HorsesAss.Org

OK, so apologies for the fact that my first post here is both kind of boring and somewhat contrarian. I’ll try not to let the former happen again.

I was also at the FCC hearing last night, and beyond Goldy’s (and Andrew’s) posts below, and Frank the Dog-Shooter’s self-aggrandizing introductory remarks, I came away with another take.

I remember having come out of the March 2003 FCC hearing on ownership deregulation, held at UW’s HUB Ballroom, feeling euphoric. A huge crowd showed up to give the FCC an earful on its destructive rulemaking proposal to allow greater deregulation of media ownership, specifically, crossownership in the same city of radio/TV stations and newspaper and cable companies.

After an unexpected sea of public comment and Congressional criticism, the inevitable decision by the Commission’s Republican majority was overturned in federal appeals court. And, so, last night, the FCC was back in town, for a virtually identical hearing on a virtually identical rulemaking proposal. So either I’ve changed a lot politically in three years (which I doubt), or the expectations that now come with a new and remarkably powerful media democracy movement are vastly higher, which I think is more the case. Because even as 400 plus people braved a frigid, slushy night to turn out and give the FCC another earful, I came away this time with a slightly sour taste.

Despite the turnout, and the overwhelming opposition to media deregulation by the crowd, progressives reading themselves into the public record did themselves few favors last night. The two most compelling speakers on the night, IMO, were John Carlson (KVI talk show host and the night’s sole self-identified Republican), who made the conservative case for regulating media ownership, and UW President Mark Emmert, who made an educator’s pitch for media diversity as necessary for fostering critical thinking skills in a democracy. In a sea of progressives, the standout critics were a conservative talk show host and (essentially) the CEO of one of the region’s biggest employers.

Granted, Carlson and Emmert are both polished public speakers, and both are familiar with how to couch arguments that make sense to lawmakers and regulators. But that’s just the point: with few exceptions, the several dozen mostly left-leaning public speakers that followed in testimony weren’t. Many were lost in a sea of abstract theory; a number made the repetitive case that concentrated media ownership is bad – completely true, but also tangential and in important ways irrelevant to the proceeding, since that question was settled (for the FCC’s purposes) by Congress with the abysmal Telecommunications Act of 1996.

Remarkably few progressives specifically addressed the actual issue at hand: whether having different big corporations owning your newspapers and your radio/TV outlets is better than having the same corporate monolith owning both. Only one speaker addressed that issue head-on in those terms, and several compelling progressive arguments against cross-ownership went entirely unmentioned. (For example, addressing the pro-business argument that Internet diversity makes distinctions between regulated broadcast stations and unregulated newspapers irrelevant — an argument Carlson skewered — by noting either that many Americans still don’t have home Internet access, let alone broadband, or that while diverse information is widely available on the Internet, citizens must seek it out — through search engines, links, or URLs — whereas turning a dial, flipping through a remote, or dropping quarters in a box gets you radio, TV, and newspapers, a far more general mass audience.) While these arguments and others went asking, two speakers somehow felt that it would be helpful to do satirical presentations in a federal hearing, as though it were yet another Seattle School Board hearing. Another plugged her socialist newspaper (sigh…) as running the sorts of stories corporate media ought to but won’t.

At least nobody sang.

In other words, it was a few former professional journalists and current media management types (a working journalist would never testify at such a hearing), plus a fairly representative cross-section of our region’s progressive Left, flakes included. The two FCC Commissioners who came to Seattle and who are holding these hearings around the country must have the patience of saints.

The flakes worry me less than the relative absence of compelling and on-point testimony from progressives – and I say this as someone who founded a broadcast trade company whose bread and butter was covering FCC rulemaking proposals. (The company is now owned by Clear Channel. Big sigh.) Few speakers were polished. Few dressed nicely — a detail that doesn’t matter much in a Seattle public hearing, but very much does in D.C.

Few seemed to understand what sorts of testimony might move the FCC, particularly (as Carlson grasped) how to frame issues in a way that would speak to at least one of the three Republican commissioners not present. (After all, the point is to win, not just to ratify the views of the two Democratic commissioners on hand.) Failing debate tactics, few even spoke from the heart as to what media diversity meant to them. And on a related note, excepting Jan Strout of NOW, the only speakers who addressed how lack of diverse ownership affects minority ownership were non-whites.

