on one superintendent when it’s part of a bigger issue in our community.
The only reason I brought up resegregation was in response to this post and its cheap shot liberal-guilt-baiting implication that the community opposes Goodloe-Johnson due to her race and marital status. Hopefully, by now, the comments here have helped dispel that notion.
I think the best response to being upset at the Seattle School District is to get involved. Run for school board! My mother did in her city and she didn’t spend a dime to win. Be strong, have convictions, do interviews. Seattle certainly needs to replace Dorn. Big mistake there. sigh. If you don’t like the Sup. and say the board is spineless, then get on that board and make a difference! Power to the people I say.
Latonamom–
Where in the heck does your mother live?
In the last election here, Betty Patu squeaked by on an amazingly low $11,500 dollars. Incumbent Mary Bass lost a campaign that cost her $34,000, and Wilson Chin lost a $60,00 race. Kay Smith Blum at least won her $55,000 race.
So–good on your mom, but running for free and winning is not a reproducible result here. I have worked on board campaigns, and probably will again, and it’s very tough to reach out to the uninterested while trying to raise a bucket of money at the same time. Oh, and races like School Board generally live and die by endorsements, and the Times is the big game in town, and they sure have funny ideas about how the District should be run.
“Those involved in bringing the suit WANTED to keep to their neighborhood schools and keep others out.” No, the Supreme Court case was about QA and Magnolia having no neighborhood high school and therefore, Ballard was their closest. They all wanted in but there wasn’t room. Center School got created to try to fill that need but what they wanted was a comprehensive high school and we got a boutique (albeit good) little high school. QA/Magnolia got a narrow victory (the Court said they couldn’t use the racial tiebreaker in the manner they did, NOT that they can’t ever use it) AND got no high school to call their own.
The new SAP, in order to accommodate those neighborhoods, squeezed out more of Ballard north, sending them to Ingraham. But then the district decided to put more students in Ballard anyway so now Ballard is one full building.
If the district does the land swap with the City over Memorial Stadium (the district owns Memorial Stadium and the 9 acres around it – yes, it’s true), then the district will get a new amphitheater/stadium and give up some of its land for a city parking garage. They then can build a new high school should they choose.
Latonamom, ditto on that cheap election. It used to be that way here but it is gradually getting to be a bigger and bigger numbers game. School board elections are odd things because you need to run first out of your district for the primary and then city-wide. You need a base going in (and hence Betty Patu’s win).
Because ed reform is a big national debate, I would expect the next election (4 Board members in Nov 2011) to be a big money race. The powers that be in this town want people who will toe the line for the Superintendent and will work to keep those current Board members in place. But, if the frustration is great enough, you’ll see some upsets (likely to be Steve Sundquist who has alienated a lot of people in West Seattle and Peter Maier who is pretty lackluster).