To Whom do Our Schools Belong?

Seattle, January 12, 1998--Could you do me a favor? Divorce yourself from Seattle Public Schools Superintendent John Stanford’s mindless rhetoric and the Seattle media’s mindless gushing over that rhetoric, just for a moment, and think. Now that you’re thinking, think about this:

If a prominent magazine with a national circulation dispatched an employee to photograph one of America’s most prominent superintendents of a large urban school district at an elementary school, wouldn’t the staff and students of that school be the first to know when the article appeared in print?

In fact, it was December 1996 before I learned that the article had been printed, in Forbes* — the previous September! I had an eerie feeling even before I read the article. It was the same feeling I had when John Stanford appeared at my school, Dearborn Park Elementary, the previous summer, where he was photographed by an ambassador of Forbes.

Why would a crass, money-obsessed, anti-education magazine like Forbes have an interest in the Seattle School District? “Because we have a crass, money-obsessed superintendent!” I laughed to myself. Stanford’s $175,000 salary, the contempt he shows for the taxpayers whose hard-earned dollars support that salary (no questions asked), and his bizarre predilection for modeling schools after corporations — even redesignating principals CEOs — haven’t enhanced the General’s popularity among Seattle teachers and parents.

Also, Stanford isn’t known as one to pass up a chance for publicity. Why Soldier of Fortune hasn’t yet come out with an education special is beyond me.

I tracked down the article, “To Whom Do Our Schools Belong” [No longer online] by Forbes writer Damon Darlin, in the September 23 issue. For a brief moment, I thought I might have misjudged Forbes. Darlin presented Stanford as a staunch opponent of bureaucracy. Delighted that he had admitted to the bureaucracy in which Seattle School District has wallowed as long as I can remember, I couldn’t wait to read about our deservedly despised school board, incompetent principals who are routinely promoted into the central bureaucracy, and the teachers union that watches from the sidelines, excelling primarily at collecting teachers’ dues. What I read next left me feeling as if my face had been slapped.

Mr. Darlin presented Seattle teachers as an example of bureaucracy, noting that “per-pupil spending rose almost 12% since 1991, and average teacher pay was up 22% in the same period”! What’s that? We got a 22% pay raise? Why didn’t someone tell me?!!

Having studied math as a student in public schools, I know that twenty-two percent over a five-year period adds up to an average raise of over 4% per year. I guess I haven’t been keeping close track of Seattle teachers’ rapid climb up the economic ladder towards John Stanford’s near-presidential salary, but I thought we typically got raises every other year at most.* And I thought those raises generally amounted to 2% or 3%, enough to keep up with the cost of living and escalating teachers’ dues, especially when you factor in the extraordinary instability that characterizes public education.

And get this — Forbes’ education expert kind of forgot to mention the truly big pay raise Seattle School District administrators undeniably received recently, despite legislative requests to the contrary!

The district also added as many as five “step increases” to some top salary grades. Could that be part of the reason we’re in such a financial mess now? Could it help explain why we’ve seemingly been in a financial mess every year of my twelve-year teaching career?

Nor did Darlin emphasize that John Stanford is probably the highest paid bureaucrat in Seattle School District’s history, though his article did include the following inspirational incentive: “When kids ask him [Stanford] how much money he makes, he matter-of-factly replies, ‘I make $175,000 a year, and so can you if you read, read, read.’”

Inspired, I wanted to begin reading my way towards a $175,000 position that doesn’t seem to require any cerebral skills. But first I called Seattle School District’s Pentagon to see what upper-level management had to say about the Forbes affair. A woman in the Superintendent’s office said she wasn’t aware of the article. I then called Dorothy Dubia, Seattle School District’s official spokesperson. When I challenged her on the teachers’ 22% pay raise, she readily admitted that the article contained several errors, adding, “we don’t know where they got their information.” I then asked her whether General Stanford had advised the author of the article’s errors. She replied that she “thought” he had “probably” sent them a letter.

I telephoned the author himself and asked him where he got his information. Darlin asserted that he got his data from Seattle School District and that no one ever advised him of any errors. Nor did I see any letters signed “John Henry Stanford” in subsequent issues of Forbes. And it’s hard to believe the folks at Forbes would ignore someone of Stanford’s stature. Between Damon Darlin, John Stanford, and other Seattle School District personnel, someone obviously wasn’t telling the truth.

But I’m getting ahead of myself. Back to that nasty article...

I felt slightly embarrassed as I began to laugh out loud at what I read next: “Of those teachers with household incomes above $70,000, half send their kids to private schools. Even among those with household incomes below $35,000, 16% opt out of their own system.”

Let me put this in perspective. First of all, it’s not our system, you blithering idiot! The administrative-union juggernaut controls our paychecks, benefits, and evaluations and makes most of the decisions about how things are run. 2) Why don’t you take a poll among Seattle School District administrators and find out how many of them opt out of their own system?

