John Stanford’s Report Card

Given Seattle Public Schools Superintendent John Stanford’s incessant harping about teacher accountability (like we aren’t already) and assessments (like we don’t have enough already) and experimental evaluations (like allowing students to evaluate teachers), it’s only fair that Stanford be evaluated in turn. And who’s better qualified to evaluate a public schools superintendent than...the media???

Local media certainly tackled this job with enthusiasm! They virtually canonized Stanford before I even knew his predecessor (who I only saw once over the course of a decade) had retired (shortly after asking for a pay hike so he could get a bigger retirement check; for what, I really don’t know). But the first bona fide evaluation of Seattle’s new education czar, that I’m aware of, appeared in The Seattle Times on February 22, 1996, and was pretty much summed up by the title — “City expects a lot, but Stanford so far earns mostly A’s.”

According to authors Jolayne Houtz and Dick Lilly, Stanford’s “report card” was “based on interviews with more than three dozen people — board members, teachers, principals, administrative staff, parents, students, politicians, community leaders and other superintendents.” Considering the lack of bias on the part of the school board that hired Stanford and the overpaid administrators who surround him in the Pentagon (an affectionate term for Seattle School District headquarters), the impartiality of community leaders, and the fact that about all teachers and parents knew about Stanford was what they had read in local newspapers — whose education reporters seemingly get most of their education news from administrative headquarters yet know more about public schools than teachers themselves — one is hard put to question the accuracy of the report card they issued:

A+ Public Relations “Best cheerleader and morale booster Seattle’s schools have ever had.”

A- Leadership Skills (The minus was inspired by Stanford’s infamous trial balloons.)

A Initiative

I Financial Planning (“‘Incomplete’ because his impact on district’s serious financial woes hasn’t yet been felt,” but including “High marks for honesty.” Remember, Stanford has said time and again, “We have no secrets,” therefore, they don’t!)

Since, six months into his career, Stanford hadn’t yet done much damage, the above report card can probably be given a B or C.

In my book Teacher With an Attitude, itself a report card on public education and education reform in general and Seattle School District in particular, I reported on another report card, one that left out impartial school board members, administrators, community leaders, and media. This report card was issued by parents, who were asked about their satisfaction with John Stanford, along with teachers, principals, and the Seattle School Board. (Drum roll....)

A cursory glance at the results indicates there’s something horribly wrong with Seattle parents. How could their scores be so out of whack with those given by Seattle Times education reporters? How could they invert Stanford’s sacred chain of command, placing teachers at the top, with the school board that recruited Stanford on the bottom and principals sandwiched in between?

And how can it be that 19% of the parents “Don’t Know” what to think of Stanford, while the school board’s DK ratio is 25%? Don’t these people ever talk to parents or visit schools?

Stoically, Stanford vowed that he would earn higher scores the next time around. But I don’t remember seeing a parent survey for spring 1997. Was it given again? I recall an education reporter from the Seattle Post-Intelligencer telling me that the school district wouldn’t turn over the results of the first survey until they threatened them with a lawsuit. Why is the district so sensitive about surveys?

Fortunately, Stanford made good on his word to boost his ratings, parents be damned. This time around he wisely returned to the media (“Stanford’s Second-Year Report Card,” Sue Lockett John, Seattle’s Child & Eastside Parent, June 1997).

A+ Charisma

A- Effort Stanford reported that he’s been putting in 16 to 18-hour days, six or seven days a week. Commented the author, “Many staff and teachers are working almost as hard. Sixty hour weeks are common for principals and teachers trying to keep up with growing loads of assessments, budget meetings, training sessions and student needs.”

A- Leadership “‘Make that an A+ for the support he gives every principal and every parent,’ says Luevennie Bridges, principal of T.T. Minor Elementary.”

A- Finance

A- Student Safety

B+ Works well with others The author noted Stanford’s alleged allergy to public criticism and added a note of caution: “Ellen Roe, the school board’s institutional memory, thinks he could ‘save a lot of time and energy’ by picking up the phone and asking for advice. ‘This superintendent works much more independently than any of the six I’ve worked with.” [God forbid he ask advice of a teacher!]

D- Health habits Apparently, Stanford is working too hard.

