![]()
Threatened with extinction, the School Board got its act together. Meanwhile, a coalition of moderate reformers could dramatically improve it.
A strange thing happened to the Seattle Public Schools on their way to receivership. The board, frightened by the barrage of criticism and polls that put their approval rating right down there in George Bush territory, has pulled itself together. And an informal coalition of quite attractive candidates look ready to infuse the board with needed new blood. On the surface, steady pratfalls and sharp attacks. Beneath the surface, strange progress.
Here are the components of this positive narrative, as best I can piece it together. But don't get too complacent. Seattle schools, like those in nearly all large urban systems, have a very long road back to health.
The first surprise has been the performance of School Board President Cheryl Chow, the former teacher, principal, and Seattle City Council member who has proven to be a forceful leader. Chow came on the board when it was at a low ebb. A group of school reformers, informally coordinated by Mayor Greg Nickels's office, started talking about forcing the board to take former Mayor Norm Rice as interim superintendent, to heal the district before searching for a permanent replacement for retiring Superintendent Raj Manhas. Backing up the threat was talk of turning the board from an elected one to one appointed by the mayor and the governor – receivership, in effect, as has happened in several other cities such as Boston, Chicago, Cleveland, and New York.
The threats focused the mind of the board, and a leadership core of Chow and Michael DeBell rose to the challenge. To gain some coherence, the board pushed its two least-corrigible dissidents, Sally Soriano and Mary Bass, to the sidelines. The board rebuffed the Rice suggestion, clumsily handled on the mayor's part, and insisted that they wanted a new superintendent who was an experienced educator (unlike the last three). Moreover, they decided to run a search process that would avoid the free-for-all of the last one, in 2003, when there were so many town-hall meetings that all four top candidates withdrew and the board looked like it had no idea what it wanted. Chow has virtually frog-marched the two finalists through town, sharply curtailed public meetings, and made it clear that the board was going to pick who it wanted. Period.
They came up with two finalists with some considerable appeal, if quite different from each other. Gregory Thornton, chief academic officer in the Philadelphia schools, would be the more comfortable choice for the board, for he seems politically adept from years of playing good cop in a very tough district. Whether he could master Seattle's peculiar passive-aggressive political culture and get much done is the question many were posing. Maria Goodloe-Johnson, from Charleston, S.C., Country Schools (an urban-suburban blend), came across as crisp, tough, almost gleefully confrontationist in the Chow mode. She looks like the overt reformer, which raises the question of whether, after she skewers some sacred cows, the board would stand behind her. They certainly have shown they can put a superintendent out there to twist in the wind.
Whoever gets the nod, and assuming they take the offer, they will have a big mess on their hands. The minute they make an unpopular decision, the lack of "process" in their selection will become a classic Seattle issue. The coherence of the board may not last long, since Chow as peacemaker is a new role for a combative, highly self-confident woman. And the choice of new superintendent takes place in the raucous context of the flap over "white privilege" that is temporarily tearing the district apart, alienating middle-class families and driving politicians to their rhetorical redoubts.
This will pass. Most of the people really active in school matters are thoroughly tired of this quick-draw race card. Some on the board, such as Darlene Flynn, who are particularly attuned to these attacks on institutional privilege, might find themselves on the defensive (and up for election) and decide to spike the racial rifles. A new (black) superintendent can easily remind people of the sensible position, which is to focus on doing things about making good schools for all races and stop hurling epithets that produce irrational reactions.
Even better, it looks as if some quality candidates have been coaxed into running for Seattle School Board. Should they win, no sure thing, they could fill some important roles on the board and may work as a team. One such candidate is Peter Maier, who has declared against Sally Soriano for Position 1 (Northwest Seattle). Maier has certainly earned his spurs, having been president of Schools First, a group dedicated to passing levies for schools, from 2002 until last month. He's a consumer attorney, graduate of Nathan Hale High in Seattle, Oberlin College, and Harvard Law. He's lived in Ballard for 35 years, and the Maiers' two kids both graduated from Ballard High. He's running on a platform of creating a board that focuses on strategy, stays the course, supports the superintendent in the strategy. In short, he's a grown-up.
