There is an odd survey that is being circulated by the Seattle school board to determine how parents feel about our Interim Superintendent Susan Enfield.
I would highly recommend that everyone take the survey and as Sue has suggested, if you cannot answer a question in a way that reflects your opinion, send an e-mail to the board members telling them exactly what you do think.
But in the vein of asking questions of the public, we have a few for and about Dr. Enfield.
1. The question that burns a hole in my brain is why Dr. Enfield was such a cheerleader for having Teach for America, Inc. recruits come into our school system when we have a large pool of qualified candidates who have been educated in the field of education as well as the fact that Seattle has two colleges of education graduating candidates each year who would love to teach in our schools and make a life-long commitment to our communities.
I would watch Dr. Enfield in the broad meetings champion and defend TFA, Inc. as the board was considering whether to allow them into our school district. And she honestly didn’t seem to understand why time after time, parents and teachers would come up to the podium and speak endlessly on how we did not want TFA, Inc. recruits teaching our children or in our schools. But she was insistent and the board rubber-stamped once again the ed-reform agenda, except for Betty Patu who was as equally puzzled as to why we needed temps teaching our children.
There was also the questionable behavior on the part of Dr. Enfield with her reluctance to tell the school board who would be paying the additional fee of $4,000 per TFA, Inc. recruit each year as well as her chummy relationship with Ms. Ortega, the TFA, Inc. representative who was shilling for TFA to the school board. There was also Dr. Enfield’s willingness to assist TFA, Inc. any way possible to get the word out about the program. See Scribed documents, page 258.
2. A burning question for Sue is why did the Evergreen School District lay off Susan Enfield? And then the next question, why did the Superintendent of that district prohibit district staffers from talking to Seattle about Dr. Enfield’s time there as a Deputy Superintendent?
At the VERY LEAST the Seattle school board should contact the Evergreen School District and ask the question of why she was laid off.
3. Is the school board vetting Dr. Enfield as they would any other candidate for superintendent? Dr. Enfield was brought in by our Broad-trained superintendent, Dr. Goodloe-Johnson. That in itself would be reason enough to thoroughly review Dr. Enfield’s record and her philosophy on education. The school board did not thoroughly vet Goodloe-Johnson. Let’s make sure that doesn’t happen again.
4. Dr. Enfield does not have previous experience as a superintendent. Isn’t that another reason to not only thoroughly vet Dr. Enfield but also to provide others in our community the opportunity to apply for the position? We have many well qualified candidates who know our communities and our schools and have made a lifelong commitment to Seattle.
5. And what’s with her track record of seven jobs in the last ten years? Have the school board members looked into that?
Sue did a post that is well worth reading again at this time, Susan’s Choice: Will Seattle’s new interim school superintendent lead the district in the right direction? Or will it be business as usual behind a more friendly facade?
To our reading audience, what questions or opinions do you have about our Interim Superintendent?
Dora
Seattle Education 
Regarding the survey, it should not replace the vetting process and yes David, a full on vetting process needs to happen as well as consideration of other candidates. I would rather not see a national search because we have excellent candidates in Seattle who know our schools, our communities and our students. We need someone who has been here and has made a commitment to Seattle and our children, someone with a proven track record, someone who we know and have trusted over the years as an educator in our community. Someone who is respected and has proven that they will stick with us over the long haul.
Dora
I had heard that Enfield told the board that she would not be part of a search which puts the board in an odd position don’t you think?
Someone had to step into the position and trust me, I don’t think that Enfield considered it a thankless job but a golden opportunity to be Interim Superintendent and potentially the superintendent.
I really don’t care what Enfield considers an insult professionally. What I am concerned with, as many people are, is that we get the appropriate person for the job not someone who came in during what was an emergency situation to take over and then we’re stuck with them because they say it’s their way or the highway.
Dora
Oh, and regardless of your views on Enfield, the Board’s survey was a joke.
David, by saying the Board should give Enfield an up or down vote, do you mean they should not conduct a search? Sorry to be thick, but I just want to make sure that’s what you mean. You obviously like Enfield – and I don’t dislike her (though I don’t loooove her) – but I’m curious as to why you wouldn’t want the Board to conduct a search. Expense? Time wasting? More disruption in a district that needs stability? Or just that Enfield is, in your opinion, the best possible candidate?
Curious.
