The Seattle Post-Intelligencer says that Seattle school board candidate Brita Butler-Wall will "bring an independent, forceful outlook to the board" and calls her "appropriately focused". In fact, Brita Butler-Wall seems to be more focused on protecting the teachers' union than serving the needs of students and their parents.
In her statement to the Seattle Education Association, which has endorsed her candidacy, Brita Butler-Wall calls for limits on transparency and accountability in public education in order to prevent parents from demanding alternatives to failing schools. Her main concern about Washington's WASL test is that it leads to "public's perceptions about the 'failure' of our schools". Indeed, those public perceptions are there for a good reason. Regarding the federal Leave No Child Behind Act, Butler-Wall wrote:
I fear that the national requirement for annual testing will further distort real education ... This movement seems destined to set schools up to fail, paving the way for increased privatization.If Brita Butler-Wall is elected to the School Board and has to represent the taxpayers in negotiations with the teachers' union, how can we expect her to perform? The Seattle Times suggests the answer:
Butler-Wall also said she recently had taken a four-hour course in contract negotiations from the Seattle Education Association, whose board has endorsed her over Waldman.If that's not a fundamental conflict of interest, I have no idea what is.
Brita Butler-Wall seems to be the front runner in her race against the incumbent Nancy Waldman. The good people of Seattle need your help to save our schools from Brita Butler-Wall. If you live in Seattle, please be sure to vote for Nancy Waldman. If you don't live in Seattle but know someone who does, please send them a link to this web page.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at November 02, 2003 08:00 AMHmmm I wonder what liberals would say to limits on transparency and accountability in regards to the Patriot Act and the War against Jihadists? Could you imagine if the Pentagon said they would no longer give out casualty reports on the basis that it could expose our efforts in Iraq to criticism?
Posted by: StarBanker on November 2, 2003 09:13 PMI read the opinion piece you linked to. I actually had to go to my dictionary to recheck my understanding of the adjective "patrician." My memory did not fail me, I would prefer an "overly patrician incumbent" over anyone who isn't. I noticed that they didn't think an endorsement stating they support Butler-Wall because they admire rude and insolent manners. I guess they were hoping the word "patrician" would be so arcane that people would assume it to be an insult.
Posted by: StarBanker on November 2, 2003 09:27 PM