Another declared candidate is Sherry Carr, a finance manager for Boeing on the 787 project and former president of the Seattle Council PTSA. Carr is running against Darlene Flynn for the North Seattle Position 2, though Flynn hasn't said whether she will run for re-election. Carr served on the Community Advisory Committee for Investing in Educational Excellence. The group has a name so long as to seem negligible, but actually it was a catalyzing powerhouse. It introduced many of the people who have since been quietly pushing for a better board, twisting arms to get candidates, and will provide a network of support in the coming election – when four of seven seats are up and several incumbents might not run. Steve Sundquist of West Seattle, a former executive with Russell Investment Group, is another candidate cut from this cloth who is looking at Position 6 in West Seattle, currently occupied by Irene Stewart.
It's definitely not a slate, and each candidate is running his and her own race, but it is a kind of wavelength group. The main pitch will be to get people on the board with some of the functional skills needed to run a $500 million organization, to make stable policy, and to improve public confidence. One big step would be to get rid of the theatrics and grandstanding that have taken over school board meetings, and which drive everybody nuts and doubtless help the board to make dumb decisions. Look for more of Chow's heavy gavel.
Would a smart, coherent board be enough? Hard to say. Experts say that no large urban district with an elected board has been able to sustain the hard reforms needed for enough years to make a real difference. Boards turn over frequently, fall into factions that grind up superintendents, lack key skills. Appointed boards at least promise more stability and more careful assignment of role players with the right skills. But who can really imagine taking away public votes on School Board elections? Mayor Nickels and former Mayor Rice toy with the idea and back off. State Sen. Ed Murray, the Seattle Democrat, introduced a bill in the current session of the Legislature to move toward, or at least threaten, an appointed board. It went nowhere fast.
Comments:
Posted Thu, Apr 12, 10:15 a.m. Inappropriate
Soriano/Bass: It is hard to believe that you commend the shunting aside of Soriano/Bass. It is impossible to believe that you watched any of the airing of the board meetings regarding the school closures. The only members of the board who actually listened to the public were Soriano and Bass. The only members who actually cared about public input, who were seriously interested in discovering problems and opportunities in the process were those two women. What a shame to see an article speaking approvingly of the rigid, closed-minded, unresponsive majority on the school board. And what a shame to see this excellent new phenomenon called Crosscut come to the aid of the rigid, unbending, unlistening board and its authoritarian chairperson. Has it crossed your minds that perhaps in a democracy there ought to be room for disagreement? That dissent is healthy, keeping autocratic assumptions at bay? That the two most important members of the school board are Soriano and Bass, who offer slightly different views than the blank wall built by the rest of the board?
Posted Thu, Apr 12, 11:01 a.m. Inappropriate
Bad behavior: From my perspective, it isn't the views of Bass or Soriano that are the problem, it's their lack of responsibility as members of a governing board. Boards need to be able to reach agreements and move forward. These two individuals, often joined by others, are consistently pulling the board away from decisions they had previously reached. Talk about bad behavior: no one who sits on a governing board should become party to a lawsuit against that organization. Has Bass EVER voted in favor of a district budget? There's such a thing as loyal opposition, but NO is not a policy. We need people with a more constructive attitude and a better sense of what it means to be a responsible board member.
Posted Thu, Apr 12, 12:02 p.m. Inappropriate
Soriano/Bass cont'd.: I don't see the virtue in having unanimous votes on any elected board. Soriano/Bass have not stopped the majority from pushing their agendas. My point, though, was that anyone who watched the public hearings would have noticed that they two were the only directors who were listening and responding to the public. These were public hearings; the decisions were to come AFTER the input. The majority were completely stonewalling the citizens who came to speak; they utterly ignored major substantive issues. The near riots did not occur because the speakers felt they were being heard. They came about because of the deeply offensive attitude of your responsible majority, because of immense frustration. Also, I would say that having a nice agreeable homogeneous group of directors would create the absolute worst school board, and Crosscut is looking for a group of clones who bobble-head with the chairperson's gavel. Speed and unity are foolish goals in the democratic process. Your objections to Soriano/Bass seem like arguments to vote for them, to me.
