This foray into the Stanford Zone begins with Bantam’s recent announcement that it will delay publishing John Stanford’s book, Victory in Our Schools, for a year. They reportedly didn’t think it prudent to publish it when Stanford was ill and therefore unable to help publicize it.

But is it conceivable that the Seattle establishment bribed Bantam to scrap Stanford’s book? I recently received an anonymous tip that said just that!

Given the bizarre antics of the Seattle establishment since Stanford arrived in Seattle, the Bantam rumor is hardly unusual. Following are seven reasons why it merits consideration and investigation:

On Closer Inspection...

Let me elaborate on the last three points.

Why Would Bantam Delay Publication of Stanford’s Book?

It is widely reported that Bantam paid John Stanford a $400,000 advance for his book, Victory in Our Schools. It was scheduled to be published in August, but Bantam recently announced a one year delay. Their explanation seems reasonable: Stanford is too ill with leukemia to help promote his book.

But a more thoughtful analysis begs some questions. Aren’t the folks at Bantam aware that the odds of Stanford recovering are grim? Even John Stanford can’t sign autographs from the grave.

In fact, Stanford may never be more marketable than he is right now. Even when confined to a hospital, he has been consistently making front page news in Seattle. Recent local headlines have publicized a Torchlight Parade dedicated to Stanford, a gathering of principals to record a song in his honor, Hollywood’s interest in the John Stanford story, and a September 3 back-to-school rally that threatens to turn into another Superbowl. An article about Stanford recently appeared in USA Today, and he was later publicized on a NBC news program.

Publication of Stanford’s book would throw still more fuel on the fire. Stanford is a publisher’s dream come true.

But even John Stanford can’t hog the limelight forever. If his book is published a year after he passes away, the media frenzy will have long since dissipated. If he survives another year, he may well be too weak to help promote it. And his very survival is a mighty big IF.

Could Stanford’s Book Survive Scrutiny?

John Stanford’s book is advertised on Amazon.com as 288 pages. Even Stanford’s rhetoric and the education wisdom he gained on the battlefield couldn’t fill a book that size.

The nation has been told that John Stanford knows the secrets for reforming large public school districts in 2.5 years. Teachers, parents, educrats, education reporters, and political leaders will be eager to learn Stanford’s secrets and apply them to other districts. More than rhetoric, readers will be looking for solid information on how Stanford managed to put the “public” back in public education. In other words, Stanford’s book will be scrutinized.

So what did Stanford write about? He would have been a fool to mention his grandest experiment, Meany Middle School. Even his staunch ally, the Seattle Times, printed a recent editorial critical of that fiasco. No school demonstrates Stanford’s ballyhooed cooperation with Big Business better than T.T. Minor. Oops! I forgot, T.T. Minor parents were still protesting at a school board meeting last spring.

Stanford could write about the importance of choosing and training strong leaders to serve as CEOs. But what if his fan club learns about the principals that Stanford promoted into the central bureaucracy? What if they get wind of the stunning exposé the Seattle Post-Intelligencer recently printed?

Stanford can’t even write about his top-level aides, most of whom have abandoned ship! OK, so his assistant superintendent, Arlene Ackerman, quit for a higher-paying job in D.C. But she’s been making headlines for her mass firings of incompetent administrators. Stanford has yet to fire #1. He certainly wouldn’t want to mention his former chief of personnel, Tom Weeks, who quit without advance notice, then blew the whistle on Stanford’s failure to evaluate principals.

Stanford has been widely praised for cooperating with the teachers union. But the teachers union itself has been under fire for rampant corruption and incompetence.

Stanford has received noncritical acclaim for engineering a “Trust Agreement” and revolutionary new teacher’s contract. But what if word leaks out that the contract has more holes than a sieve? I have a SEA document that indicates Stanford may scarcely grasp the bare fundamentals of the contract.

So, I think the answer to my question is “No.” Stanford couldn’t possibly write a book that would hold up under scrutiny.

What happened to John Stanford’s Vision???

Last spring, the Seattle Times printed an article about a derelict Seattle School Board retreat. The retreat had been planned to receive John Stanford’s vision for Seattle Schools. Five- and ten-year visions were mentioned, and school board members insisted that they were absolutely vital to Seattle Schools’ success.

When Stanford was released from the hospital, he was shown on TV returning to work. He claimed he could only work half days, which translates into about eight hours a day. It was reported that he had a new weight-lifting machine in his office and that he was also finishing up his book. Still another report revealed that Stanford was contemplating indulging one of his hobbies, restoring Mustangs. A magazine from Virginia Mason Hospital features Stanford on the front cover, seated at a concert grand piano he bought on a whim, even though he can’t play.

Stanford certainly had time and energy to do a lot of things. But committing his vision to paper wasn’t one of them. I’ve phoned Seattle Schools several times only to be transferred to the Superintendent’s office, then to the School Board, the public relations office and back. Obviously, Stanford never had a vision.

That’s what it all boils down to. Stanford never had a clue about education, still doesn’t have a clue, and never could have a clue. And that would be painfully obvious in his book.

Ironically, Stanford’s book could and probably would turn into a monumental embarrassment for the very people who have unquestioningly supported him. It could also grievously damage Bantam’s reputation.

So what better way for both the Seattle establishment and Bantam to preserve their image than to arrange a tidy little deal? Since Seattle Schools will benefit from an independent performance audit when Hell freezes over, it would be the logical source of funds for such a bribe. Half-a-million, one million, even the two-and-a-half million dollars SEA Executive Director Roger Erskine said it would cost to finance a performance audit would scarcely be missed from the $425 million Seattle Schools was awarded in last spring’s levy.

It was recently reported that an “anonymous donor” is contributing $100,000 to the Stanford Book Fund, which seems as ill as Stanford himself. Are all these anonymous donors dipping into money that taxpayers thought was destined for the classroom?

In summary, I have no proof whatsoever that Bantam was bribed to withhold John Stanford’s book. All I have to go on is an anonymous tip, a lot of logic, and the Seattle establishment’s reputation for similarly bizarre and sleazy stunts.

The scary thing is that this rumor is so damned believable. Oh yes, there’s also an Al Gore connection.