The FCC hearing was a microcosm of a larger problem. Progressives have been out of power so routinely that when we do have power, far too often we have no idea how to use it. The media democracy movement now has power; anyone doubting it should consider that despite a $200 million lobbying campaign by big telecommunications firms, that movement stopped Congress this session from ending net neutrality. That’s power. But in this case, when local grass roots progressives had the opportunity to publicly put their views on federal record, by and large they whiffed.

Something to ponder now that, at both the state legislative and congressional levels, progressives now have unprecedented power.

Andrew at NPI live-blogged this evening’s FCC hearing on media consolidation, and he reports that Seattle Times publisher Frank Blethen was the first to speak.

Blethen, who was politely welcomed, used most of his time to complain about consolidation and centralization of media in America, and grumble about “the powerful who co-opt the free press”. Indeed.

How about that. Frank and I agree on something.

All snarkiness aside, Frank and I do agree on this issue, which is rather ironic, because as passionate as Frank is in his opposition to loosening federal restrictions on media consolidation, that didn’t seem to stop him from directing his editorial board to endorse a slate of Republicans who uniformly support these new rules. (Or, in the case of Dave Reichert, had absolutely no idea what the phrase “media consolidation” meant.)

Okay… I guess I couldn’t quite put my snarkiness aside. But Frank and I do agree. In theory.

Anyway, Andrew has more on tonight’s hearing here, here, here, and here.

From a KIRO TV report this evening:

According to booking records, Larry Corrigan, the former director of operations and budget for the King County Prosecutors office, was arrested Wednesday in an online sting.

Corrigan, accused of attempted child rape and communication with a minor for sex, was released Thursday on his own recognizance, KIRO 7 Eyewitness News reported.
Corrigan was allegedly using an Internet messenger service to contact what he thought was a 13-year-old girl to meet for sex.

Police arrested Corrigan Wednesday afternoon at a Capitol Hill video store where he had arranged to meet the teenage girl.

Corrigan had worked as the director of operations and budget for 25 years before leaving nearly two years ago to pursue business interests, KIRO 7 Eyewitness News reported.

Oh, man, a 25 year employee of King County…and in operations and budget. No doubt the Wingnuts will be up our liberal asses claiming Corrigan—a long term King County bureaucrat—is a typical Democrat. They’ll accuse the King County Dems of harboring and nurturing child predators. No doubt the righties will use this as an example of why Ron Sims is corrupt, and use it to claim King County steals both children and elections.

No doubt this will ultimately be blamed on…Dean Logan!

Oh wait a minute…It looks like Larry Corrigan is a big cheerleader for Republicans. I mean, he endorsed Sam Reed, and he is one of Bret Olsen’s distinguished supporters. The PDC shows him contributing mostly to Wingnuts like Luke Esser and Bret Olsen.

So, suck it Wingnuts. He’s one of yours.

(Man…what is it with these King County Republicans, anyway?)

Following up on a previous post, I just invited Geov Parrish to blog here on HA. Geov was an editorial board member and regular columnist at the Seattle Weekly before that publication imploded under new management. Apparently, he’d rather write for free here, than prostitute himself there. I guess that’s why they call it a “free press.”

Sonics owner Clay Bennett claims he’s serious about building a new suburban arena for the team. Personally, I don’t believe him. His recent announcements are most likely intended to provide cover when he finally picks up and moves the team to Oklahoma City.

But if the state Legislature does decide to give him everything he wants (you know, a free, $300 million arena where he keeps all the revenue, state and local government picks up all the tabs for repairs, and he can still leave before the bonds are paid off,) I’ve got a suggestion on how to fund it: an income tax on the salaries earned by visiting athletes during their “duty days” in the state.

No… really.

At least twenty other states already levy just such a “jock tax”… a tax our own Sonics, Mariners and Seahawks players already pay on nearly every away game. So why shouldn’t we tax opposing players too?

It won’t cost WA residents anything, and in fact, it won’t cost most of the visiting players all that much either, as any tax they pay here can be deducted from their state and federal income taxes, and they’re already hiring accountants to file tax returns in a dozen or more states. And they’re millionaires. Put a high exemption on the tax so as not to burden low-paid athletes in low-profile sports, but make the A-Rods pay their due. They can afford it.

As it is we don’t seem to have an ethical problem taxing visiting tourists for car rentals and hotel rooms to pay off the bonds at Safeco and Qwest fields, so why shouldn’t we be taxing the people who benefit most from these public projects, the athletes whose multimillion dollar contracts are subsidized by the super luxury boxes Bennett covets?

