I am in complete agreement of this article. I hope the author of this article has a discussion with Board President Michael DeBell over his very questionable tactics.

Michael DeBell has used his political and media connections (David Brewster and Frank Greer) to launch an unfair and unwarrented attack on his colleagues. DeBell has been instrumental in effectively pitting the community against his colleagues. He ought to be ashamed of himself.

Yes, civility is needed..and it begins with Board President Michael DeBell.

Thank you, Ms Krupnick, for writing this.

You will find a similar call from Robin Lake of the Center for Reinventing Public Education on the education week blog, here: http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/rick_hess_straight_up/2012/04/only_a_sith_deals_in_absolutes.html

You will also find my recipe for civility, which is a lot like yours. It begins by presuming good intent and includes listening to the other perspective for the merit in it.

I hope that your call is heeded.

My writing on the saveseattleschools blog has given me a reputation as some kind of demon. When people meet me and learn who I am, I always begin by asking if I owe them an apology. When they meet me in real life I think they are surprised to see that I don't have horns or a forked tail. They are really surprised to learn that I'm actually pretty easy-going. I have friendly, positive relationships with a lot of people who don't agree with me on education topics. These relationships are possible because we share the same goal and interest and because we are respectful of each others' perspectives.

I'm open to more of these types of relationships, but I do run into a lot of people who aren't ready to come out of their fortress and talk like a human being. Money and authority give them this option, and they exercise it. I will probably never have a reasonable conversation with David Brewster or Chris Korsmo, but only because they would not deign to speak with me, not because I won't talk with them.

Here's another tip. Be forgiving. Be gracious when people admit being wrong , and graciously acknowledge your own mistakes. I'm wrong a lot, and I hope that I'm quick to accept correction. Evolution is a process of trial and error, so if you aren't making errors then you aren't evolving.

For someone who doesn't like name-calling, there's sure a lot of adjectives in this piece.

That said, Ms. Krupnick is right. We all have a golden opportunity with a new superintendent to forge ahead and do it in united manner for a better district. We are on the cusp of moving our district in a great direction but let's stop poking holes in the map and get going.

I absolutely agree with her four-point steps. There are more groups than you can shake a stick at and all claim to be grassroots and supporting parents. (Note: one more is coming from Scott Oki so be ready for that one as well.)

She also wrote this:

"The lack of responsiveness and accountability and occasional talk-to-the-hand attitude on the part of the ever-changing stewards of my children’s education kept me up at night. I found solace on some education blogs, where I discovered I was not alone and that many of these battles had been waged before and were currently being waged at other schools in other parts of the city."

Yup.

And this:

"Seattle Public Schools should implement a consistent response policy to inquiries and clearly designate a person and a time-frame in which to follow up."

Yup.

But you see, those of us who have been around for a long time have heard this before and we are still hearing it? That should tell you something about the bureaucracy of SPS and how long it takes.

One friend of mine likens SPS to a big tanker and she believes it is slowly turning around. I agree but I hope we stay balanced so we don't swing over to just one side and tip the tanker.

There is, of course, just one problem with Ms Krupnik's recommendation: it doesn't work.

I don't fit into the passive-aggressive dominant culture in Seattle. This place is like some kind of irony-free zone. That's hard for a guy like me who has claimed that I speak English as a second language and that my native tongue is Sarcasm. When I write or say something sharp I'm told that my style is so shocking and hurtful that the substance of my message is lost. I'm told that I would be more effective if I were kinder.

Only it isn't true.

I have, many times, tried kindness. It didn't work.
I have, many times, tried being calm and rational. It didn't work.
I have, many times, tried contacting people less frequently. It didn't work.

I have followed every bit of advice from folks who said that I would be more effective if I changed this or that about my style. But none of it has worked.

There is no benefit to civility. There is no benefit to courtesy. They are no more effective than flinging insults. Nothing I say or write has any power to alter the ossified belief structure of the people with the authority to make the decisions. Kind or cruel, it makes no difference to them. At least when I'm as blunt and rude as I want to be, it is cathartic and entertaining for me.

