A letter to the Seattle Public School Board

1. Seattle should not choose a school superintendent by default — again.

2. There are financial and political risks to foregoing a search

3. The state auditor has already cited the school board for failing to exercise oversight. The superintendent search is no time to shirk responsibilities again.

4. Susan Enfield has not been thoroughly vetted by SPS as a superintendent candidate.

5. Why was Susan Enfield laid off by her previous employer, Evergreen School District (in Vancouver, WA)?

6. Why did Enfield’s previous employer (Evergreen) refuse to talk about her with Seattle when she was named interim superintendent here?

7. Enfield has never been selected as a superintendent before in a competitive field.

8. Her peripatetic career: Why so much movement, and is she committed to Seattle?

9. Does she have divided loyalties? Her behind-the-scenes preoccupation with Teach for America, Inc. (on SPS’s dime?) and the message this sends to Seattle’s fully credentialed teachers raises a number of questions – and shades of Goodloe-Johnson.

10. The summary firing of Principal Martin Floe – questionable judgment

11. Pay raises for central administration staff during recession – questionable judgment

12. Her education consulting firm – potential conflict of interest?

13. On her watch, two questionable hires: Teach for America, Inc. recruitment director as SPS recruitment manager, and staffer from controversial political marketing firm Strategies 360

14. Why the need for a deputy superintendent? Could a more experienced candidate eliminate the need for this second position (saving money)?

15. She was hired by Goodloe-Johnson and was part of that controversial administration, so she does not represent new, independent leadership.

16. Her close association with controversial education reformist Vicki Phillips of the Gates Foundation.

17. If the school district can conduct a national search for its director of communications, surely it can conduct one for the far more important position of superintendent.

18. Other districts consider many candidates for superintendent.

19. Why not conduct a local search?

1. Seattle should not choose a school superintendent by default — again.

It has been said that Seattle’s previous superintendent, Maria Goodloe-Johnson, was hired by default. She was the last candidate standing and not the district’s first choice. Some board members at the time were not fully aware of her affiliation with the Broad Foundation and its top-down management style and corporate education reform agenda. They also did not know then about the controversy she left behind in Charleston, S.C. involving cheating on test scores. (School’s Success Gives Way to Doubt, N.Y. Times, http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/31/education/31charleston.html?pagewanted=all) While this incident may not be attributed to Goodloe-Johnson, it happened while she was superintendent, and the (false) success of these schools was possibly cited among her achievements in her application to Seattle.

She later received a low approval rating from district staff in Charleston compared to the superintendent who replaced her. In short, Dr. Goodloe-Johnson was not properly vetted when Seattle hired her. Consequently, four years of churn, scandal and damage ensued, culminating in her costly firing earlier this year. It’s not unreasonable to ask: If the Seattle School Board had known more about Goodloe-Johnson in 2006-07, and had more qualified candidates to choose from, would they have hired her? At least one school board member has said she would not.

Our district should not put itself in the position of hiring someone by default (again). It should choose the very best candidate who has been thoroughly vetted. This is an important job. There is too much at stake. There should be no surprises.

2. There are financial and political risks to foregoing a search

I understand that there are people and organizations who are trying to convince the board to skip a superintendent search entirely and simply hire Dr. Susan Enfield without considering any other candidates. They claim it will save the district money (I’ve heard $60,000). This shortcut may be easier for the board, but it may not necessarily be cheaper. In fact, it could be very costly – just as the hiring (and firing) of Goodloe-Johnson ultimately proved to be. Goodloe-Johnson and her failed Strategic Plan cost the district a great deal financially and in public trust (See: The True Legacy of Seattle’s Fired (Broad Academy) Superintendent Maria Goodloe-Johnson and Ten + Reasons Why the Seattle Public Schools Superintendent, Dr. Marie Goodloe-Johnson, Should Be Fired With Cause https://seattleducation2010.wordpress.com/2011/03/23/the-true-legacy-of-seattle%E2%80%99s-fired-broad-academy-superintendent-maria-goodloe-johnson/).

3.The state auditor has already cited the school board for failing to exercise oversight. The superintendent search is no time to shirk responsibilities again. For the school board directors to even entertain the thought of abrogating their duties of due diligence and fail to exert oversight yet again by not even bothering to conduct a proper candidate search would be irresponsible and reckless. (See: 2010 state audit https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B5eM_93rWLrLYTgyZDJhZjctYWM2NS00Y2MxLTgzMTctYTNlNjhjYjllMDBl&sort=name&layout=list&num=50) It could also leave the board and district vulnerable to costly misjudgment such as we saw under Goodloe-Johnson, and open to criticism for shirking its duties of oversight.

4. Susan Enfield has not been thoroughly vetted by SPS as a superintendent candidate.

Dr. Enfield was hired by Dr. Goodloe-Johnson to be CAO of our district. When appointed emergency interim superintendent earlier this year, a number of questions were left unanswered. If the district is to commit to a candidate for three or more years, such questions need to be answered for all candidates. Susan Enfield has not been thoroughly vetted as a superintendent candidate. There are a number of concerns and questions that I ask you to address and consider as you move forward in conducting a search.