As for the constitutional issues, well that’s just a bonus as far as I see it. We get to test that bogus 1933 decision without the prospect of throwing the state into financial chaos should it inexplicably be upheld. And with that red herring out of the way, we can finally debate tax restructuring purely on the merits, without the constitutional question being used as a sledgehammer or an excuse.

I’m absolutely serious. You want the Sonics to stay in the region, but you don’t want to raise local taxes to pay the ransom? Tax visiting athletes. What could be so controversial about that?

You’ve already seen some changes on HA with the recent upgrade to WordPress 2.0, and I intend to add some more feature enhancements over time. But in perhaps the biggest change, I’ll be experimenting with loosening my grip over HA’s editorial content.

Yesterday, I invited Darryl of Hominid Views and Will (AKA Belltowner and formerly of Pike Place Politics) to post whenever and whatever they want. What they write is up to them. Whether they keep their posting privileges is up to you. Well… it’s up to me really, but I’ll certainly consider your feedback. Sorta. We’ll see how it goes.

So in the future, before you angrily attack me for challenging your assumptions or offending your stick-up-your-ass sensibilities, please take a look at the author credit at the top. If you’re going to flame a blogger, at least make sure it’s the right one.

Seattle Times columnist Danny Westneat and I don’t always see eye to eye on education. During the school closure process we got into quite a heated email exchange in which I accused him of failing to question the assumptions and data put forth by the district, and he accused me of myopic NIMBYism. We both thought the parent revolt I was engaged in would likely end up undermining the entire closure process. On that count, we were both wrong.

But I wouldn’t have argued so passionately with Danny if I didn’t respect his opinion, and so it is gratifying to see us both on the same side of the manufactured debate over a proposed city takeover of Seattle schools: “Schools in crisis? Not really.”

Danny is sick of being told that he’s sending his kids to “a collapsing institution run by dysfunctional boobs,” but unlike most of the district’s critics, who seem content to back up their arguments with hyperbole and stereotypes, Danny decided to actually look at the numbers. He compared test scores from districts in the state’s ten largest cities, and what did he find?

Seattle high-schoolers rank 3rd in reading, behind only Bellevue and Federal Way. Seattle scores five points above the state average in math, ahead of Federal Way, Renton, Auburn, Enumclaw, Mukilteo and Lake Stevens… and 22 points better than Tacoma. As Danny writes, “If we’re in crisis, Tacoma’s schools must have cracked off and fallen into the sea.”

And what of the vaunted Bellevue schools that so many former urban families have abandoned Seattle for? Well, they’re great. If you’re rich.

Math and reading scores for low-income elementary kids in Seattle have doubled since 1998, and now are higher than scores for low-income kids in Bellevue — even though this at-risk group makes up 40 percent of the student body in Seattle, and 20 percent in Bellevue.

Danny asks for a little perspective, which is exactly what I’ve been asking for (here and here,) though not so politely. I think Danny sums it up best:

The schools themselves simply aren’t “blighted” or in “crisis.” Some are great and some aren’t, which isn’t good enough. But what they need is constructive help, not broad-brush insults.

The mayor and the former mayor and the editorial board for this newspaper ought to back off. My kid goes to a Seattle public school, and from where I sit you all are starting to do more harm than good.

The only thing I’d add is that it is the disparity between the great, the good and the not-so-good schools that is really at the heart of most of the district’s problems. It is this issue that I intend to focus on in future posts.

An editorial in today’s Seattle Times agrees with Gov. Christine Gregoire’s proposal to delay the requirement that students pass the math portion of the WASL in order to graduate from High School. But they reiterate their “grim assessment” that Washington students are woefully “ill-prepared for the rigors of math.”

No further evidence is needed than the failure of nearly half of the state’s sophomores — about 34,000 — on the Washington Assessment of Student Learning math test last spring and in summer re-takes.

Hmm. So… “no further evidence is needed” than students’ poor performance on the WASL. And yet, further down the editorial we find this throw-away little tidbit:

There is a disconnect when it comes to high-achieving students as well. Bellevue Superintendent Mike Riley tells Seattle Times education reporter Lynn Thompson that many of the district’s students do well on the math section of the SAT but stumble on the WASL.

Uh huh.

So if students do well on the SAT, but stumble on the WASL, is that “evidence” that we aren’t preparing these students for math. Or rather, is it evidence that one or both of these tests suck? I mean, would it be okay if the majority of our state’s students passed the WASL, but performed far below the national average on the SAT?