Why should I be civil if there's no upside in it? All it does is make the misguided people more comfortable.

"Lose the patriarchal “we know best” attitude."

How about the sexist Matriarchal "I know best" attitude?

The name-calling might be entertaining to people like coolpapa and the blogging high-fivers, but it doesn't help our schools and it doesn't help our kids. In fact, the name calling and the adults amazing inability to act like adults or even just say something nice sets a very bad example for our kids, and you better believe the kids are watching how we handle ourselves in these school fights.

Has it occured to anyone that the lack of civility might be the cause, not the result, of SPS's indifference?

You catch more flies with honey than vinegar.

Thanks for writing this, Alison. Very well put. Reminds me of something I read years ago and, ta-dah, thanks to the Web, here it is:

People are illogical, unreasonable, and self-centered.
Love them anyway.
If you do good, people will accuse you of selfish ulterior motives.
Do good anyway.
If you are successful, you win false friends and true enemies.
Succeed anyway.
The good you do today will be forgotten tomorrow.
Do good anyway.
Honesty and frankness make you vulnerable.
Be honest and frank anyway.
The biggest men and women with the biggest ideas can be shot down by the smallest men and women with the smallest minds.
Think big anyway.
People favor underdogs but follow only top dogs.
Fight for a few underdogs anyway.
What you spend years building may be destroyed overnight.
Build anyway.
People really need help but may attack you if you do help them.
Help people anyway.
Give the world the best you have and you'll get kicked in the teeth.
Give the world the best you have anyway.

(by Kent M. Keith)

-- Karen R

Thanks Alison for a well written piece. Points well taken. I do feel that the SB took credible steps forward when they passed the governance policy (1620 BP) a month back. The board members for all of their differences managed to sit around a table and come up with something workable. Let's hope they can handle the hiring of the new Superintendent with the same amount of deftness and grace.

I wish StacyL had taken an opportunity to speak with all board members in a civil manner prior to launching an uncivil attack on them.

Thank you LisaG for repeating the advice that I could "catch more flies with honey than vinegar."

The fact is that I have tried honey and I still didn't catch any flies.

The fact is that the people who have all of the flies aren't sharing them. Not for honey. Not for vinegar. Not for nothing. I can speak to the people who have the authority to make the decisions. I can speak kindly or I can speak harshly. It doesn't matter how I speak to them because they aren't listening.

Coolpapa,

Politicians only listen when they think they might get un-elected. I'm not sure how many elections it will take before the educational "reformers" and their water carriers like David Brewster and the Seattle Times Editorial Board will listen too, so insurgent candidates will need to keep running and winning until they do.

Wow! A whole lotta passive-aggressive going on here. Not very civil you know.

bubbleator is right. I should have been more specific. They aren't listening to me. They are listening to the people like Nick Hanauer, David Brewster, Tim Burgess, and Lisa McFarlane.

This is the dichotomy that Robin Lake wrote about. I'm on the outside, so they aren't interested in anything I have to say. In fact, anything I say loses merit because it came from me. Ideas are judged by who they come from, not based on their own merit.

Ideas are judged by the people they come from and people are judged by who they stand by. Everyone is grouped as either supporting or opposing Education Reform and their opinions are either valued or rejected based on that alignment. The people who reject the Education Reform agenda reject everything from anyone they associate with Education Reform and vice versa. Even if you are in the middle ground - where most people actually stand - you are pushed into one group or the other and become universally rejected by the opposing group.

This doesn't promise you acceptance from the group you're placed in. They will regard any effort to enter the wide and welcoming middle ground as a betrayal.

This "You're either for us or against us" attitude is no way to make progress. Ideas have to stand or fall on their merit, not on the political affiliations of the people who promote them.

Take, for example, the proposed elementary school in South Lake Union. The School District's enrollment projection says that for the next ten years we will need 70 more elementary seats in that part of the city. The District already has plans to add 200 more elementary school seats at an existing school in the area. That will more than meet the expected demand. So why in the world would the District even consider building an entirely new 500-seat elementary school there? It's a dreadful idea, but they are going to do it because the idea came from the right people.