Posted Thu, Apr 12, 6:24 p.m. Inappropriate
What strategy? Stay what course?
How about his position on the math debate, WASL, Highly Capable Program, Alternative Schools, Charter Schools, and whatever the new superintendent means by a "coordinated curriculum."
Come now Mr. Brewster, I had hope that Crosscut would get to the real issues rather than taking shortcuts by letting the candidates you support get away with mindless platitudes. patricia stambor
Posted Thu, Apr 12, 8:51 p.m. Inappropriate
The mission of the schools is a simple one - give all of our kids the best education you can. If that's not why you're on the board, the get off.
Posted Fri, Apr 13, 4:20 a.m. Inappropriate
Director Soriano provided an affidavit, that's all. If the case had been heard, all of the Board Directors would have been deposed and they ALL would have provided affidavits. Would you then say that they ALL were suing the District?
Director Bass did not even do that much.
You have made other statements that I don't believe you can support with facts. Please provide examples of their misuse of the public school system.
Is voting against the majority on a legislative body your idea of "misguided activism". If so, then every Board member (and every member of the State legislature and the Congress) is guilty of the same. What fruitless experiments in social engineering have they conducted? I can't think of any. They couldn't very well move forward with any as a minority of two on the Board.
As for politics, what do you expect from political officeholders, if not politics? Protest? What protest other than giving voice and vote to a minority opinion?
You can say that you oppose their views and their votes, but please don't slander them with invented crimes.
Posted Fri, Apr 13, 4:57 a.m. Inappropriate
Superintendent is the position with all of the authority. The Board can write policy, but they can't enforce it. All they can do is ask the Superintendent, pretty please, to adhere to the policies. The Superintendents then get to decide, independently, whether they will or not. If the Superintendent violates the Board's policies there isn't much the Board can do about it except threaten dismissal. But then the Board would have to do a Superintendent search, and few of them have an appetite for such an endeavor.
So sure, let's have a weak appointed Board and a strong elected Superintendent instead of the weak elected Board and strong appointed Superintendent we have now. Then the Board can be the unpaid volunteer job that it was meant to be.
Posted Fri, Apr 13, 5:04 a.m. Inappropriate
Here's a Seattle Times article that describes Mr. Maier's political chums. I notice that they supported Cheryl Chow's opponent.
Some of the contributors to that PAC, along with Mr. Maier, were Gary Gannaway, chairman of the Alliance for Education, the Master Builders Association of Washington, and Don Nielsen. Do these people reflect Mr. Maier's platform?
Posted Sat, Apr 21, 5:33 p.m. Inappropriate
The first surprise has been the performance of School Board President Cheryl Chow, the former teacher, principal, and Seattle City Council member who has proven to be a forceful leader.
Ummm.... Did I miss it? What leadership has Cheryl Chow shown?
Did she show leadership on the closures? I don't think so.
Did she show leadership on public testimony? I don't think so.
Has she shown leadership on reform? No.
Has she shown leadership to develop a governance model for the Board? No.
According to David Brewster, Cheryl Chow showed leadership by not handing the Superintendent job to Norm Rice. If that's leadership, then every member of the Board showed it.
According to David Brewster, Cheryl Chow showed leadership by marginalizing two other Board members. I'm not sure that's leadership and I'm not sure she did it.
According to David Brewster, Cheryl Chow showed leadership when she "virtually frog-marched the two finalists through town, sharply curtailed public meetings, and made it clear that the board was going to pick who it wanted. Period." That just makes her sound like an autocrat, not a leader.
I'll believe that Cheryl Chow is a leader when she gets someone to follow her by choice instead of by order. I'll believe she's a leader when she takes the initiative to enforce Policy, to reform the District's dysfunctional culture, and to develop a workable governance model for the Board. I'll believe she's a leader when she uses her Board position to do something positive for Seattle public school students. So far, she's only acted like a martinet.