Understand where I’m coming from on this. I’m a smart guy, but was not always the most diligent or cooperative student; I had a tough time spitting back what the teacher wanted, even knowing that doing so was a sure-fire path to an A. I also had a run-in with with an absolutely nutcase, 10th grade English teacher who picked me out as the annual uppity smart kid she liked to fail as an example to the rest of us uppity smart kids. That’s right, despite being one of the best writers in my class (throughout my academic career) I failed 10th grade English, often getting essays returned with a big fat zero, and no other marks or comments. (The teacher had tenure. She also died of a slow growing brain tumor a couple years later.)

So while I mostly got A’s in high school, my GPA was somewhat below that typically needed to qualify for our nation’s top colleges and universities. And yet at least one Ivy League school was willing to overlook my less than stellar GPA, at least partially because my SAT scores were so high.

See, there are a lot of smart people out there, and we can be smart in many different ways, but I happened to be blessed with something college admissions officers highly valued back in the early 1980’s: the standardized test taking gene.

I loved filling in those little circles. It was a puzzle. It was a game. And it was a game I always won.

On the English portion of these tests I could intuit the answer whether or not I could verbalize the grammatical and syntactic rules at play. Sentences either felt right, or they didn’t. And on the math portion of these tests I rarely had to do the math at all. I could almost always instantly eliminate one or two of the multiple choice answers, and make an educated guess that virtually assured me a better than 50-percent chance of getting it right.

I was like a card-counter at a blackjack table, and I always understood the unfair advantage I had over the house or the other players. In 9th grade, after playing around with a couple practice tests in an old prep book, I decided to take the Biology achievement test… and I nearly aced it. I’d never studied most of the subject matter, let alone a three-chamber heart, but one of the practice tests had almost identical questions about a two-chamber heart, and it didn’t take much to connect the dots.

The point is, the one thing these standardized tests are truly capable of evaluating is the ability of the student to take these standardized tests. They do not necessarily test the student’s grasp on the material, and they do not necessarily predict the student’s future performance in college or the real world. Hell… look at me: according to the SATs I’m a fucking genius, yet here I am blogging for free while my thermostat’s set to 58 and I’m struggling to pay my mortgage. How smart is that?

So when I read all these editorials and columns lamenting our student’s poor performance on the WASL, it absolutely infuriates me that nobody ever questions the performance of the WASL. I mean, did it ever occur to anybody that when it comes to measuring the ability of a typical high school student to grasp and apply a body of knowledge, that perhaps the WASL sucks? Is it so outside the realm of possibility to even consider the notion that the very same educators who are constantly being accused of failing to teach our children might also have devised a crappy means of measuring a student’s progress?

In fact, the WASL was never designed to serve as a graduation standard or as a measuring stick for punishing failing schools under President Bush’s “No Child Left Behind.” It was originally developed to provide schools with a tool for measuring academic progress so that they could better target their students’ needs. The purpose was not to teach to the WASL, but to use the WASL to help teachers better teach the students.

I’m not saying we’re doing a good enough job educating our students. Of course we’re not. And I’m certainly not arguing against the value of standards. But when grades say one thing, and SAT scores say another, and then the WASL says something entirely different… well… I fail to see the logic in assuming that the WASL is the be-all and end-all of academic standards. Indeed, if you spend a little time in the classroom and watch how distorted the curriculum has become, it’s beginning to look like this whole WASL craze has morphed into a faith-based initiative that’s doing more harm than good.

No doubt the WASL is a boon to tough-talking politicians and editorialists. But a passing score won’t pay your mortgage.

Hmm. Looks like “Mark the Redneck” isn’t the only welcher in the Republican Party.

The Seattle chapter of Drinking Liberally meets tonight (and every Tuesday), 8PM at the Montlake Ale House, 2307 24th Avenue E. At least, I think it meets tonight, but who knows how many people will chicken out because of a little frozen water on the roads?

Anyway, I plan on showing up, so I hope some others join me.

