Amen, brother.

Electing the council by districts is a first step for broader representation for the whole city and it would be a big bonus if it resulted in all brand new members.

Walk down a street in midtown Seattle during any weekday afternoon. Ask ten adults at random if they can name the Mayor, any members of the City Council, or any members of the County Council. You would no doubt be dismayed at both the lack of knowledge and also the lack of interest on the part of most of the public. Tweaking the system as to how we vote will do nothing until we have an engaged electorate, and tweaking the system will not force a detached and indifferent public to become any more engaged than they are now.

I find it hard to believe that anyone would vote for our four incompetent School Board incumbents. Even their supporters argue that their candidates are not crooked, just weak and mediocre. Nobody thinks they've done a good job.

Michelle Buetow (District III) and Marty McLaren (District VI) are far better than the board incumbents in their disticts and would represent a major upgrade for parents and students. The other two challengers, Sharon Peaslee and Kate Martin--are well worth a look. Don't listen to Ol' Establishment Ted. If you aren't happy with performance, don't "hope" the incumbents do a better job next time, make a change!

-TaylorB1 you're answering part of the question by conducting your quiz in midtown when there are 90 other designated neighborhoods in the city. And whether or not they get an A on your who’s who list, they definitely understand that with our current system a few special interests and neighborhoods receive an inordinate amount of city resources and attention. I think the absence of engagement has less to do with their knowledge and more about their belief that no one is listening.

And look at it this way. With a council elected by districts…they’d only have to memorize one name on your list to be knowledgeable and engaged.

Van Dyk apparently likes the Broad Corporation's style of governance over schools. Maier and Sundquist? Well, more of the same I guess. Perhaps I was incorrect in asking why you hate unions. I guess the correct answer is why do you love corporations so much? Carr was a sweet-talking do nothing. I don't really know much about Harium. Watching board meetings as I do, I find him more humble and reflective while I find Sundquist and Maier rather reactive. And in the end, none of them listened to the squeaky wheels who were warning them of the corruption taking place during the reign of the District's last over-paid superintendant.

The "erratic" McGinn? An authentic mayor who is unafraid to fail in order to bring this city into the future rather than keep it stuck in the past. I respect such courage.

And Godden. A nice lady (so I've heard) who had great name recognition but has brought very little to the council. And though I don't always agree with Clark, she is knowledgeable, well spoken, and clear in her decisions. I think had she been courageous, she would have aligned herself with our visionary mayor.

Tell you what, Ted. You're wrong.

None of our city council is doing a good job. It's time for all of them to go. School Board? Total joke.

Citizens can be clueless, but that is nothing new.

What must happen is that liberals, and former hippies need to grow up and learn to talk economics.

Thanks for your early comments.

I tend to think that a majority of voters are uninterested in public life here not because they think they are powerless but, instead, because they are complacent and focused on other things. I have lived in several major cities; Seattle is by far the most complacent about its civic life. It's disappointing in particular that so few qualified people in this highly educated city are willing to seek public office.

Re the School Board: Yes, the present members have disappointed by
being too permissive on their watch. However, we have seen worse in the past and I am not convinced that the challengers would do better. I will vote No on these same candidates next time if their performance does not improve. I would not turn the schools over to the mayor and city council, although that has been done in some cities were public schools were perceived as failing. The better option is to elect a capable and engaged School Board.

I do not understand the reference to a "Broad Corporation" style of governance. I neither love corporations nor hate unions, as Benson appears to believe. I judge institutions and individuals, including political candidates, according to their behavior and performance. I have suggested institutional changes which I think could improve our local governance.

The Broad Corp is a pro-privatization trainer of school superintendents. You, Mr. Van Dyk, seem more aligned with the business model of the Broad Corp for handling education. Perhaps you are right. I'm not sold on teachers and labor unions being the problem quite yet. Given the business model of brokers, banks and investment institutions, I prefer that public education remain pubic and not private.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/answer-sheet/school-turnaroundsreform/how-billionaire-donors-are-har.html

http://seattleducation2010.wordpress.com/2011/01/19/seattle-school-superintendent-goodloe-johnson%E2%80%99s-ongoing-conflicts-of-interest/

http://seattleducation2010.wordpress.com/tag/dr-goodloe-johnson-poster-child-for-the-broad/

http://seattleducation2010.wordpress.com/2011/08/20/broad-trained-superintendent-shows-up-again-in-broward-county-florida/

These commentaries won't change your mind, I'm sure. But will at least acquaint you with the Broad Corp. If you don't love corporations, you seem infatuated with them.