The author also cited Stanford’s credo: “We lost our way when we became more interested in the employment of adults than in the education of children.” Compare this to Stanford’s statement about his $175,000-a-year salary, which is, by the way, just $25,000 short of President Bill Clinton’s yearly wage.

If you’re not laughing yet, wait until you hear what the education experts at Forbes have to say about our “union,” the Seattle Education Association! “The Seattle arm of the National Education Association is mobilizing to stop Stanford and Johnson.” (Retired General Julius Johnson is Stanford’s hand-picked chief of staff.)

The union lard-butts that Mr. Darlin seems to respect more than Seattle teachers are scarcely capable of mobilizing, save to preserve their protection racket. But they don’t need to mobilize, for it appears that they’ve found a brilliant gimmick: They’ve admitted that they’ve been protecting bad teachers and state that they will no longer do so. Considering that they never did a good job protecting good teachers, they now have virtually nothing to do but collect dues! By colluding with public school administrations — who traditionally blame their problems on bad teachers — they’ve essentially blended in with the local scenery.

Charter school advocate Jim Spady was quoted as encouraging Stanford to take the union to the mat. School board member Don Nielson worried that further delays might “erode support for Stanford’s crusade.” Noted Darlin, “‘It’s a big risk,’ admits Donald Nielsen, a wealthy retired medical research company chief executive and one of Stanford’s strong supporters on the school board.’” (Notice how Forbes’ public education heroes all just happen to be wealthy?)

Stoically, Stanford replied, “I’m not worried about the union. People will respond to leadership.” (Or lack of it, I would have added.) Of course, Stanford isn’t worried about the union! They appear to have a nice, cozy arrangement. I guess it’s part of the honeymoon package that Stanford got with local media and public officials.

I urge teachers across America to get a copy of this Forbesian satire on public education in which overpaid, incompetent bureaucrats are the heroes who are struggling against all odds to rescue schools from teachers who don’t give a damn about kids. (Read this outrageous article on the Internet! [No longer online]) Shove it in your “superiors’” faces the next time they rail about teachers being overpaid. Next, I suggest you contact Damon Darlin, and tell him what you think about his “education news.” To keep relations with the folks at Forbes cordial, you might add something like, “I thought Steve Forbes proposed ‘flat tax,’ was a novel idea, though!”

Next to last, we need to let John Stanford know that his relations with Forbes are “inappropriate and unacceptable.” Those are the words Stanford used in warning a group of principals not to discuss one of his new policies at a school board meeting (“Schools to tinker with formula,” Dick Lilly, The Seattle Times, Dec. 5, 1996).

And, finally, we must give Stanford the answer to the question that served as the title of that bizarre Forbes article, To whom do our schools belong?

At a Meeting at Seattle’s Arbor Heights Elementary School on June 13, disgruntled teachers from several schools gathered to vent their outrage at John Stanford and his union counterpart, Roger Erskine. Among the many issues that were raised was SEA’s curious failure to counter anti-teacher propaganda. I brought up Stanford’s slick PR piece in Forbes.

SEA President Verleeta Wooten agreed the article was sleazy, pointing out that Forbes is anti-education (so why did Stanford collaborate with them?). When I complained that Stanford had, to the best of my knowledge, done nothing to counter the ill-conceived and ill-executed article, Ms. Wooten replied that the Seattle School Board sent a letter of reprimand to Forbes.

I obtained a copy of the letter, signed by board president Linda Harris, and quickly pronounced it unacceptable. First of all, it lacks the signature of John Stanford, who also should have sent written apologies to teachers who were insulted by the article.

Moreover, Ms. Harris completely missed the mark. “We have grave concerns over your suggestion that the relationship between the union and school district is one of contention and opposition.” Fellow teachers who believe that the union and administration are sleeping with each other would likely agree with me that Ms. Harris was right on target here! But what about that theoretical 22% teachers’ pay raise, highlighted by the flippant arrogance of Stanford’s near-presidential salary and the complete omission of recent striking administrative pay raises?

Writes Ms. Harris, “The fact that Seattle Public Schools and Seattle Education Association are breaking new ground in management and union relationships should have been your headline. This is happening because of the outstanding leadership of John Stanford, a non-traditional superintendent, and Roger Erskine, a very traditional union leader from the National Education Association. Both men are strong leaders willing to take risks to improve education for our children.”

Allow me to paraphrase Ms. Harris towards the truth: The fact that Seattle Public Schools and Seattle Education Association are sleeping together at the public’s expense should have been your headline. This is happening because of the obsession of John Stanford, an arrogant ex-general, and Roger Erskine, a far too traditional union leader from the National Education Association, with money and power. Both men are strong leaders, thanks to the unwavering support of the public education mafia that supports them, and are willing to sell-out teachers, and therefore parents and students, to get what they want.

Ms. Wooten mentioned something about Forbes printing a second article, apparently focusing on Seattle School District. I’ll have to track it down and kill it.