Not in Seattle? Washington liberals will also be drinking tonight in the Tri-Cities and Vancouver. Here’s a full run down of WA’s eleven Drinking Liberally chapters, including our newest chapter in the former Republican stronghold of Mercer Island:

	Where:	When:	Next Meeting:
Burien:	Mick Kelly’s Irish Pub, 435 SW 152nd St	Fourth Wednesday of each month, 7:00 pm onward	December 27
Kirkland:	Valhalla Bar & Grill, 8544 122nd Ave NE	Every Thursday, 7:00 pm onward	November 30
Mercer Island:	Roanoke Tavern, 1825 72nd Ave SE	(Starting January) Second and fourth Wednesday of each month, 6:00-8:00 pm	January 10
Monroe:	Eddie’s Trackside Bar and Grill, 214 N Lewis St	Second Wednesday of each month, 7:00 PM onward	December 13
Olympia:	The Tumwater Valley Bar and Grill, 4611 Tumwater Valley Drive South	First and third Monday of each month, 7:00-9:00 pm	December 4
Seattle:	Montlake Ale House, 2307 24th Ave E	Every Tuesday, 8:00 pm onward	November 28
Spokane:	Red Lion BBQ & Pub, 126 N Division St	Every Wednesday, 7:00 pm	November 29
Tacoma:	Meconi’s Pub, 709 Pacific Ave	Every Wednesday, 8:00 pm onward	November 29
Tri-Cities:	O’Callahans – Shilo Inn, 50 Comstock, Richland	Every Tuesday, 7:00 pm onward	November 28
Vancouver:	Hazel Dell Brew Pub, 8513 NE Highway 99	Second and fourth Tuesday of each month, 7:00 pm onward	November 28
Walla Walla:	The Green Lantern, 1606 E Isaacs Ave	First Friday of each month, 8:00 pm onward	December 1

(And apparently there’s also an unaffiliated liberal drinking group in Olympia that meets every Monday at 7PM at the Brotherhood Lounge, 119 N. Capital Way.)

Yeah sure, I know Puget Sound weather is weird, and can vary greatly from one backyard to the next, but it’s hard to get excited about today’s snow “emergency” down here in my South Seattle neighborhood where there’s barely a dusting on the ground and the roads are dry and bare. As a result, my daughter is confronted with a sad reality I never faced as a child: a snow day from school when she can’t even scrape up a snowball, let alone go sledding.

But then what should I expect from a city where the rain falls nine months a year, yet still makes headlines?

Some things in life aren’t fair. Like the fact that I’m just too damn old to participate in the 6-month political training program conducted by the Institute for a Democratic Future (IDF).

The IDF program is available to young Democrats age 21 to 35, and a few slots are still open for the Class of 2007. Past graduates include State Senator-elect Derek Kilmer ’02, State Representative-elect Kevin Van de Wege ’02, WashTech Founder Marcus Courtney ’98, former Seattle City Councilmember Judy Nicastro ’99, former Brier City Councilmember Sasha Doolittle ’01, as well as numerous legislative assistants, Party activists, young professionals, nonprofit executives and political campaigners.

The program runs from January to June (mostly weekends) and covers the legislative process, running a campaign, critical issues and developing a game plan for the future. This is an incredible opportunity for aspiring young politicians and activists, but hurry: applications are due December 1st.

The War on Christmas?

Hmm. I originally wrote a lede to this post in which I accused the Seattle Times editorial board of flat-out “lying,” but I’ve decided to give them the benefit of the doubt and accept the possibility that they may have only been inadvertently, but flat-out wrong.

In an editorial today advising state legislators to exercise fiscal restraint — a sentiment with which I don’t necessarily disagree — the Times characterizes our current state budget as the largest increase in spending in over a decade… technically accurate, for whatever it means. But then the Times slips in a totally gratuitous piece of GOPropaganda:

[The budget] followed the 5-percent increase of the previous two years presented by Sen. Dino Rossi.

Yup. There you have it: the Times editorial board echoing the key Rossi campaign talking point that he authored the 2003-2005 budget. Only problem is, this talking point was directly contradicted way back in 2003 by Dino Rossi himself, and in the Times’ own reporting:

The Republican budget has much in common with the all-cuts plan that Democratic Gov. Gary Locke unveiled in December. In fact, Rossi opened a press briefing yesterday with a PowerPoint presentation titled: “Following the Governor’s Lead.”

That’s right, Rossi was only “following the Governor’s lead.” And in fact, according to the Times’ reporters, he actually presented a 1-percent (not 5-percent) increase in spending, which would have been largely achieved by leaving 46,000 children without health coverage.

The myth that Rossi authored the 2003 budget is largely that, and while I suppose its inclusion in the unsigned editorial may have been an honest mistake, the total irrelevance of its inclusion to the subject at hand suggests otherwise. Fresh on the heels of a campaign season in which Times editorialists aggressively and intentionally misled readers about the facts pertaining to the issues and candidates endorsed, the Times seems to be already gearing up for the 2008 season.