One more I just thought of: Dissent Magazine's "Got Dough? How Billionaires Rule our Schools" - http://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/?article=3781

I'm sorry to burden you with reading but it is a broad (no pun intended) topic and perhaps you will find these sources interesting.

Deregulation and privatization have contributed to our present-day woes. Read before you decide to turn our kids over to unregulated private institutions where profit takes priority over learning. Government has a role in supporting the common good and in providing for an educated electorate. It's not perfect. But will the alternative be better? Think it through.

re: school board: The short of it is, Van Dyk should have stuck to City Council recommendations as he clearly does not follow critical school board matters.

Peter Maier, though apologizing for the Pottergate scandal, has said he wouldn't change how he thinks through issues in the coming four years. He is an active democrat, a good school levy promoter, and a mediocre school board member at best. He has repeatedly shown little interest in community input, instead relying on his own idea of "best judgment." This is not the correct way to represent the public.

Harium Martin-Morris largely checked out of local governance two years ago to concentrate on state and federal policies. In the face of Pottergate and multiple damning state audits on fiscal and operational matters, he showed zero leadership. He scolded the rest of the board last November over the idea that District staff could be questioned on something the staff said was "true". The curriculum and instruction committee he heads is multiple years behind in passing promised policies around advanced learning, curriculum waivers and special education services. He tried to lower district graduation standards. He is rarely spotted out in the community save a few select NE PTSA meetings.

Steve Sundquist could not be bothered to take citizen input on capacity pressures when he voted for the new student assignment plan 2 years ago. He said he would consider amendments to the general plan in Year Two. He voted to close Cooper and place Pathfinder in its building. Subsequently West Seattle is a commplete enrollment mess with very angry families. The Seattle Teacher's Union took a vote of no-confidence in him recently for his outspoken support for bringing Teach for America to town, when Seattle does not have a shortage of teachers. Sundquist as well as Carr and Martin-Miaer are supported by the union-busting Stand for Children.

Sherry Carr provided scant leadership and very little demonstration of her background PTSA knowledge in the past 3 years. Citizens repeatedly told her that there were financial issues with the school district, but it was not until state auditors issued an atrocious report on district oversight of taxpayer's money that she began to engage in policy-making that makes a difference. She has shown almost no leadership in addressing the overcrowded conditions at north end schools.

The challengers are more noteworthy than the Seattle Establishment Old Guard wants to acknowledge. Kate Martin (against Sherry Carr) is extremely outspoken). She is a breath of fresh air and can talk in-depth about addressing the achievemnt gap. She married a Mexican immigrant and watched her children's Hispanic friends fail or drop out of Seattle Schools.

Marty McLaren (against Sundquist) is a former teacher and brings a perspective that teachers seem to appreciate. (Martin-Morris bills himself as an ex-teacher, but the teacher's union has stingingly endorsed his opponent, not him.) McLaren is a strong activist who even sued the district to get better math curriculum. She is feisty despite an initial shy/quiet demeanor.

Buetow, Martin-Morris' opponent, has received the endorsement of every Democrat club and legislative district in town and has been well-received on the campaign trail as having vision around better district customer service and communications. She is professional in tone and manner when addressing much-needed district reform. She speaks knowledgeably about the needs of SE communities and has been spotted in the neighborhoods in Rainier Valley instead of solely appealing to the monied northeast neighborhoods of Board District III.

Peaslee (against Maier in District I) has state-level experience in shaping better math standards. She convincingly reels off statistics about fiscal problems and improprieties within central administration. She advocates for funding from the classroom up and for decentralized budget prioritizing. She has specific views on central administration programs that should be defunded, in order to provide more resources to students and their schools.

McLaren and Buetow appear winning choices against their opponents, with Martin and Peaslee certainly worth consideration.

In these fractious times bland on bland doesn't look all that bad. The only thing worse than an ignorant, uninformed electorate that is politically apathetic is the same ignorant, uninformed electorate marching in the streets in support of half-digested Eternal Truths.

I see nothing here that says Seattle shouldn't change to “by district” elections of the city council. The author states that, "our at-large council can be uninterested in matters such as road and sidewalk repair in Ballard or West Seattle or provision of better bus service or public safety in outlying neighborhoods." and, "Members elected at large often respond too greatly to those with downtown money and power." This is certainly true of our current council. Stop ten people in midtown and ask them that question?

