This is a thoughtful and insightful piece. More please!

"Other districts don't have the continuous missteps that our district does": amen! It's time for the district to act like a body of professionals, to right the ship, and to put and end to all the shenanigans and distractions.

I hope we can finally get rid of that awful math program and go to something with better results. I know many people who are tired of having to pay for Kumon or Sylvan Learning math programs because their kids aren't learning in the public schools. I feel sorry for the kids whose parents either don't care or can't afford to supliment the math program.

Voters didn't look at the elections lockstep, but boy the Ed Reform and Downtown establishment. Lynne Varner at The Seattle Times was the most egregious, publishing at least SIX editorial pieces in 10 days in favor of the incumbent slate. Crosscut writer Van Dyk, who never actually talked to the challengers, did the same thing. And publisher Brewster was behind the scenes of the same opinion. Ditto the Alliance for Ed, LEV, Stand on (oops 'for') Children and whatever name the Alki (Chamber of Commerce) biz people are now calling themselves.

None of these groups wants a nuanced, hands-on board member. They want either a board member adhering to National Ed Reform, period, OR a board member that conducts Board Business like the school district is a corporation. The well-meaning but misguided people in all of these groups need to get it through their heads that the school district is NOT a corporation. And the last thing this district needs is more Sundquist/Maier civic promoter types who talk a good game but don't actually delve into public comments and facts (or lack thereof) from staff to steer this difficult District ship.

..."On the upside, the district is seeing very modest gains in both math and reading for minority and low-income students" .......

Definitely NOT true for high school math in Seattle.... see data on End of Course testing for grade 9 Low-Income algebra students=>

www.school-truth.com/resultsGrade9EoC.pdf

Check results for Auburn at 52% Low-Income vs. Seattle at 43% Low-inomce
on change in OSPI test performance from 2007 to 2011

Score Auburn 24 ,, Seattle 0

And Auburn spends over $2500 less per child annually than Seattle .. results=>

http://www.school-truth.com/Auburn-SPS-Compare.htm

I just want to point out that Kay Smith-Blum would be an excellent School Board president and assume Melissa inadvertently forgot to mention her as a candidate for the role. And to echo Melissa, we are most certainly on the cusp of really promising changes. I've been attending the WSSDA conference and can't help noticing the frequency of such terms as "community input, community involvement, community engagement"-- in every other sentence. This is very much the acclaimed norm of school district governance, and not the rantings of fractious activists. The shifts brought about by voters in this election indicate a return to normalcy, with healthy community involvement and complete transparency. I see this as a triumph of the spirit of democracy.

Smith-Blum as the Board president? Thanks but no thanks. First, others have seniority like Carr. Second, she is far less "neutral" in tone toward her fellow board members than Carr and DeBell. Patu has less political suaveness than Smith-Blum, but she better represents the left out south end. So frankly, I'd leave Smith-Blum as 4th in line. And I leave Martin-Morris out for good reason. He lacks leadership and neutrality. He also seems to sit on his butt a lot without doing much.

In addition, if this is really Sharon Peaslee, as in maybe-to-be-on-the-board Sharon Peaslee, advocating like this in a public forum for a fellow board member is pretty tacky. Let's chalk it up to earnest newbieism, but if you are really Sharon, it's pretty tacky to align yourself with board members before you are even seated.

Smith- Blum would be an excellent president. She doesn't have the most seniority, but has proven herself to be a leader and effective board member. Smith-Blum brings to the table innovative ideas and a vision that I"ve not seen from other board members. As a successful business woman, her sense of fiscal responsibility shines through.

Recent C&I; debacles leave me weary of Martin-Morris.

I just look forward to a board that actually does its job: management oversight, governance, and representing the public. We have been missing that for the last four years.

I'm sorry but I'm done with all this business-focus on education. Teaching is an art. Yes, we need business-oriented people in positions where oversight of financial operations are key. But there's more to teaching than numbers. Until our society pays attention to the poverty, the chronic medical handicaps which are becoming more and more prevalent, and the almost-PTSD symptoms some kids are bringing to school, it will take more than teachers to work the miracles. I find Smith-Blum a little too sure of her business-oriented leanings and find Patu the best of the bunch. And I'm sure glad Meier and Sundquist are gone. I hope I'm not talking prematurely in Meier's case.

Do you know that at my school we have recently been trained to use a fibulator? Add that to all the other conditions to which we must react appropriately and monitor. When I was a kid, we had a nurse with a great space five days a week. Now my school can afford two-and-a-half days with PTA help. And we have more health issues than ever before. Do you all hate our kids?

In addition to addressing poverty, nutrition, and health care for kids, which I agree are an essential of improving education, not much can really happen when we have public school class sizes of 25 or more kids per room. This is patently crazy. We really need to build the infrastructure and hire teachers to reduce that to no more than 18, and ideally 15 for K-6.

I don't understand why 'seniority' comes first among criteria for board president. That seems odd, really.

Of all I've observed on the school board -- as a public schools parent -- it is Kay Smith-Blum who I'm watching closely now. I like the analysis in this article, and Westbrook definitely informs my view now, but why is the focus placed exclusively on DeBell, Carr, and Martin-Morris? They're certainly not the only three qualified and eligible. (Please correct me if I'm wrong, but Sundquist wasn't on the board very long when he became President.)

I'm watching Smith-Blum very closely nowadays and would like to see analysts do the same. She's the most promising school board member from my practically and strategically minded parental view.

In terms of why I mentioned Carr, DeBell and Martin-Morris, it seemed they would be the most likely picks to fill out Sundquist's term as President. (They do rotate these positions regularly.)

However, I certainly wouldn't discount either Smith-Blum or Patu because they have become savvy Board members.

Despite Bill Gates claims that "class size doesn't matter", as you see from Smacgry's remarks, class size continues to be a concern to parents. I hear this often at the Save Seattle Schools Community blog.

And Northender makes a very solid point about resources going away and PTAs having to backfill. The problem is that some schools don't even have a PTA or if they do, modest resources. That Seattle PTAs pay for 32 full-time employees, pay for maintenance, pay for equipment and pay for supplies for their schools is troubling. PTA is really about advocacy and enrichment, not paying for the basics.

I retain some doubt about the Board's ability to actually influence the direction of the District or the decisions made by staff. No board wants to micro-manage or even cross the line between governance and management. That said, there is little they can do - short of firing the superintendent - to put any muscle behind their views.

We recently saw what happens when the superintendent and the Board don't share a Vision. Raj Manhas, hired by the Waldman board, served under the Bass and Butler-Wall boards, but rejected their direction for the District. He undermined them at every opportunity and frequently whined to the press about them. While the org chart would indicate that the Board is the boss and the superintendent is the employee, nearly all of the real authority is held by the superintendent. Unless the Board is willing to fire the superintendent, they have no tools for managing their one employee.

The new Board - no matter whom they choose as president - will represent a significant change in direction from the Sundquist Board. There will be no more rubber-stamping of Education Reform nonsense. There will be no more support for unproductive multi-million dollar pet projects for the headquarters. The Board can change, but if the superintendent does not change then there will not be much real change in the direction of the District. The superintendent has the real authority.

There are three possibilities: 1) The new Board retains Susan Enfield as superintendent and she changes to adopt their Vision, 2) The new Board retains Susan Enfield as superintendent but she does not change to adopt their Vision, 3) The new Board finds a new superintendent.

I would watch that decision much more closely than the choice of Board president.