I (Incomplete) Student Achievement

As the author noted, the School Board that ranked at the bottom of the parents’ survey will give Stanford (who they hired) his official report card in September, adding, “His mid-term progress report on March 19 showed him heading toward high marks again this year. Board President Linda Harris particularly praised his communication skills and his management of the district’s $330 million building and renovation program.”

I know I’m just a stupid teacher, but do you think my colleagues and I might get in on the action? Yes, I know, The Seattle Times and Seattle’s Child & Eastside Parent both queried teachers and parents, but they also surveyed the upper crust, which as most teachers know, is alarmingly out of touch with Seattle’s public schools. Since parents were given their own evaluation, the school board (which hired Stanford, some say largely to make them look good) gets to give him his OFFICIAL evaluation, and Stanford allowed students to evaluate teachers (some of whom were traumatized by the ordeal), I think it’s only fair that the collective wisdom of Seattle’s teachers be tapped in evaluating our education czar.

In fact, towards the end of last school year I attended a meeting at Arbor Heights Elementary School where a number of teachers from three different schools who had been insulted by Stanford told the president of our “teachers union” that they wanted a chance to evaluate Stanford.* Given the Seattle Education Association’s reputation for springing into action on behalf of teachers like a half-starved tiger, I’m amazed I haven’t heard of any further developments. But then, they’re busy trying to frighten teachers into accepting a contract that is designed with Kids First! in mind, one that teachers ought to leap at, considering it includes an astonishing 3% pay raise (pay attention, Forbes!) and virtually guarantees fair treatment to teachers who are already protected by a sterling Trust Agreement which John Stanford & Co. and their union counterparts imported and crafted behind our backs.

Pardon my arrogance — and Stanford’s, too. While the General says he’s from Camelot, I’m from West DakOta, and I have a tendency to take the bull by the horns. So, without further rhetoric about the children who are the center of my universe (and Stanford’s, too — adultissues be damned!), here’s my evaluation of Seattle’s #1 educator.

A+ - Charisma Seems like everyone’s singing Stanford’s tune, even if they haven’t figured out exactly what adultissues means!

A+ - Public Relations Who else gets such positive coverage in the media?

A+ - Effort Unfortunately, he’s channeling his efforts in the wrong direction, giving God-like powers to principals-cum-CEOs at the expense of teachers and parents.

A - Works well with others Unfortunately, the “others” he works with are seldom teachers or parents.

B - Student Safety As far as I can tell, they’re about as safe as they were before Stanford came on board, though perhaps not at Dearborn Park Elementary School! Our CEO’s get tough-NOT policy on discipline, combined with the lack of support she gave teachers created, in my opinion, a potentially dangerous situation on the playground.

A - Health habits How can a man who spends so much time shooting the breeze and signing autographs be unhealthy?

F - Leadership Public schools are a cornerstone of democracy, and what is democracy without communication, which Stanford has done everything to stifle? Make that an F- for the unconditional support he gives even the worst principals.

? - Finance Who could possibly grade this, given Stanford’s hot-cold response to demands for a performance audit in spring 1996 and the secrecy that characterizes Seattle School District’s central money exchange?

I - Student Achievement Yeah, I’ve seen all the articles and school district bulletins gloating over increasing student scores. (That chart that makes it look like our students our bound for Mars really caught my attention!) Did you really think you could tell teachers (most of whom were already working as hard as they could, frequently without administrative support) to raise their test scores or else and not get the statistics you were looking for? Come to think of it, scores are slightly higher state-wide, I understand. How did you manage that?

Oh yes, according to Seattle’s Child & Eastside Parent, Alliance for Education President Robin Pasquarella included “leadership training for principals” among Stanford’s accomplishments. I’m certainly happy that Stanford smooth-talked Wells Fargo into giving us $100,000 (the first time around) for such a noble cause. But why didn’t this training apparently do anything for the principals of Dearborn Park Elementary School and the ex-principals of McClure and Meany Middle Schools, among others? Could Wells Fargo please insist that our principals be trained to at least spend more time in the schools that Stanford has turned into businesses which they can run as they see fit? Why are they running around town to civic functions and luncheons like a bunch of CEOs... Oops, I forgot!