And what difference does it make if voters are complacent, ignorant, engaged or asleep. The council is there to do the work of the entire city and not serve as enablers for a few special interests.

There is a slight smell of elitism wafting through this thread.

The current crop of candidates for City Council, both incumbents and challengers, have not provided any evidence that they are either understand or are interested in truly managing the City. None of them wants to talk about the elephant in the room - we are continuing to spend funds on capital projects that saddle us with new operating costs - when we cannot afford to maintain the things we already have.

The current parks levy is a perfect example. City Council ignored the warnings that the levy as proposed would add significant new operating costs to an already overwhelmed park system. They placed the levy on the ballot and supported it. We continue to add small expensive to maintain parks to the overall long-term detriment of the system as a whole.

None of the candidates wants to talk about this or the similar situations we now have with public utilities/libraries etc. caused by massive capital expenditures for which debt service and operating costs are causing extraordinary rate increases or curtailing operations of facilities.

Instead, we talk about things like district elections solving accountability issues. Maybe it will improve accountability but I don't know if we will ever get the right answers if we ask the wrong questions.

I just got a lot more interested in the Seattle school board election, even though I don't live in Seattle. The reason is a call from a group called "Stand for Children". The autobot said something along the lines of "please be ready for a call tomorrow night for your opportunity to ask questions of three candidates for Seattle School Board. The three candidates are Martin Morris, Carr, and I think Maier, though possibly Sundquist."

So this is quite interesting? How did Stand for Children get my phone number? My first thought was maybe from the League of Education Voters, of which I'm a member. However, I don't think they have my phone number, I've certainly never gotten a call from them.

Who is funding this call? How did they choose these three candidates?

Their mission says nothing about funding school board elections. Yet by not presenting all candidates, this is what they seem to be doing.

I am contacting them and asking for a response. I will post it when I receive it.

I do not know all the ins and outs of Seattle schools, but definitely, the incumbents have made a lot of mistakes that in the private sector would seem to result in termination.

You must be nuts to vote for Bill Bryant, a sleaze bag if ever there was one. He ran as a reformer and defeated the best commissioner Alec Fisken, and instantly became like Pat Davis, in cahoots with management and the nepotism that is deeply rooted there; look at his voting record.

Thanks to supersinic for spotlighting a Seattle problem: That of major capital projects whose debt service and operating costs continue to eat
a huge proportion of city revenues. One of my principal concerns about
Jean Godden, who has chaired the City Council budget committee, is that she has not seemed to recognize this issue.

Thanks to tianna for making the substantive case for School Board candidates other than those I endorsed. This is exactly what Crosscut comment streams should be about.

I was a strong supporter, by the way, of Alec Fisken as a port commissioner and candidate and am sorry he opted out of further service.

With all the talk about complacency and ignorance locally, I cannot resist
repeating the old comic exchange between a political junkie and a political
illiterate.

Junkie: You are ignorant and complacent. I bet you can't even tell me the names of our governor and mayor.

Illiterate: I don't know and I don't care.

Please keep your comments coming. They disprove the joke above.

So you were just pulling our leg about the pros and cons of an "at large" vs. "by district" council? Isn't it in the SUBHEAD following your oh-so-clever HEADLINE?

With all this obtuse political humor, I cannot resist repeating this old comic saying..."You can pick your nose, and you can pick your council...but you can't wipe the council on the back of your couch.

http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattlepolitics/2011/10/24/the-campaign-ad-you-wont-see-on-tv/

campaign ad targeting Port Commission president Bill Bryant was deemed a little too risqué for Comcast, so you won’t see it on TV. But no matter, because the video is making its way on the Internet.

It purports to show people dropping the F-bomb — and getting bleeped — when they hear about the hefty pay raise the Port Commission gave CEO Tay Yoshitani this year. “That’s a lot of (rhymes with truckin’) money,” one of the purported random interviewees says.

PubliCola reports it was paid for by Working Washington PAC, a union-backed political committee. Bryant, a Republican, is being challenged by Democrat Dean Willard.

Here’s the video:

Sounds like Seattle needs a bland-aid.

Yes, I agree. Tianna, I appreciated your post as well. Very specific. Thanks.

Of the School Board incumbents, Mr. Van Dyk writes "I will vote No on these same candidates next time if their performance does not improve."

The incumbents all admitted their failure and swore to do better in March when they gave the former superintendent over a quarter million dollars to go away quietly. It has been about seven months since then. Has Mr. Van Dyk watched them since then to see if their performance has improved? If he had, he could not have helped noticing that their performance has not improved one whit.

