Public Schools Rescue or Coup?

On this page you’ll find profiles of four of the first schools John Stanford stomped during his reign of terror. Cooper and McClure eventually improved in spite of Stanford, at the expense of Loyal Heights Elementary School. T. T. Minor and Meany remain deeply troubled.

T.T. Minor Elementary School

During my substitute days, one of my favorite and most regular assignments was in a preschool class at T.T. Minor, an underprivileged school at 17th and East Union. The school gained notoriety when it was adopted by Stuart Sloane, millionaire owner of Quality Food Centers and the University Village Shopping Center.

Through Sloan’s generosity, the mostly poor students who attend “the New School” would receive three square meals a day, new computers, extended services, and more. It almost seemed too good to be true. Perhaps it was.

As reported by Ben Jacklet in The Stranger (May 15, 1997) [No longer online], Virna-lisi McHenry’s first-grader came home from school one day and said, “Mom, I’m put out of school.” Commented Ms. McHenry, “Parents found out that day that the board was planning to hold a vote on what’s called phasing out. Not only phasing out our kids, but phasing out our teachers too.” Holly Miller, Sloan’s project manager, noted that the dramatic changes T.T. Minor will soon undergo would make it easier to start over with a blank slate.

Sloan’s generous offer was greeted with a demonstration at the grand opening of a new QFC mega-store. “Since we were notified of this project in November,” McHenry lamented, “parents have not been told anything. We really don’t know what’s going to happen to our kids. No one ever came to the community and asked us what we thought or what we needed. What do they care what we think? We’re just poor people and black people.” Notes Jacklet, “She has not heard of a single offer extended to anyone from the neighborhood to be involved with the school’s governing board.”

John Stanford conceded their mistake, commenting, “We should have done better community work.”

Stanford deserves credit for owning up to his mistake, and, from what I’ve heard, the district has mended fences with parents. To his credit, Mr. Sloan maintains his commitment, though his experiment in education has been postponed until fall 1998.

The only thing that bothers me was the timing. The preceding events took place about the end of Stanford’s second year on the job, and he’d endured several earlier firestorms that were provoked by behind-the-scenes maneuvering. When is Stanford going to learn?

Cooper Elementary School

Cooper Elementary School in West Seattle offers some insights into John Stanford’s “leadership” style. It’s a challenging school, where most of the students — who speak over a dozen languages — are bused. Cooper was a troubled school when Stanford came on board, and teachers and parents knew exactly what the problem was: Principal Sharon Aune.

One might guess that Stanford agreed. Remember when Stanford unveiled his plan to reassign principals? The first switch announced was between Sharon Aune and David Ackerman, then principal at Loyal Heights.

So why did Ballard News-Tribune editor Randal Anderson entitle an article about Ms. Aune’s arrival at Loyal Heights “A caring spirit drew principal to new post” (October 2, 1996)? [No longer online] Wouldn’t a more appropriate title be “Incompetent principal given easier assignment”? Some teachers and parents I visited with claim the article, in which Ms. Aune seems to blame many of her problems on the community, is filled with errors. A West Seattle parent-activist described the article to me as very degrading to the community and Cooper’s staff.

The article might not have stung so much if Stanford had simply switched principals. But it didn’t end there. I’m told that, upon his arrival at Cooper, Ackerman handed Cooper’s head teacher a letter of demotion with John Stanford’s signature.

I’m not qualified to venture into much detail, but Stanford’s letter touched off a firestorm that resulted in the administrative transfer of the head teacher, a petition-drive by her colleagues, and the subsequent transfer of at least one other teacher. (I’m told one teacher sent Stanford a letter with 30 signatures. True to form, Stanford reportedly never replied.)

Keeping in mind that Stanford’s chain-of-command makes it much easier for principals to communicate with the General than teachers, I would venture to speculate that Sharon Aune may have blamed some of Cooper’s problems on the head teacher, who, I’ve been told, was generally more competent than Aune. Teachers allegedly relied on her more, and she had far more support from the community some observers say Aune seemed to despise.

Though most people would agree that Cooper now has a more capable principal, it’s a shame Stanford had to screw up one of the few intelligent decisions he has made to date by walking all over the staff and thumbing his nose at the community.