That is a fair enough question. Let me answer it thusly:
I come from a career in the private sector, where it is easier for onlookers to remember that you have a job.
Now with that said, let me ask you what bizarre definition of fairness would expect that the SPS Board, with the District in turmoil, could have — or should have — turned to Enfield in February with the following request: please take this currently probably thankless job, and if we conclude that you have handled it well after eight months we will go out and do a nationwide search for your replacement?
The whole point of this is that searching and vetting are things you do when you do not have significant observable experience of the individual actually holding the job you would otherwise search for and vet. Let’s say you have two brain tumors, and you need to have one removed right away, but you don’t have time to search for someone who might be the best brain surgeon you can find. So you turn to the brain surgeon your general physician has worked with and say: can you please try to save my life,and remove this tumor? If you are successful, I can then do a nationwide search for someone to take out the other one.
Let’s think about that: you already know that the surgeon is able to successfully remove a brain tumor to your satisfaction, because he just did, so now you are going to search the nation for a surgeon who MIGHT be able to do the other one?
So I believe that the Board is right to harvest community input about the Interim Supe.
So now let me directly answer your questions as you have posed them:
Q: Do I think the Board should not conduct a search?
A: If the Board approves of Enfield’s performance over the last eight months, then I absolutely do not think they should conduct a search.
Q: Why would I not want them to conduct a search? Expense? Time wasting? More disruption in a district that needs stability? Or just that Enfield is, in your opinion, the best possible candidate?
A: Time and money are not unimportant considerations, but only if the Board is satisfied with Enfield. Ditto disruption. But the main reason is this: SDS will not keep Enfield if they conduct a search. For her to sit around and wait months for that process to work out would be absurd, insulting and therefore damaging to her credibility elsewhere. It appears that she has already informed the Board VP that she will not be part of a search. She should, under that circumstance, immediately search for her opportunities elsewhere.
My opinion about Enfield is not the issue, nor should you presume that I like, or even “loooove” her. It is clear that many here do not agree with some of the positions she has taken. If you can make the case that those disagreements amount to unsatisfactory service, and the Board agrees with you, I have absolutely no complaint.
Actually, I don’t know of any reporters who asked questions of Evergreen staff during the time that Enfield was being considered for the position of CAO. Sue can answer this more clearly, but the staff was directly asked to make no comments about Enfield’s tenure. Odd? Yes.
It’s nice that Enfield was reviewed for the position in Bellevue but that does not take us or the school board off the hook to thoroughly vet Enfield now as a candidate for superintendent.
Other candidates who have been a part of the school district for years and have shown a loyalty to Seattle and our communities should also have the opportunity to be vetted for the position.
Regarding your statement that Enfield had the same supervisor for the first four jobs is incorrect. It would be only two jobs as you have noted. See below:
1. Special Assistant to the Superintendent of Lancaster, Pennsylvania
2. Special Assistant to the Secretary of Education in Pennsylvania.
3. Director of the Bureau of Teaching and Learning Support under the same Secretary of Education.
4. Director of the Office of Teaching and Learning, Portland Public Schools
And why do I ask the questions? Because the press doesn’t ask the hard questions and neither do the school board members. That is why this blog and Save Seattle Schools has existed and flourished.
Many of the problems that existed and still exist within our school system today were due to the lack of vetting done by the school board when they decided to hire Goodloe-Johnson.
We should not make the same mistake again.
Dora
Many of the subsequent questions that have been posted, by you and others, are reasonable and deserve answers.
Let me repeat a few:
Evergreen: you may not know of any reporters who asked questions of the Evergreen staff. The former Seattle Times reporter, now gone, who investigated the Evergreen/Enfield situation and wrote about it found no story there. I spoke with her at the time. It turns out that Enfield informed the Evergreen Supe that she was not going to seek a renewal of her contract when it expired (July 1). Time to move on. Then, a week or two AFTER her announcement, the Supe announced that he was eliminating the position as of the end of her contract.
Vetting: whether or not you or other members of the public believe that you have had the opportunity to vet Enfield is beside the point. That’s not your job, it’s not your purview. That’s the job of the Board and the staff. MGJ had three focus groups vet all candidates – principals, parents and teachers – and Enfield was the unanimous choice. The Board needs to give Enfield an up or down vote on her eight months in the job. If the vote is negative, then a search is necessary. it is the time for a simple decision based on performance evaluation, which was the Board’s implicit promise in asking her to take the interim job. If they, like you, find grievous fault with her decisions, e.g. TFA, MAP, etc., then they should vote her down and out.