The school board works no differently now than it did seven months ago. There has been no improvement in their management oversight, no effort by them to enforce policy, no sign of governance, and no change in their open contempt for public engagement.

Isn't it time for Mr. Van Dyk's theoretical No vote? It is.

The problem with saying "I'll watch them and vote against them if they don't do better" is that you actually have to watch them. It's clear that Mr. Van Dyk has not done so.

Here are some facts to support this view:

1. Motions before the Board are no more likely to have benefited from public input or community engagement now than before. In fact, in the past seven months not more than one or two motions out of the dozens the board has adopted have any community engagement at all.

2. At their last meeting the Board chose to both introduce and vote on the adoption of the superintendent evaluation instrument - choosing to forego the customary two week period between introduction of a motion and voting on the motion. There was no urgency. The expedited process served only to shut out public comment.

3. The Board has not enforced a single policy - ever. Not before they gave the former superintendent a $264,000 parting gift and not since.

4. The Board has been advised that the District is completely out of compliance with the Program Placement policy. They have refused to take any action to enforce the policy.

5. The Board has moved forward to hire and seek conditional certification for Teach for America corps members in violation of the state law on conditional certification.

6. The Board has promised to really step up their management oversight since the disastrous audit of July, 2010. They have promised to conduct annual oversight reviews of every district department. In the 15 months since then they have conducted exactly two of these annual oversight meetings - for HR and Procurement. It took them nearly a year just to draft a calendar for the meetings.

7. Even after the scandal over the Regional Small Business Development Program spilled all over them, the District hired the Urban League for yet another questionable contract and paid on invoices that featured the same sort of vague language about the work they did and the same remarkably consistent number of billable hours that the state auditor called out in his report. The Board took neither notice nor action.

8. Citizens have raised these points and more at Board meetings but the Board has refused to offer any response or comment. They simply will not speak to the questions. Not exactly the transparency and trust building they promised, is it?

The time has come, Mr. Van Dyk, for the No vote on the school board incumbents that you say you will cast if their performance does not improve. They have had ample opportunity to show improvement and they have failed to do so.

Mr. Van Dyk - Regarding the Seattle School Board, you state "I am not convinced that the challengers would do better. " Perhaps you could elaborate further, because I think many of the comments here seem to suggest otherwise. How could they not be better than the current board?

In short, why should we trust the incumbents, rather than the challengers? Do you know something specific that can speak to why the incumbents are suddenly ready to start doing a better job?

As a co-writer at the Save Seattle Schools blog (and an occasional writer here at Crosscut), I feel I can speak to the School Board election. Mr. Van Dyk said:

"...with the hope that they will run a tighter ship in their upcoming terms."

People vote for all kinds of reasons but with incumbents with a record, I'd like to think hope isn't the reason to vote for them.

Other readers have laid out the case against the incumbents but I'll add on.

First, each incumbent should be considered individually and not, as Mr. Van Dyk does, as a slate. I find that odd.

Second, Peter Maier is the worst of the bunch for many reasons but the overriding one is that he was handed a report that should have served as an early warning on Silas Potter. He read it and later said it was "deeply concerning" but promptly did NOTHING with it. Did not show it to other Board members nor tell them about it. Even AFTER things started unraveling, he said nothing. He has used poor judgment and should be exited.

Third, all the incumbents had red flags they could have seen around Pottergate and yet, they all managed to miss it. The Board waited SIX months before launching their own investigation. What were they waiting for? The sky to fall in on their heads?

Fourth, I interviewed ALL the candidates. Three out of the four incumbents said that, going forward, there was NOTHING they would do differently as Directors. (Sherry Carr said that she would question the staff more closely. Good for her.) All these mistakes during their tenure and Maier, Martin-Morris and Sundquist will do nothing differently. Expect more of the same then. Martin-Morris is on record that he thinks the Board should NOT challenge the staff on their information (he chided other Board members at a Board meeting on this point).

Lastly, and maybe most importantly, the challengers all have solid backgrounds, knowledge of the district and the will to make change for more accountability and transparency in our district. It is sorely needed.

One correction for Mr. Van Dyk; the School Board Directors receive a $4800 stipend per year. Very little but yes, they do get something.

I will point out that the School Board previous to this one had an assortment of backgrounds and got roundly criticized for their loud behavior at Board meetings. However, they had NO financial scandal and didn't exit a superintendent. The "professional" Board previous to them (with Joe Olchefske)? Financial scandal and exiting a superintendent. Our current School Board with mostly "professional" types? Financial scandal and exiting a superintendent (and selling school property for far less than it is worth to a church).

