In 2007 when the Seattle School Board was considering Maria Goodloe-Johnson for Superintendent, I remarked that she was a "non-finisher", having
held her job [in Charleston, SC] only three and a half years and is barely half-way through her 6-year "Plan for Excellence".My comment:
you'd think that the Board would want a Superintendent who's had a track record of substantial accomplishments over time, or at least finishes what they start.She's lasted exactly three and a half years here too, and is barely half-way through her 5-year "Excellence for All" plan.
And how Excellent are we All? Per the latest "Report Card", "Excellence" means, for example, that 80% of 4th graders are "proficient on the state math test" by 2013. Since 2008, that percentage has risen from 56% to 62% -- sufficient to be declared, with only 3 of 22 other targets, as "On-Track for 2013".
The fraud in the system is much bigger than $1.8 million.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at March 02, 2011 04:32 PM | Email ThisThink the Seattle School District would consider a white man for the Superintendent position...even if he were by far the best candidate? Never in a million years.
Posted by: Saltherring on March 3, 2011 07:04 AMI would have fired them on the spot, but then again, they were probably ordered by the board of directors to seek such a result. It's a little bit different out here in the hicks where our minority population isn't large. The search team comes in and says they don't think this person would be a good fit because of gender/or race and we tell them we don't care if they are a transexual martian, if they are the best qualified for the job we want them.
I guess in enlightened Seattle, the Council of School Officials (as Ayn Rand would likely call them) are infinitely wise and their prejudgement should be ordained as just and moral and beneficial to all personkind and if they so desire a female person of color, then that person will be the best for the job.
Posted by: doug on March 7, 2011 10:55 PM