It is the School Board not the people of the Seattle who hire the next superintendent so if we are going to have any hope of achieving Sherry Carr's goal then the School Board must get its act together. To make the job of superintendent manageable, the School Board needs to insulate the position from politics and factionalism so the Superintendent can focus on their actual job of improving schools. Is a divided and fractious School Board up to this job? Probably not. Given the realities of where we are, the selected candidate will likely be somebody who is good at navigating the political landscape rather than somebody with the internal management skills and knowledge of educations necessary to significantly improve our schools. Sherry Carr can implore the people of the city to get on board with her ideas all she likes but it is the six other school board members that matter.

Sherry Carr, Michael DeBell, Harium Martin-Morris, and at times, Kay Smith-Blum have demonstrated, time and time again, that there is no outrage they won't tolerate, no incompetence they will not ignore, and no bureaucratic imperative that they will not further or rationalize, all in the interest of "stability."

I have no confidence in Sherry Carr's judgment, nor in her priorities. I want autonomy and academic decision-making power back in the hands of parents and teachers and principals, and not in the hands of bureaucrats and meddling "executive directors" and well-heeled businessmen and for-profit testing corporations.

I'd worry more about that and less about whether some $250K superintendent feels "comfortable." I am for damn sure not alone.

Really? Really? Sherry - say it ain't so - The biggest issue is "My answer: Our biggest challenge is reducing the turnover of leadership at Seattle Public Schools."

The board is duly elected to provide oversight and that has been consistent for many decades - how or if the board does its job remains the same.

Accountability and transparency and services in the classroom I would suggest are the major issues.

Not demonizing the teachers, not expensive consulting contracts, not "non-profit" shadow organizations pulling the levers behind the "Seattle Nice" curtain and then chastising boardmembers for doing their job, ala Greer, Rice, Bridge, Korsmo, DeBell, Brewster, and their ilk, not TFA with its duplicity and expense, not building a barrier between the community and the Superintendent candidates, not horsetrading the Superintendent Search Committeemembers by ethnicity and "I'll trade you two of x for one of y" - Dr. Enfield herself fielded questions from the Highline community, not having meetings and community engagement that is designed to fail, not pitting communities against each other to fight over the crumbs, not hiring a board staffer and having the position accountable to the administration rather than the board executive committee, not having the PTSAs co-opted by the charter school folks at the same time parents are balancing the budget fundraising for adequate instruction and supplies, not pretending the significant special education program deficits are actionable, not being surprised that removing the family support workers/counselors from the elementary schools would have significant consequences, not requiring follow-up - how much transportation money have we saved anyway?, not asking for assistance as you have above and then blithely ignoring it - recall the school closures and now reopenings at what expense?

No, its transparency and accountability and giving the tools to the folks who are toiling in our classrooms, day in and day out.

I agree with Director Carr about everyone in our community making the effort to work together and support our new superintendent.

But we have had so much turnover because of the poor choices made in superintendents (and every other job that followed from that choice).

It was the School Board who hired and backed Olchefske, Manhas and Goodloe-Johnson. The Board needs to hire someone and then not just say "job-done" but have oversight and accountability for that person's actions. Not doing that is what has gotten this district in trouble and caused turnover.

Those previous superintendents caused their own downfall. In turn, because of lack of oversight and accountability, many school board members were turned out of office. Don't blame the public for noticing this lack of leadership and taking their right to vote to the ballot box.

"As a member of the School Board, I pledge to select the person who best reflects what the community wants and needs. And we need you, our community, to help foster a healthy, productive environment in which the next superintendent can succeed. Only then can we work together to improve student achievement and close the achievement gap. Only then can we create a system that ensures every student receives the high quality education they deserve."

Sherry we need you and some of the others running our district to quit just doing what your friends and cronies want - to the detriment of improving student achievement, at the cost of our kids' high quality education. Our kids don't "deserve" a new elementary in SLU, or TFA newbies, or crappy textbooks.

If being nice means not calling out the corruption, undue influence, and prevarications that pervert our district's true mission, then I can't be nice. Sorry about that (not really).

I agree with everything Leslie H said and would add that the current math curriculum; to much emphasis on Reader/Writers workshop; the decision to NOT buy new textbooks for our students while we continue to spend millions on MAPS testing are obstacles to "the kind of educational improvements everyone wants."

If the board could make sound decisions that impoved our students education then it really wouldn't matter what was going on at the district level.

"Our biggest challenge is reducing the turnover of leadership at Seattle Public Schools."