Let's stop this nonsense; vote Peaslee, Martin, Buetow and McLaren. We need serious people to get serious work done.

On school boards:

Mediocrity seems a perennial problem not just with our school board but with most school boards. Some out-of-the box thinking might help us find a new way to govern our schools. It might also help to look to other successful countries' educational models for ideas.

In Finland, for instance, which by most measures has the best schools in the world, school boards don't exist. Each individual school is a mini school district unto itself, answerable directly to the parents whose kids attend it. There are national curriculum guidelines in place, but they are general and allow teachers to act as professionals and masters of their craft and develop curricula that they know will reach their own kids.

If we got rid of the school district as an institution and eliminated the school board and the entire SPS administration and then divvied up the remaining money to each school for teacher salaries, educational materials, and health and nutrition support, Seattle would have the highest paid teachers in the United States, the best-prepared high school graduates, and decent health and nutritional support for low-income kids.

It'll never happen, of course. I know that perfectly well. But that's also why we will never have topnotch schools here, and that's also why we will continue to have perennially incompetent school board members.

Thanks for the postings by those advocating a house cleaning at the School Board. I find myself sympathetic to your chapter-and-verse recitation of shortcomings by the incumbents. How did I arrive at my decision to endorse the incumbents, with the proviso that they get straight quickly or risk being rejected next time around?

I do not attend School Board meetings regularly, as I once did.
Just too much out-of-town travel and commitments elsewhere. I did consult
several people who do follow the School Board, and whose judgments I value,
and though all had the same reservations I did about the incumbents, there
was no enthusiasm for the challengers. I also reviewed the professional and other backgrounds of the challengers. I do recall the turnover on the Board which resulted in election of members "loudly criticized for their loud behavior at Board meetings," as westello puts it.
But it was more than loud behavior. It was irresponsible and destructive
behavior which often involved grandstanding which hurt rather than helped the cause of improvement in classroom instruction. We do not need a replay of that experience.

Frankly, I opted to give a last-warning chance to Board members who at least had gotten up to speed on district issues rather than opting for a tempting throw-'em-all-out shift to alternatives who did not inspire confidence in their own right.

For whatever it is worth, I strongly favor educational excellence at every Seattle public school, in every Seattle neighborhood. I favor accountability by administrators, teachers, and students. Reaching for high goals rather than settling for low ones. If it were up to me, every
School Board member would prod, probe, and demand that outcome. However the School Board is constituted after the election, experience here shows that parents and others will need to keep pressuring them. Some members will never be fully self starting.

Mr. Van Dyk is correct the lack of interest in local governance by the voters is disheartening. As long as too many voters choose to cast their votes founded in opinions formed by myths and half-truths, rather than the facts, we will continue to have legislative bodies filled with purveyors of half-truths.

Mr. Van Dyk’s support for the current Seattle School Directors appears to come from only opinion.

In regard to the lack of oversight by Seattle’s School Directors, it is continuing. Unfortunately Mr. Van Dyk has missed this fact. Recently Board approved a Superintendent Evaluation Instrument. It was a list of 20 goals and took place in a one meeting introduction/action item slam dunk. It is not a suitable evaluation instrument and it measure very little. At least the public notification time was longer than the 22 hours of notice the public received for the $360,000 buyout of the last Superintendent and her crony from South Carolina on March 2, 2011.

http://youtu.be/Chv4HGXgDfw

Public testimony is often ignored to the detriment of the students and regulation continues to be ignored by the current board and superintendent. The most recent example of this were additional requests for “conditional certification” for Teach for America corps members based on the achievement gaps. WAC 181-79A-231 requires a careful review of all options for closing the achievement gaps as a condition to be met for the issuance of conditional certificates in this situation.

Shockingly despite a decade of bemoaning the achievement gaps in Seattle Schools no carefully review has taken place in recent years if ever. Any task force recommendations have been lost rather that implemented.

The Board was repeatedly questioned at successive meetings as to when this required review took place. With the exception of Betty Patu, directors ignored testimony and emails about the lack of a careful review and approved the action.

Much like yesterday’s disclosure by the State Auditor’s Office about the circumstances of the sale of MLK school sale to AME, the granting of “conditional certificates” was an Olympia supported and approved inside job.