Incidentally, rumors of discontent have been leaking out of Aune's new command, Loyal Heights, where I once taught. I’d like to hear from any teachers or parents who can fill me in on the details.

McClure Middle School

Just how much contempt would Stanford display for community in propping up a bad principal? Just how far down would Stanford let a bad principal drag a school before he stepped in to help?

These are not hypothetical questions; they were answered in grand style at McClure Middle School, which had languished for years under a pre-CEO principal named Beatrice Cox who was popularly regarded as autocratic. One parent alleged that “Parents associated Cox with the school’s chronic discipline problems, low academic expectations and a lack of welcome or development of community support for the school.” (“Parents, staff force McClure principal out,” The Seattle Times, Jan. 7, 1997)

  In addition, McClure was used as something of a dumping ground for students who were expelled from other middle schools. The seriousness of the situation is indicated by a parent’s reminiscing, “The main thing we were worried about is that there were at least a half-dozen teachers — and some people think as many as 15 — who were going to leave next year if she stayed.” (Ibid)

So the community decided to usher in the new year with a new principal. A delegation of 20-25 teachers and parents visited Stanford and asked for the principal’s resignation. Their success was advertised in the above-mentioned headline: “Parents, staff force McClure principal out.”

In a familiar example of arrogance and stupidity, Stanford fired off a letter to the editor asserting that the headline was “erroneous.” Explained the General, “The decision to leave McClure was made by the principal herself after she had served six years as principal at the school. She believed that it would be very difficult to accomplish her goals for the students without the full support of parents and staff.”

In other words, the guilty parties were the teachers and parents who cared less about their own children than did the principal, who alone had set goals for them. As I understand it, it isn’t a principal’s job to support teachers, let alone parents; it’s the other way around! Nice try, but no cigar.

I can point out at least five BIG mistakes Stanford made in connection with McClure:

BIG Mistake #1: He refused to listen to the community when they first complained about the principal. Or, if he did, he refused to take action. (BIG Clue #1: If staff and parents say a principal is unfit for duty, that principal is unfit for duty. Period.)

BIG Mistake #2: When the media reported that the staff and parents had forced the principal out, Stanford refused to admit that he had erred in not solving the problem earlier. Submistake 2b: He made an even bigger ass out of himself by saying something incredibly childish. Stanford’s words can be translated, “The principal wasn’t forced out; she chose to leave because no one would support her.”

This further erodes Stanford’s credibility and raises an interesting question: If the principal had not chosen to leaver her post, would Stanford have left her in place, still deaf to the ever louder complaints of teachers and parents united in community? What if the entire staff had walked out, and no other teachers could be coerced into replacing them? Would Stanford have left the principal in the building all alone? (Staff meetings would have been short and sweet!) If so, would parents have sent their children to a school staffed only by a principal (a bad one at that)?

As a diversion from such tiresome adultissues (one of Stanford’s favorite education buzzwords, which translates, “I don’t want to discuss it”), let me try my hand at a little humor, with an imaginary letter from John Stanford:

“Dear Mr. Education Reporter, Your article about McClure Middle School completely missed the mark. The staff and parents DID NOT force this principal out. She chose to resign, just as I chose to back off from my advertising-in-schools campaign and half a dozen other ideas that I launched without consulting anyone outside the school board (whom even I seldom consult; after all, they were stupid enough to hire me!), which in turn chose to can a series of illegal secret meetings after the mindless media that worships me threatened a lawsuit.

“Moreover, she chose to resign because the staff wasn’t supporting her. Indeed, the entire community neglected to support her. If I could fire the entire community, I would. But even I don’t have that much power. Not yet, anyway. Therefore, the principal chose to resign and take an exciting, challenging job in the central bureaucracy that just happened to be open at the time. Just as I chose to invite the FBI to investigate one of my employees some time ago, shortly before he chose to resign, following in the footsteps of other satisfied employees who chose to resign, such as long-time district attorney Mike Hoge and Personnel wizard, Ricardo Cruz.”

BIG Mistake #3: A McClure teacher advised me that Stanford visited their beleaguered school and showed gross insensitivity in slamming the teachers, who had let “adult issues” interfere with their mission. (According to this teacher, Stanford also said, “As soon as you decide you don’t want me here anymore, I’m gone.” (If this is true, then McClure’s teachers deserve to be slammed for not accepting Stanford’s invitation!) Now I hate to lecture a general about adult issues, but when a group of devoted teachers, who have been slugging it out in the trenches, only to see their efforts undermined by an incompetent CEO, finally decide it’s time to migrate, you don’t boost their morale by insulting them, especially when you’re the arrogant nincompoop who failed to support them in the first place.