Wow. Then maybe you shouldn't have fired the superintendent last year, Ms Carr. If you thought stability was important then maybe you should have offered a contract to Dr. Enfield instead of making her dangle for nine months. Maybe you should recognize your own hand in the creation of your problems.

As for the turnover in the next level of management down, once again, what was your role in feeding that? Did you ever speak to a superintendent about the turnover and the corrosive effect it had on the culture of the district or the way it cancelled progress? Why did we never see turnover reflected as a concern in any of the superintendent performance evaluations?

As for the turnover at the board level, I have to believe that if your colleagues Mr. Maier and Mr. Sundquist had done their jobs they would still be in those roles. Yet they failed in the duties, as you did. They did not fail because the work was beyond them; they failed because they actively and consciously chose not to do the work. So did you. The state audit of 2010 did wake you up a bit, but your response has been weak and slow.

Tell us, Ms Carr, why doesn't the board enforce policy? Tell us why YOU don't enforce policy? You, as an individual Board director, have the authority to enforce policy yet you don't do it. You have the duty to enforce policy yet you don't do it. Tell us, Ms Carr, why you give more weight to the views of the central staff - unsupported by data - than you give to the views of the community when they have all of the data to support their positions? Whom were you elected to represent? Why do the whispers of a few influential movers and shakers like Jon Bridge and Frank Greer carry more weight with you than the voices of a thousand students, families, and teachers?

Ms Carr writes about a hypothetical new team of middle managers and says "Through them, we can continue mending the relationship with our families, labor partners, and the public." Gee, Ms Carr, how about you start doing some of that work yourself right now? What efforts, if any, have you made to restore trust. I'm watching and paying attention and I don't see many. Your audit response - slow, late, and feeble as it may be - is your best effort. It is inadequate and you know it. You acknowledge that the trust is lost and has not been recovered.

So now you come and beg for the trust even though you have not earned it. Now you come and you ask the public to defer their advocacy. This can be easy. Pay attention to what the people are saying - particularly when you disagree - and you might actually see that advocacy for the positive and healthy influence it really is, instead of seeing it as negative and destructive.

I see the banner at the bottom of this page:

"Support Crosscut, a nonprofit, member-driven news org."

Do you mean if I donate $5 I can write character assasinations, and drivel and have it published? Oh wait, being mean again...

Sherry... I appreciate your reminder that decorum is a part of the picture. Who we get to fill the position is in the end, the candidate's decision. If candidates feel that this position is untenable, they will withdraw their names and go elsewhere. We've seen this before. The Board and the public will have to reach for the highest ground during this hiring time with the hopes that if we get a worthy candidate who can stabilize the district, retain good employees, say good riddance to bad ones, and support principals who will in turn support their teachers, we have a chance at turning education around.

Citizens elect our school board and should vote carefully, not reactively, not emotionally, and not to get back at someone. We have some sterling individuals who have worked very hard in a very contentious playing field. Thank you.

Nice dialogue within the claque but StacyL. So, what, we'll go from 130 down to 13? I'm good with that. As long as whoever we end up with does just listen to the orchestrated email campaigns of the privileged, versus work to divine the enforced or tortured silence of the rest of us.

Is what you've read online the higher ground? What I've read (scanned and posted) online are the hidden, non-transparent emails between admin/directors and their cronies. BTW, citizens DID vote and elect accordingly. Perhaps some of the minority should just let it go. Kind of like how Crosscut keeps telling the majority how we should be content with whatever scraps get thrown our way.

Again, if whomever we get to "fill" the position "is in the end, the candidate's decision" - then should we expect the last four superintendents we've had, had it in their control to decide to stay? If so, why do we have Carr et al? I'm sure MGJ woud've preferred to not get fired, and Enfield peferred to not get deferred as permanent. Was that the fault of all the rest of us, but for Crosscut contributors? Doubt it.

"leadership turnover... is the cause, not the symptom, of our recurrent challenges."

This is backwards and you still don't get it after a tough election in which two of four incumbent board members were turned out. If your inability to grasp the board's oversight obligations continues, I'm guessing there will be more "leadership turnover" where it really counts—the school board.

Director Carr wrote: "We need an experienced superintendent, an educator and a leader with a track record of successes. Our district, the largest in the state, needs a leader committed to stay for five to 10 years — one looking for the capstone to a successful career."

Now I understand why she didn't want to offer Dr. Enfield the job. Dr. Enfield doesn't meet Director Carr's profile. Director Carr doesn't think that Dr. Enfield is what we need.