Link to Appeal of School Board TFA action filed Friday 10-21-2011 =>
http://www.school-truth.com/TFA-appeal.html

Link to Recall of Randy Dorn filed yesterday =>
http://www.school-truth.com/Dorn_recall_Oct-24-2011.pdf

Voter’s Guide for School Board =>
http://www.school-truth.com/Election2011-3.html

The Good News … is that at least some of us are paying very close attention. We do something more than just "strongly favor educational excellence at every Seattle public school, in every Seattle neighborhood". Joy Anderson and I attempt to do something about the current extremely sad "Leadership" situation.

Please reconsider Mr. Van Dyk and cast your votes for the school board challengers.

Thanks for engaging via this thread, Ted.

Gentle criticism: One would have thought you would have attended one of the many many forums over the last 4 months instead of "talking to a few friends" if you were going to write a credible opinion piece on Seattle Schools. The stakes are too high for that kind of lackluster research.

You see, Ted, it is likely that you talked to the same handful of folks, and their social circle, that are working, as usual to run the school district as a Business. Well, the school district is not a business, though business skills are one tool of many necessary to oversee and run the schools.

There is an extremely enlightening thread on Publicola about this, Ted.

http://publicola.com/2011/10/24/campaign-fizz-wealthy-eastside-residents-fund-seattle-school-board-mailer/

Be a responsible citizen and start investigating for yourself. Hey, there's even a forum at Nathan Hale tonight at 7:30 that you could attend.

"But it was more than loud behavior. It was irresponsible and destructive
behavior which often involved grandstanding which hurt rather than helped the cause of improvement in classroom instruction. We do not need a replay of that experience."

And you assume that this will happen again because...? These are different challengers and frankly, why it's an either/or situation is confusing. Why paint all challengers with the same brush? Again, the incumbents are not a slate nor are the challengers. ALL should be considered on individual records and merits.

"But the financial scandals unearthed by the state Auditor, the expensive closure and reopening of schools, the acceptance of a goofy math curriculum, and sometimes slack oversight of administrators cannot be repeated."

Careful attention reveals:
#1 ... The incumbents rubber stamp almost every proposal that comes before them from the Superintendent.

#2 ... The Superintendent and Board President Sundquist have demonstrated no interest in changing "the goofy math instructional materials and practices" ... the supposed Seattle Math grade level curricula are the state math standards of 2008.

#3 ... A request for a waiver from a Seattle elementary school to use the highly successful "Singapore Math" materials rather than the Everyday Math program was denied by the Superintendent.

#4 ... Lack of oversight of the Superintendent .... curing that will take a lot more than the recently approved and defective Superintendent Evaluation Tool.

#5 ... It is my opinion that the interim-Superintendent has greatly improved the district management in several areas but NOT in the area of academics. She was the Chief Academic officer and is continuing to provide ineffective academic direction. A principal reason for schools is student learning and her direction has been inadequate and continues to be consistently inadequate.

#6 ... The District disregarded RCW 28A 645.020 and was involved in an ill advised $800,000 New Tech Network contract in which Susan Enfield played a major role. The Board failed to read the contract in the first Board approval .... once the decision was appealed ... the Board performed a complete Do-over.

Mr. Van Dyk .... your voting for the School Board incumbents is apparently based only on hope.

A writer of an election article should be using facts. This article is completely inadequate in informing the voters about the Seattle School Board elections. It can only contribute to voting based on opinion rather than facts. How disheartening.

Fortunately the comments on School Board candidates are far more factual than your article. Thus you indirectly have informed the voters. I thank you for your service.

Seriously, Ted? You cut school the day the School Board candidates were speaking?

I've seen the bunch of them at several forums and each time, every challenger came off as a better choice than their incumbent counterpart. I'd say more, but you're not really qualified to discuss this topic, are you?

Ted - I am quite impressed at your engagement with those of us commenting on your piece, and your willingness to admit not being particularly prepared for your endorsements. However, that lack of preparedness must be a little embarrassing, eh? Perhaps you can do a little more research, and revisit the school board races. I suggest you start with stating exactly why the incumbents deserve the benefit of the doubt. They can't have earned that right, can they?

Ah, Mr. Van Dyk, you got me. I only have facts, but you have hearsay, generalizations, and mythology. There is no way that my argument can compete with yours. I must admit defeat. There is no way that my first-hand observations and objective facts can begin to refute you well-formed (if not well-founded) beliefs.

If, however, you ever choose to switch over to this side, to basing you views on actual facts, you will see that if you play by your own rules that you will vote to throw the bums out.