Now, since there is no local demand for those seats, suppose I, (or Melissa Westbrook, Michelle Buetow or Sue Peters) were propose that the District place the south-end elementary APP cohort there. It's a great location for APP south of the Ship Canal because it's right between Queen Anne/Magnolia and Capitol Hill, where the majority of south-end APP students live. It is also incredibly easy to reach by transit for all of the students living in the south or West Seattle. But that idea will be rejected - not on its merits or faults, but because it doesn't come from the right people. In fact, it would come from exactly the wrong people. Even if it came through the District's own process (if they had one - the District doesn't have a process for program placement) it would be rejected because political affiliations trump everything. There are some other kids in mind for that school.

Why did the District enter into a contract with Teach for America? It was exactly contrary to the District's policy to attract its most expert and experienced teachers into challenging schools and to reduce the teacher turnover in those schools. There is no teacher shortage. Teach for America doesn't actually do any of the things that their supporters claim they do. So why did the District go for it against all reason? Because the idea came from the right people.

Why won't the District replace the instructional materials for math when the inquiry-based, student-led strategies dictated by those materials has failed horribly? Because the idea, no matter how bad, came from the right people. Why have they rejected efforts to replace the materials and strategies with ones that work? Because those ideas came from the wrong people.

There are no principles at work here. Folks will complain about the board, saying that they are "micro-managing" when the board does something they don't like, then they will demand that the board take a hand and intervene when the board doesn't do what they want. Look how Tim Burgess blames the board for elements of the MOU on Creative Approach Schools - a matter that the Board should stay out of. Look at how he never mentioned the superintendent or the central staff's role in that agreement, even though they are the ones who negotiated it with the SEA.

It goes the other way also. Try standing up for any idea or person touched by Education Reform on the saveseattleschools blog. Try suggesting that Dr. Enfield has been a pretty good superintendent who did some good things. Boom. You're the enemy. This polarization doesn't move the conversation forward.

But let's be clear. The problem is not the lack of civility; it is not the tone of the conversation. A little sarcasm and snarkiness aren't preventing conversation or progress. It's the false dichotomies. It's the dueling fortresses on either end with a large no-man's land in between. It's people's refusal come out of their fortress and talk reasonably. It's the assignment of everyone to one side or the other without any nuance or real critical thought. These folks are all adults who can give it as well as take it when it comes to banter. Their delicate sensibilities are not damaged by snark. If that were the case, they would have no business in the rough and tumble of debate.

They aren't opposed to the snark; they are opposed to the debate. They are afraid of a real conversation in which they would have to support their positions with facts and they would have to answer tough questions. They know that the vast majority of the ideas they put forward for Education Reform are empty and do nothing for students. And the folks on the other side know that while the current structures could improve, they rarely do.

I work in an open forum. I do get challenged on my ideas and I have to respond. That has pushed me into the middle ground - the pragmatic center away from either of the ideologically pure extremes. But at least here I am standing on solid ground.

Lynne Varner doesn't engage the people who comment on her editorials. Tim Burgess doesn't engage the people who comment on his blog. School Board directors don't respond to the people who write to them. District officials don't answer questions. No one on the side of Education Reform actually ever comes out of their citadel to defend their faulty proposals.

I don't blame them. I wouldn't do it either if I were they. They don't have to defend their proposals or admit their faults. Their proposals are accepted, complete with all of their faults, because they come from their citadel. And I'm criticized because I'm snarky? What difference does it make if I'm snarky or not? No one is listening to me anyway.

"They aren't opposed to the snark; they are opposed to the debate."

In a nutshell. And all the other words are for naught. Their so-called argument is "We're right and you're not." Good luck trying to reason with them. It's like trying to reason with people who think talking points constitute evidence.

Rereading all this, I realize that these people - these women who are writing on behalf of reform - are infatuated. They are infatuated with the "best and the brightest:" Hanauer, Brewster, Bridge . . .

Ladies, if you unfamiliar with the reference, that is not a compliment.