HELP! In investigating and reporting on the bizarre rhetoric and shadowy actions of Seattle Schools Superintendent and EgoMaster John Stanford, I’m worried that I may have sacrificed my grip on sanity! Or is my mind merely being destroyed by the grade-school reporting that’s kept Stanfordmania on the front burner for 2 1/2 years now?
On January 6, 1998, Seattle was abuzz with news that Stanford might be leaving. While teachers silently celebrated, the establishment treated it like a natural disaster. In fact, the media’s coverage of Stanford’s various announcements, denials, and refusals to comment on his reported decision to, ultimately, refuse (according to some versions) an alleged job offer(s) from the private sector — one of many he allegedly receives 24 hours a day — was a catastrophe.
It might have been a great story if The Seattle Times, Post-Intelligencer, and KOMO-TV News had compared notes and at least got their chronology right. I pieced the story together like the wreckage of a hapless airliner:
1) January 5 — Stanford looks Seattle School Board President Barbara Schaad-Lamphere “in the eye” and tells her, “I love my job. I intend to stay here. I have work to do.” (“Stanford turns down job offer,” Dick Lilly & Jolayne Houtz, The Seattle Times)
2) January 6 — Stanford “has confirmed that he is considering a job offer.” (“Stanford says he’s looking at job offer,” Ruth Teichroeb, Seattle-Post-Intelligencer)
3) Later that same day — “Stanford turns down job offer” (Dick Lilly & Jolayne Houtz, Seattle Times)
4) Still later — KOMO News announces that Stanford wouldn’t confirm or deny whether he was looking at another job, adding, “Even his staff is eager to see what’s up.”
5) January 7 — Stanford announces that the story was greatly exaggerated (like his salary and ego?).
6) It’s revealed that Stanford had already renewed his contract, which obligates him to stay until July 1999. So why was there any story at all, exaggerated or not?
Can teachers plug this Stanfordventure into some curriculum? “OK, boys and girls, what’s wrong with this picture?”
About the only thing approaching a verifiable fact I got out of this epic non-story is the revelation that Stanford had earlier declined a job offer from Disney, who offered him twice his Superintendent’s salary of almost $200,000. (And no one I know has verified a Disney job offer.) He says he farmed that job out to a friend so that he could stick with the most important mission he’s ever commanded.
Or did Stanford merely stick his friend with the job to avoid the embarrassment of having to don a Mickey Mouse costume?
The thought of Stanford prancing around in a Goofy costume or making incompetent teachers walk the plank in a Pirates of the Caribbean theme park reminds me that truth has always been stranger than fiction in Seattle School District. If you aren’t already vomiting, read on for more commentary on the January 6 Stanford Crisis.
The Stanford Crisis:
What’s Wrong With This Picture?
Stanford’s fan club seems to be an illusion. Teichroeb said that news of the potential loss of Seattle School District’s hottest ticket alarmed the “president of a student-parents ’ group.” Just one? School Board member Don Nielsen was quoted in the press and on TV, but where were his colleagues? Only Board President Barbara Schaad-Lamphere was quoted in the Times.
Don Nielsen interpreted Stanford’s reference to the levies as “an opportunity to let the voters know he really wants the levy to pass.” Why would Nielsen have to “interpret” this reference? Doesn’t Stanford’s #1 disciple talk to the General face-to-face?
Nielsen sang Stanford’s praises and said his departure would be a great loss. But he doubted that Stanford would jump ship when the job of reforming the Seattle School District is but half finished. Huh? Stanford has already empowered incompetent principals, created and broken a magic “Trust Agreement,” given us a revolutionary teachers contract which some educators fear transforms them into something akin to disposable razor blades, crawled into bed with America’s largest union, alienated entire staffs and communities, driven one of Washington State’s most honored educators away, and driven The Seattle Times and P-I even deeper into the editorial gutter, all while serving as a lying, egotistical, money-obsessed role model for Seattle’s youth. And he’s only half through? God help us! Though I don’t agree that Stanford’s departure would be a great loss for most normal people, I can’t help but shed a tear for Don Nielsen.
Aside from Don Nielsen, the only thread uniting the media’s all-over-the-map coverage of Seattle’s latest John Stanfordventure is the school district’s consistent denial that it was connected with an approaching education levy vote. If you can accept the theory that these people are pathological liars, then that loosely translates, “Stanford’s spur-of-the-moment job announcement was merely a pathetic stunt calculated to generate support for the levy.”
Coming hard on the heels of Stanford’s bizarre endorsement of Windermere Real Estate, I ask myself, “Is Stanford trying to shoot down his own vision?”
Stanford’s little adventure played out most spectacularly on television. Here are some of the highlights of KOMO News’ January 6 coverage:
• A grinning parent declares that he can’t even remember Stanford’s predecessor’s name; he thinks Stanford really cares.
• Announcer: “Stanford doesn’t want to talk about leaving.” (So why did he spark the rumor?)
• School Board Education Systems Expert Don Nielsen: “Losing him would be a crisis, an unmitigated crisis.”
• Seattle Mayor Paul Schell: “He has demonstrated the openness and creativity...” needed to get the job done. Openness? Come back to Earth, Paul! So much action in one short broadcast! It almost seems as if it was all staged...
What is it about John Stanford that brings out the stupidity in people? I say, if John Stanford wants to leave, let’s make him leave sooner!
P.S. Seattle’s media isn’t totally lost. Columnist James Bush came through in the January 14 issue of The Seattle Weekly. In his piece, “Can you spare a dime?” [No longer online] Bush writes “The voters don’t take kindly to this sort of blackmail, nor are most of them likely to agree with the general that his $200,000 annual take is woefully inadequate.” One can get more solid education news and sensible commentary condensed in a James Bush column than in a week’s worth of Seattle Times and P-I’s. And the Weekly is free!
Will Seattle Schools Superintendent John Stanford’s characteristically stupid political blunder sway voters to shoot down a critical education levy? Read False Alarm!
Can the city that’s leading America in education reform scrape together enough money to hang onto Earth’s premier education reformer and one-man employment agency? Read John Stanford: Affirmative Action, Inc.
The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism - 