For future reference, please share with us what you meant by "I will vote No on these same candidates next time if their performance does not improve." What would improvement look like? When do you expect to see it - if not in the 15 months since the July, 2010 audit or in the seven months since they fired the superintendent?

What improvement do you want?

When do you want it?

I'm sure that you will understand that there are people who have been watching much more closely than you who have seen their patience exhausted. They did have clear ideas of improvements they wanted the Board to make, but they have not seen the Board improve at all. They also had deadlines for that improvement to appear but those deadlines have passed.

It is a great shame that you, writing for Crosscut, feel free to make endorsements in school board races with so little effort expended to find a basis for those endorsements. You're not alone; The Stranger does the same. It reflects the apathy - if not contempt - that you, Crosscut, and The Stranger have for our schools and our school communities. At least you're not as bad as the Seattle Times, which makes their endorsements with an eye to actually damage the District. They, like congressional Republicans in Washington, D.C., see a political opportunity and advantage for themselves in failure.

http://clearfogblog.wordpress.com/2011/10/25/recommendations-for-november-8-2011-elections/

Mr. Van Dyk, can you provide a recitation of the "It was irresponsible and destructive behavior which often involved grandstanding which hurt rather than helped the cause of improvement in classroom instruction." that you ascribe to the School Board of 2004-2007?

I was watching closely and, other than the adoption of Everyday Math and CMP2, I don't know what you could mean.

I have also watched this Board closely and I have seen a number of actions that meet that I would regard as irresponsible and destructive behavior which hurt rather than helped the cause of improvement in classroom instruction. Among them:

* The adoption of Discovery Math - and no high school math courses less accessible than Algebra

* Spending millions on the MAP test while cutting high school counselors

* Spending millions on "curricular alignment" which only served to prohibit interesting and effective classes developed at individual schools like Marine Biology at Garfield and a series of literature classes at Roosevelt

* Spending millions on consultants while elminating summer school

* Spending millions on teacher coaches instead of student coaches

* Disrupting schools and communities for no good reason. There was no reason to split APP, close Cooper, close TT Minor, move NOVA, close Summit, etc.

* Reneging on promises to students and families

* Squandering money to close schools only to re-open them two years later

All of this - and more - has hurt the cause of improvement in classroom instruction. All of it was done by this Board. They voted to approve every bit of it.

You said: "But the financial scandals unearthed by the state Auditor, the expensive closure and reopening of schools, the acceptance of a goofy math curriculum, and sometimes slack oversight of administrators cannot be repeated."

This says it all. The only way you'll find these types of issues not repeated is by not re-electing those responsible.

Perhaps you don't need to replace the entire lot of them (although I would advocate for that), but you should absolutely reconsider your recommendation to elect all 4 incumbents if you want to see any change at all.

When someone (or group of people) continually show the same behavior year after year, what gives you any reason to believe they'll change? They have their own agendas, and that's certainly their right. But for you to say you want to see change and then in the same breath say you want to see the same folks elected, that just doesn't make sense. If you're scared of losing institutional memory, but don't want all the same mistakes of the past 4 years repeated, then pick 2 incumbents and 2 challengers, but don't reelect the same people that have repeatedly botched things up for 4 years.

Might I suggest Peaslee and McLaren? Not because they stand out so much above the others, but because their opponents are that much worse than the rest.

I appreciate that you are interacting with your readers/commenters here, and would appreciate your thoughts. Thanks.

I notice that Mr. van Dyk admits to not attending all that many school board meetings, and so I wonder how many Seattle Port Commissioner meetings he attends to be able to endorse the re-election of Bill Bryant and Tarleton with a set of generic platitudes, the pure pablum of - "both of whom have provided good oversight and management during a period of transition for port properties. Questions concerning staff integrity and procedures have disappeared. " - Aside the instant dislike I took to Bryant during his debate with Alec Fisken four years ago, he is a backer of the terminal operators, the shipping industry, and under his leadership these interests have received several abatements that cost the Port income to continue to develop its infrastructure. Allegedly the terminal operator - SSA Marine - and the shippers are troubled that the eventual enlargement of the Panama Canal will draw traffic from the local ports. This issue one might say is a "red whale" and will do nothing of the kind, what the terminal operators get is a quick increase in short term profit, and does anyone seriously believe that the CARRIX Corporation, which owns SSA Marine, gives much of a damn where they unload cargo since they have a kind of monopoly nation wide. Mr. Bryant's own business interests also coincide with those of the shippers and the terminal operators who donlt care whether they do business through SeaTac or Prince Rupert, or Colonet if it is ever built. The Stranger is far sharper in its endorsements than Mr. Van Dyk who has struck me as tired and perhaps ought to retire not just from the national but also the local scene: http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/endorsements/Content?oid=9232699

BTW, coolpapa, they are now sending an assistant principal to a north end school with an enrollment under 460 which does not need an asst principal but which has first grade classrooms of 28 and sure could use additional teacher help in both intermediate math, first grade relief or a counselor. Do you think they might have an ulterior motive at this self-contained spectrum school?