BIG Mistake #4: The principal who was removed from McClure Middle School was given a new assignment in the central bureaucracy: secondary-education science-curriculum coordinator. Quite a stroke of luck that this position just happened to be open halfway through the school year, huh? (Can anyone in the central bureaucracy tell me if Ms. Cox also got a raise? Could local media be coaxed into prying this information out of administrative headquarters?) Think about that the next time you’re asked to vote for an education levy.

Incidentally, the parents McClure Middle School serves include Ricardo Cruz, who was one of the most hated people in Seattle School District when he resigned as personnel czar, shortly after John Stanford came on board. As I mentioned earlier, it was widely speculated that Stanford had somehow forced him out, which struck me as one of the few really intelligent things Stanford has done in Seattle. Some people have further speculated that some sort of feud between Stanford and Cruz complicated Stanford’s handling of McClure’s problems.

If this is true, it’s too bad an entire community had to get caught in the middle of such adultissues!

BIG Mistake #5: Stanford didn’t learn a thing from the four BIG Mistakes discussed above. (See Meany Middle School, below).

Meany Middle School

I remember, several years ago, hearing a little girl, about first grade age, joking that Meany Middle School got its name because “the people there are so mean.” I was reminded of her words when John Stanford saddled Meany Middle School with a principal named Marella Griffin, recalling a newspaper article about principals that hinted at her lack of people skills.

Like McClure, Meany was a troubled school that cried out for intervention. And it got it.

If you know anything about John Stanford’s leadership style and knowledge of classroom politics, you may have already guessed that this education experiment ended in failure. And it’s one problem that can’t be blamed — at least not entirely — on the Seattle Education Association (“teachers union”), because Stanford’s hand-picked principal was given the luxury of choosing her staff.

In the early days of the experiment, Griffin ruffled feathers by purging Meany of a popular husband-and-wife teaching team. She recruited a number of teachers from elementary schools, which some people say was a mistake.

Other mistakes were made that can also be passed off as learning experiences. But Griffin’s personality seemed to be a major factor in her ultimate exit from the experiment, according to an article in The Seattle Times, “Meany principal decides to leave: She sparked anger among teachers, parents.” Ironically, Griffin couldn’t seem to get along with some of the teachers she selected, allegedly threatening some with unsatisfactory evaluations — and apparently making good on her word. Quoting from the Times article: “Now, teachers who say they received poor evaluations from Griffin this year, or left the school because of friction with her, wonder what they should do and if their evaluations will be reconsidered.”

I might add that teachers spoke to the Times on condition of anonymity, fearing for their careers. Attention, teachers who are pondering the forthcoming vote on your contract: What does this tell you about the new atmosphere of “trust” the administration and union have been dancing in?

In fact, Meany raises a lot of questions. Will Stanford and his hand-picked CEO accept any responsibility for student performance, or will it all fall on the shoulders of the teachers who were caught in the middle? Did the administration warn Meany’s teachers about Griffin’s temperament? Did it warn them not to speak to the media? And what about that teachers union we’ve all heard rumors about? Did they do anything to help Meany’s beleaguered teachers, or did they, as usual, watch from the sidelines, as neutral as Switzerland?

Hint: I would like to hear from teachers or parents who can fill me in on some of the details!

In the meantime, I find it somehow humorous that this example of top-down management ended with the principal allegedly persecuting the very teachers she chose, and the General who let her choose whisking her into the bowels of Seattle School District’s central bureaucracy, her CEO’s salary intact. Hopefully, Meany finally taught Stanford something about top-down management in a school district that has been assaulted from the top since longer than I can remember. The last two sentences of an article, “Military man takes on problem city” (The Times Educational Supplement, Nov. 29, 1997)*, are either humorous or scary, depending on whether or not you depend on teaching for your livelihood:

“His [Stanford’s] promise to close schools if necessary has been one of his most controversial policies, and so far Meany is the only example.

“But he warned: ‘I may have to do it again.’”

. . . . Let us pray.