Absolutely agree with everything Ms. Carr said. But, I think that the volatility of the Seattle education community and people's knee-jerk reactivity is also hurting Seattle schools. Bloggers like Melissa Westerbrook live to push people's buttons and make everybody angry, with no regard to the facts or the people she's hurting. It's not setting a very good example for our kids.

LisaG,

What a ludicrous remark. Do your kids read the Seattle Schools Community blog? Perhaps they should. Then they would realize why they don't have textbooks and why the best, most experienced teachers left to be replaced by Teach for America whatevers.

By the same token, I find Crosscut to be full of crap writing, baseless allegations, character assassinations, and on and on. Personally, I have NO problem pushing buttons when it exposes the duplicity and cronyism that pervades our district. Melissa Westbrook works to INFORM. Actually, you should read the blog sometime. You would find much more reasoned and helpful information than this amateurish rag. If you don't want your buttons pushed, don't read my comments.

Ditto what Barney said - with the addition of a request to please point out where Ms. Westbrook has been less than 100% factual here or on her blog.

I don't have any kids, but if I did I sure as heck wouldn't want them to learn LisaG's (and, for that matter, most of the posters solicited by Crosscut to print similar tripe about the Seattle School District)lesson about blind obedience to authority, failing to speak the plain truth, and sucking up to power and influence.

Feel good nonsense and an unwillingness to face up to unpleasant truths are exactly what has gotten the SSD into the mess it now faces, and no amount of orchestrated spin from the so-called "reform" cabal is gonna change things one iota.

bubbleator

Rather than posting a correction, please go in an edit your original post

Didn't realize this comment system made that so easy. Done.

...though I do feel sort of 1984ish being able to rewrite my own poor editing history...

LisaG wrote: "Bloggers like Melissa Westerbrook live to push people's buttons and make everybody angry, with no regard to the facts or the people she's hurting."

First, if you're going to write about people, you owe them the courtesy of getting their names right. The blogger's name is Melissa Westbrook. Your failure to get even the most fundamental and objective facts correct erode the credibility of your comment, LisaG.

Second, your comment is also lacking in accuracy when it comes to the more subjective and less factual elements. Your conjecture about Ms Westbrook's motivation - that she is nothing but a troll who writes to provoke shock and anger - fails to persuade. There is really no basis for this conclusion. It's dangerous territory, making conjecture about the motivations of others. I would counsel you against it.

Third, the suggestion that Ms Westbrook's work has "no regard to the facts" is also without basis. Ms Westbrook is the most reliable source of information about Seattle Public Schools. More reliable even than the District itself. I defy LisaG to produce a list of factual errors by Ms Westbrook from the past three years. I have personally read nearly every word she has written on the blog from the start, and I can only think of a couple misstatements, all of them corrected later. Will you be correcting your misstatements, LisaG?

Finally, what people are Ms Westbrook hurting? I'm thinking hard, but I'm having trouble coming up with a name. Perhaps you're making a reference to the principals at Lowell who have been called out on the blog for their lies to district officials that led to an unnecessary investigation of two members of their staff. Perhaps you're thinking of someone else. Honestly, I can't imagine who you're thinking of because I can't think of anyone harmed by the reports on the blog.

Please write again, LisaG, and explain yourself further.

LisaG wrote that she agreed with Director Carr. I went searching through Director Carr's column for something that LisaG could be agreeing with, and this is what I found:

"And we need you, our community, to help foster a healthy, productive environment in which the next superintendent can succeed"

This sentence appears to be the whole point of Director Carr's column and is, undoubtedly, the statement that LisaG agrees with.

I agree with it as well.

Now, what is a "healthy, productive environment"? Is it one in which the Board and the public choose not to pay any attention to the superintendent's decisions, procedures, or actions? Clearly not since that sort of slack oversight led directly to Dr. Goodloe-Johnson's exit. Could it be an overbearing and haranguing chorus that is determined to find fault with every twitch the leadership makes? I don't think so. I wish that Crosscut, the Seattle Times, the Alliance for Education, and others would back off a bit and let the board work. I think a healthy productive environment is one in which people are afforded the freedom and authority to do their jobs as they see fit and are held accountable for their performance. It is an environment in which a healthy skepticism by the board and the public leads to questions that get strong, well-supported answers from the staff. I would certainly work to foster such an environment. I will do my part by maintaining a healthy skepticism and asking questions.

How will LisaG do her part? How will Director Carr?

Since this article first appeared there have been two more changes in the school district "C" level leadership. Assistant Superintendent Noel Treat has announced that he is leaving and Assistant Superintendent Cathy Thompson has announced her departure as well.

Nice job reducing the turnover, Ms Carr.