Regarding experience: I'd just like to point that while the challengers may have little bureaucratic experience, several have extensive boots-on-the-ground experience in schools. I'm thinking of the Marty & Sharon, who have been teachers, and Kate's stand-in over non-teaching at Roosevelt. Michelle still has kids in elementary and I know she's in that building.

PTSA and Levy campaigning are just not the same - it's adults far separated from the primary mission of a school. I know three of the incumbents have high-schoolers or recent graduates, but I often feel they have forgotten what elementary school is like, and they ALL seem to accept bureaucratic constraints that negatively affect what happens in schools.

In addition, like many others, I don't see any evidence the past year has changed the incumbents behavior, and therefore I have little hope for their future. I was very proud of Sherry when she didn't vote yes on CSIPs she hadn't seen but oh my, that is such a low bar. A low bar that Sundquist, Maier, and Martin-Morris didn't reach. Martin-Morris even chided Carr for checking...

Mr. Van Dyk?

You're looking for improvement in the school board, but, since you haven't been paying close attention, you have not seen it. You didn't miss it. Lots of people are looking for that improvement. Some are looking very closely for it. Nobody is seeing it. It's not there to see.

After all of the boo-hooing and mea culpas, after all of the pledges to trasparency and trust, the Board has continued with the same kind of negligence that they have always shown.

You're getting a sound whacking here, Ted. If you take on the responsibility of making recommendations, they must be reliably researched and supported.

Mr. Dempsey, the school board has always been political and that is a problem. No way around it, I guess. Many teachers were not happy with and did not promote the EDM math curriculum. I was told by my son's teacher that she and several others at his school preferred the TERC. She also said that the math department preferred the TERC. However, the school board let it be known they would not vote for TERC. Even though the consensus at my son's school preferred TERC as did central admin's math department, they were all overruled. From whom did the board acquire its expertise?

Finally Betty Patu - mentioned above - is the only authentic voice for students. Slick and polished aren't always the true and honest among us.

Mr. Van Dyk?

Is he gone?

Checked back in this a.m. for a final look at comments on this piece.

No, coolpapa, I am not gone entirely but have been absorbed in other matters, including preparation of a long piece on another subject for publication elsewhere. Some writers submit their articles and do not respond to comments which follow. I always try to do so, except for comments which are repetitive, abusive, or are being used for therapy by those who make them. Almost all these comments are about the School Board candidates, which is understandable in light of the problems shich keep recurring in the system as individual Board members have come and gone.

Benson should know that I endorsed and voted for Betty Patu when she was a Board candidate, for the same reasons you cite. It isn't just degrees or
other pedigrees which should determine our votes.

I will repeat that I am as irritated as anyone about the glitches which the present Board failed to spot or deal with on a timely basis. I am especially puzzled by the decision re the math curriculum. However, in the end, I did decide that the incumbents, properly chastened, were better choices than their challengers. You and others will disagree and no doubt will mark your ballots accordingly. Thanks, in any case, for helping inform others through your comments.

I'd like to ask anyone who's read to this point to please take a close look at each and every School Board race before you cast your vote. The "incumbents versus challengers" meme is an easy out for lazy voters (ironically, like Ted himself), who just want to vote a straight ticket.

In District III, Michelle Buetow has easily outclassed Harium Martin-Morris. She's literally taken every Democratic endorsement in this race (and he's contested most of them) and has bested him head-to-head in most every forum and candidate's night event. West Seattle's Steve Sundquist is an out of touch would-be politician with dreams of higher office; Marty McLaren would give a lot more time and effort to the board job. But don't take my word on it--read their voters pamphlet statements, their websites, and articles about the race. This is a pivotal election in the future of Seattle Schools. Don't get an incomplete--do your homework!

Mr. Van Dyk has seen some evidence that the current School Board is chastened. I haven't. Has anyone else seen it? Can Mr. Van Dyk describe it?