Last Night: Seattlest News Team Goes To The School Board Debate

In the last few years, Seattle Public Schools have been through oodles of turmoil. A Superintendent that was, by all counts, basically a one-woman disaster, financial mismanagement, a lack of oversight, disagreements over curricula, and a staggering achievement gap have all haunted the members of the School Board, who are essentially crazy, passionate, underpaid, overwhelmed volunteers, forced to play politician in front of crowds who actually hiss when they don't like the answer.

Or at least, they hissed last night, when a group of nervous incumbents and challengers, few of whom seemed accustomed to delivering a straight, concrete answer, took part in a debate at Town Hall, hosted by the Stranger, with help from Save Seattle Schools and the Washington Bus, and hosted by Dave Ross.

Because of the troubles that have loomed over SPS, nearly every School Board seat that's becoming available this year has a newcomer vying for it. Several of the less-prepared (or serious, or sensible) candidates have already been eliminated in the primaries, leaving each incumbent just one challenger.

To recap, there's Peter Maier (incumbents will be first in this list) vs. Sharon Peaslee for District 1, Sherry Carr vs. Kate Martin for District 2, Harium Martin-Morris vs. Michelle Buetow for District 3, and Board President Steve Sundquist (who wasn't able to attend, due to a family emergency) vs. Marty McClaren in District 6.

During last night's debate, a few things became clear: first, despite public opinion about SPS, no one in the room was a monster. None of the incumbents were terrible, awful, corrupt politicos, desperately trying to rob the schools of their funding. Second, that these are not well-groomed politicians. Neither the experienced members nor the green challengers seemed particularly comfortable or adept in the bright lights on the stage. The wasn't Candidate Survivor--this was a town hall (literally) meeting with tough questions.

The first portion of the debate seemed difficult for nearly everyone participating. Candidates were asked to position themselves behind signs that read "Yes", "No", and "Dunno", regarding various questions about their experience, as well as on issues, which required many to draw hard lines that were, at times, unpopular.

During this portion, we learned that Maier is the candidate who attended Seattle Public Schools, but every one has a child who does or did. Only Maier, Carr, and Martin-Morris support the choice for each school to chose its own curriculum, and not one candidate is in favor of charter schools. Everyone supports the Families and Education Levy, and only Martin voted no on the $48 million supplement levy.

We also learned that everyone hates the SPS website.

The second portion of the debate was a very quick round one questions--just one question apiece--about the logistics and bureaucracy of SPS. All of the candidates got their question mostly right.

The final portion was the actual debate, during which time candidates were given opening and closing statements, as well as the opportunity to rebut their opponents views. It was a long process, and one that provided very few clear answers.

In the Maier/Peaslee round, one of the most contentious issues was that of mismanagement, and lack of oversight. Maier seemed a little blindsided, as he was confronted head-on by the many very public mistakes that happened on his watch. However, he was able to come up with answers to nearly attack, drawing on his lengthy experience in the position, and giving some of the more solid answers of the evening, on matters such as lobbying in Olympia for more money from the State, and the need for an income tax to fund education. He also knew exactly which programs were in each schools, which seemed to win the crowd. In the end, Maier's experience lead him to a slight victory in the text-to-vote scoring, despite protests from the crowds that their votes had not gone through.

Carr/Martin was a less contentious debate, as both women seemed to be, for the most part, on the same side of issues--they just argued them differently. Kate Martin, who is a stern-looking woman, dropped several particularly quotable lines, such as referring to former Superintendent Maria Goodloe-Johnson as the product of a "puppy-mill of Superintendents" who "brought criminals with her"--which is when the crowd hissed. Still, her big quotes ("the kids are not alright") won the round for her with 62% of the votes--one of the widest margins all night.

Cienna Madrid described the Martin-Morris/Buetow round as "like watching a menopausal beauty queen argue with a yawn", which is exactly correct. Buetow seemed unable to give actual solutions or answers, while Martin-Morris was unable to give anything other than factual accounts/excuses for what had happened, and promises to do better and more in the future. His facts, at least, were refreshing, and he won the round.

Finally, there was Marty McClaren with no opponent. But she still used the opportunity to answer questions and show how much she's truly learned about the race she's entered. A self-proclaimed "math geek", she expressed her desire for better math programs to help bridge the achievement gap, as well as a need for funds to go to all schools--not just those with at least 55% of students on free and reduced lunch programs. The crowd loved her answers and solutions.

In the end, these races will mostly come down to who people like. Most members of the audience seemed to already have their minds made up on most of the issues, and few seemed swayed by any of the answers from anyone other than "their" candidate. If anything, most seemed to be stronger in their convictions than when they'd come in.

There was much circular talking about the achievement gap, the dysfunctional nature of the current special education programs, the lack of advanced courses for "asymmetrical learners"--yet few had solid answers or solutions. Marty McClaren, who woefully had no debate partner, seemed the most sure of what she would do.

Matters like the closure of some schools, the firing of Maria Goodloe-Johnson, and the misplacement of monetary funds, were all ripe for challengers to pick at--but of course, as the cliche goes, hindsight is 20/20. Would they actually have done anything differently had they been in office?

The incumbents have a lot of questions to answer--unfortunately, they don't seem used to having to do that. And the challengers, who seem mostly idealistic and not particularly pragmatic, will probably have the upper-hand, due solely to the fact that people are angry with the status quo.