Dino Rossi authored the 2003 budget the way, you know… Dave Reichert caught the Green River Killer. But considering how unremarkable Rossi’s legislative career really was, prepare to see the Times repeatedly trumpeting this fictional accomplishment over the next 23 months.

Of course the Times has the right to use their op-ed pages to present their own opinions — opinions with which I often agree — but they do not have the right to present their own “facts.” Even if you buy into the argument that there is a wall between editorial and news that protects the ability of reporters to remain objective, it is a wall that is entirely invisible to the readers. The average reader may understand that editorials represent the opinion of the publisher and the editorial board, but he also expects that the information used to back up these opinions is as factually accurate as that presented in the rest of the paper. Thus when an editorial misleads the readers either through a lie of omission or through a deliberate or accidental misstatement of fact, it diminishes the credibility of the publication as a whole.

Today’s editorial is filled with hard numbers that one assumes have been appropriately fact checked, and then almost as a non sequitur it throws in the factoid that Rossi deserves credit for authoring a fiscally responsible budget… an assertion that is refuted by the Times’ own reporting. It is this type of blatant electioneering that made the Times op/ed page a laughingstock during the 2006 campaign and which threatens to carry our state’s largest paper further down the road towards irrelevance. Eventually, we’ll just come to the point were the only people who bother to read Times editorials are the copywriters putting together Republican political ads.

Yesterday I criticized the critics of Seattle Public Schools for comparing the district to “the failing school systems of blighted East Coast cities,” a critique I find irksome both for its intentionally hyperbolic portrayal of the district’s woes, and the narrow-minded provincialism in which it off-handedly disparages historic cities that long ago achieved the kind of economic and cultural greatness Seattle’s civic boosters have aspired towards since the city was first christened Alki New York: “New York, by-and-by.” (We’re still waiting.)

The post generated quite a vigorous debate, some of which was openly hostile and personally dismissive, with many commentators choosing to take offense at words I never wrote. Apparently, I’m a selfish elitist because I choose to send my daughter to an underfunded and ethnically diverse South End school. Go figure. I’m also, apparently, an unashamed apologist for the district establishment. (Um… did any of you actually read my running commentary on the school closure process?)

What all this tells me is that an awful lot of people seem emotionally or ideologically invested in portraying Seattle Public Schools as a district in extreme crisis on the edge of an abyss… if not already irreversibly plummeting towards the bottom. And at risk of resorting to the same sort of broad-brush-stroke methodology adopted by my detractors, I’d wager that many of those advocating drastic measures such as a city or state takeover of the district, don’t actually have children in the Seattle Public Schools. How much of this is cognitive dissonance (Seattle residents who opted for private schools, now seeking to justify their decision,) or political convenience (non-Seattlites looking to block spending more state money on city students) I don’t know. But I do know that the rest of the state uses this popular portrayal of the district as a bloated piggybank for corrupt, incompetent officials as their primary justification for refusing to throw good money after bad. And as long as civic leaders prop up this simple-minded analysis we will never restore state education spending to adequate levels.

Fortunately, we still have two newspapers in this town, and this morning the Seattle P-I warned the crisis-mongers to “back off“:

Yes, the board has handled school closures badly, essentially leading to the resignation of Superintendent Raj Manhas. But is the school system in “crisis”?

The district has turned a multimillion-dollar deficit into a multimillion-dollar surplus. Academic performance is on the rise and the district retains its “market share” with private schools.

Again, let me repeat for the umpteenth time that I’m no fan of the current school board and district administration, and I’m sick and tired of uninspiring bean counters and educational amateurs guiding the district on their own. But as the P-I rightly points out, “poverty, not governance, is Seattle education’s greatest challenge,” and all this talk comparing Seattle schools to those in Boston or New York or Philadelphia or any number of other “blighted East Coast cities” is not only misleading but counterproductive.

Yes, there are governance problems, and I’m not opposed to considering reforms that include appointing some (but not all) school board members. And while I’m not convinced, I’m intrigued by the possibility of a Superintendent Norm Rice who can wield his political skills and connections on behalf of the district.

But the district is not anywhere near a crisis that warrants a takeover, nor does it appear to be heading in that direction, and any debate over such a move would only distract us from the more important debate over prioritizing real educational reforms, and coming to consensus on how to pay for them.