Legitimate performance questions are becoming to you. Drive by shootings are not.
Regarding Dr. Enfield supporting TFA’s efforts to be a part of the SPS program, the e-mail at this location is rather revealing.
Now, let me find those videos.
Dora
By the way, “drive by shootings”? isn’t that a bit over the top David?
Actually, one of the school board members who was part of the vetting process told me that at the time two of the board members did NOT want a Broad trained candidate and they were told that Goodloe-Johnson was not a Broad candidate.
So much for thorough vetting.
It took me a few searches to find out on my own one Saturday evening, that Goodloe-Johnson was on the Broad Board of Directors!
And yes David, I understand who vets whom during the process of a search for superintendent.
Dora
From a letter to the school board written by Sue:
6. Why did Enfield’s previous employer (Evergreen) refuse to talk about her with Seattle when she was named interim superintendent here? In fact, the Evergreen superintendent John Deeder essentially issued a gag order forbidding district staff from talking to Seattle about Enfield. Why? This implies there is something to hide. This needs to be clarified. I request that the school board contact Evergreen Public Schools and get comprehensive feedback on her work there. (See: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2014381857enfield03m.html “…Enfield’s tenure in Vancouver ended before key leaders got a chance to develop strong opinions about her style and potential as a leader. Evergreen Public Schools Superintendent John Deeder on Wednesday instructed his staff not to comment about Enfield, who worked as deputy director for the district from August 2006 to June 2009. (…)
I also find her firing of Principal Floe at Ingraham HS questionable. While it’s good that she changed her mind after enormous community push-back, it shows questionable judgement to have made the decision in the first place. It perhaps underscores her mis-guided fixation on test scores.
David,
It seems to me you’re over-reacting. Dora is raising some questions that the SPS board should be asking. Besides her brief time in SPS, we don’t know that much about how well she did her previous jobs. Maybe she did great, maybe there were problems. Shouldn’t the board find out more and not rely on MGJ’s assessment?
Regarding TFA, whether you call it cheer-leading or not, Enfield was clearly advocating for bringing in TFA. This by itself is questionable, but now knowing who the mystery donors are, makes it even more so. Is she pushing a backroom agenda, or will she work with educators and the community?
In addition to the questions Dora raised, I have concerns about her focus on standardized testing. She continues to emphasize student growth – as measured by test scores. Where is the rationale for SPS continuing to spend millions on MAP testing when SPS teachers voted to drop it, and when research continues to show that test based accountability does not work?
I dont think that David has read the emails between Enfield and the TFA representative Janis Ortega…
Discussing the PR and political issues and how best she might manouevre her way around them, both in her interactions with the Board and the public…
Discussing the issues around not wanting to reveal/not having a donor…
I don’t have the time right now to post a link to them (they’re on Scrib’d, I think), but maybe Dora can do that…
Your questions seem reasonable enough on their face, but also seem dramatically overstated. I have been at the same meetings you mentioned, and although Enfield has offered support for the appropriate use of TFA personnel, it is a gross overstatement to say that she was a “cheerleader” or a “champion”.
Your “burning” question as to why Evergreen “laid off” Enfield is also odd. Evergreen announced in February of the year in question that, effective July 1st of that year, the position of Deputy Superintendent would be abolished. If you had taken the time to do a little investigation on your own, as I have, you would have learned that the Deputy position was established when Enfield was hired because the incumbent Superintendent had expressed an intention to retire in the forthcoming contract period, but subsequently decided to stay on (probably because of the crummy economy).
The question of vetting is an interesting one. Enfield was one of the two finalists for the Bellevue superintendency, which ultimately was given to the other candidate (the board cited the other candidate’s “compelling” life story as a Cuban refugee as the primary influence on their decision. Now THERE’S a story worth questioning). As I understand it, the public interviews with the three finalists demonstrated such a significant interest in Enfield, that one of the other finalists dropped out, and after Bellevue’s decision MGJ called Enfield and asked her to apply for the CAO position at SPS.
Lastly, your question about Enfield’s seven jobs in the last 10 years caused me to go back to her CV. It clearly shows that she has held the following jobs in the last ten years:
1. Special Assistant to the Superintendent of Lancaster, Pennsylvania
2. Special Assistant to the Secretary of Education in Pennsylvania.
3. Director of the Bureau of Teaching and Learning Support under the same Secretary of Education.
4. Director of the Office of Teaching and Learning, Portland Public Schools
5. Deputy Superintendent, Evergreen School District
6. Chief Academic Officer, Seattle Public Schools
7. Interim Superintendent, Seattle Public Schools
OK, that’s seven jobs all right. The first four, however, were reporting to the same person. The last two were both working for us. So her seven jobs were really five, with two promotions, and a total of three superiors in ten years.
David,
I have no agenda, never did.
My daughter attended school within the Seattle Public School system and education has been valued in our family.
Now, regarding TFA, Inc. Yes, Dr. Enfield did champion TFA. She stood there next to Ms. Ortega, the TFA, Inc. representative and spoke to the board on the behalf of Teach for America, Inc. And yes, she did have a quizzical look on her face when people in the audience would applaud for not having TFA in our schools.
Which takes me to another question.
Why would Dr. Enfield, who has a degree in education, think that having TFA temps in our schools who have only 5 weeks training would be what our students need? It’s odd that someone who apparently thinks that education is important would think that a well educated teacher versed in child development and having on-site training as a student teacher who is willing to be in the community for the long term should be replaced by a TFA, Inc. recruit. And yes, replaced. There are hundreds of resumes that are sent into SPS by educated and certified teachers. Who wouldn’t want to live in Seattle?! This isn’t the boondocks of Louisiana where TFA began. To give a spot to a TFA recruit in this town means that you are displacing someone who has worked towards getting that job for several years, wants it and will stay with the community.
Just for fun, I will go back and find those video’s of Enfield in front of the school board. We’ll let the public decide for themselves whose side of the fence she was on.
Yes, I knew that the position was closed after Enfield was terminated. First of all, that can be read as an easy way to handle any questions that might come up later. Just say that we abolished the position. Furthermore, why didn’t she stay there if she was so valued?
I have to go to an appointment but will get back to your statements as soon as possible.
Dora
David, according to The Columbian newspaper in Vancouver, WA, the Evergreen School District laid off Susan Enfield. So it appears she did not leave of her own volition as you imply.
See: “(…) By trimming some central positions and support, such as not retaining Susan Enfield, former deputy superintendent, Evergreen sliced administrative spending by more than $1.5 million this year.” (From: “School administrative costs not out of line – That’s what documents at OSPI reveal about Evergreen, Vancouver,” By Howard Buck, Columbian staff writer, Wednesday, January 27, 2010: http://www.columbian.com/news/2010/jan/27/school-administrative-costs-not-out-of-line/)
Dr. Enfield’s behind-the-scenes collaboration with Teach for America, Inc. to bring them to Seattle (which has no shortage of fully qualified teachers) is well documented. E-mails show her wining and dining and working closely with TFA management staff (Janis Ortega and others), sharing arguably confidential emails with them from the SEA, and apologizing to TFA (!) for the legitimate concerns of her constituents, SPS parents, all of which is arguably inappropriate, a misuse of her time and her duties of confidentiality. (http://www.scribd.com/doc/63080274/Enfield-Apologizes-to-Janis-for-Public-Comments Also see: http://www.scribd.com/doc/63003421/TFA-3)
Dr. Enfield also seems to have collaborated with TFA about how to handle the apparently tricky issue of the $4,000/year fee TFA demanded of our district. Her disturbing evasiveness before the board about the financers of TFA’s $4,000 per recruit, annual fee at the Sept. 16, 2011 school board meeting looked like she was not being honest and forthcoming to the board. (http://www.seattlechannel.org/videos/video.asp?ID=5964 Start at minute 118.)
It is unclear to me as a parent who she is working for here, and whose interests she is looking out for – those of our children, our school district (her employer), or Teach for America, Inc. (http://www.scribd.com/doc/63003744/TFA-5)
This echoes similar behavior by Dr. Goodloe-Johnson who was on the board of directors of the MAP test vendor, NWEA, when the Seattle School District entered into a no-bid contract with NWEA and failed to reveal this to the board as required (and also lobbied on NWEA’s behalf while employed by SPS). She was cited for this ethics breach by the state auditor and forced to step down from NWEA’s board. Is Susan Enfield displaying more of the same? This needs to be clarified. As a parent, I want our superintendent to work for our kids and our district, not other businesses or organizations.
–sp.