I agree that Susan Enfield has better communication skills than Maria Goodloe-Johnson, but that should not be the only consideration. She has taken some positive actions during the last eight months on the job, letting go of some central administration staff, pulling back on one MAP test. But her record is mixed. There have been some troubling actions by her, and elements from her past, which leave uncertain what her leadership would be like if she were granted the job permanently and no longer felt the need to secure the position.

The community needs to know, does she have the judgment, skills and loyalties to the right priorities? As I’m sure you can understand, parents like myself are very nervous about the district making a mistake. Here are some more questions and issues that need to be considered and answered:

5. Why was Susan Enfield laid off by her previous employer, Evergreen School District (in Vancouver, WA)?

I request that you inquire into this.

“(…) 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.” See: 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/)

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/2014381857_enfield03m.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. (…)

7. Enfield has never been selected as a superintendent before in a competitive field.

Dr. Enfield was unsuccessful in her application for the superintendent’s job with the Bellevue School District shortly before she was hired by Goodloe-Johnson at SPS. She has never won the position of superintendent before.

Melissa Westbrook has reported on her blog that Dr. Enfield has threatened to withdraw her name entirely if a search is conducted. Is this true? If so, this does not reflect well on Dr. Enfield. It implies an extortion of sorts, an effort to force the board’s hand in her favor. Or a sign of her own insecurity. None of these are good signs.

8. Her peripatetic career: why so much movement, and is she committed to Seattle?

As the Seattle Times pointed out, according to her resume, Enfield has held 8 jobs in the last 10 years in six different towns (some appear to be promotions). Is she truly committed to Seattle, or just passing through, like Goodloe-Johnson apparently was? And why didn’t she stay longer in her previous positions? (Seattle: 7/2009-3/2011; 3/2011-?; Vancouver, WA: 8/2006-6/2009; Portland, OR: 11/2004-6/2006; Harrisburg, PA. 8/2003-10/2004; 1/2003-8/2003; Lancaster, PA: 8/2002-1/2003; Berkeley, CA 7/1999-7/2001).

9. Does she have divided loyalties? Her behind the scenes preoccupation with Teach for America, Inc. (on SPS’s dime?) and the message this sends to Seattle’s fully credentialed teachers raises a number of questions – and shades of Goodloe-Johnson. Dr. Enfield’s behind-the-scenes preoccupation with Teach for America, Inc., enabling their entry into SPS, appears a highly questionable use of her time and focus. E-mails (some attached in a separate message) 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 I find 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 financiers 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, 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? As a parent, I want our superintendent to work for our kids and our district, not other businesses or organizations.

10. The summary firing of Principal Martin Floe – questionable judgment

Her summary firing of a beloved longtime Seattle principal for reasons never clearly stated (“stagnant test scores”) shortly after she was named interim superintendent, and from which she had to backtrack after significant public outcry is cause for concern. (The Martin Floe debacle.) She hinted in her retraction announcement that she still believed she had reason to fire Floe. Is she just biding her time until she gets permanently appointed? Will she then fire him again?

11. Pay raises for central administration staff during recession – questionable judgment

Enfield’s decision to spontaneously award pay raises to a series of JSCEE central administrative staffers earlier this year, during an economic recession and a time of budget austerity, not for merit but simply to keep up with the salaries of other districts, exhibits questionable judgment and priorities. The district’s scarce money should be directed to the classrooms, not to the already decent salaries of headquarter staff.

12. Her education consulting company – potential conflict of interest?

Dr. Enfield started an education consulting company (SEH Education Consulting) while she was employed as deputy superintendent of Evergreen Public Schools. Though, according to the Seattle Times, her company never did business with the Evergreen district, this seems like a possibility for a conflict of interest, or at least the appearance of impropriety. (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2014381857_enfield03m.html)

13. On her watch, two questionable hires: Teach for America, Inc. recruitment director as SPS recruitment manager, and staffer from controversial political marketing firm Strategies 360

On her watch, the district hired a former recruitment director for Teach for America, Inc. and TFA alum (Nathan Fitzpatrick) as a recruitment manager at the same time it allowed TFA recruits into the hiring pool. How can a staffer with a TFA background not be biased in favor of TFA recruits? This sounds like another conflict of interest. Meanwhile, on her watch, the district hired a key staffer from a political marketing firm with a controversial history—Lesley Rogers from Strategies 360. In 2009, his firm used illegally obtained private information of SPS students and teachers to create a push poll and the controversial Our Schools Coalition. (Seattle School District hires staffer from Strategies 360 – the political marketing firm that misused private student contact info to push ed reform agenda)

14. Why the need for a deputy superintendent? Could a more experienced candidate eliminate the need for this second position (saving money)?

For the first time in many years, the district has employed a deputy superintendent (Noel Treat). Why? This implies Susan Enfield cannot do the job alone. Would a more qualified and experienced candidate eliminate the need for this second position? If so, that would be a cost savings for the district, by eliminating a significant salary.

15. She was hired by Goodloe-Johnson and was part of that controversial administration, so she does not represent new, independent leadership.

As Director Patu pointed out at the March 4 meeting where Goodloe-Johnson was fired and Enfield appointed, Enfield was hired by Goodloe-Johnson (in 2009) and is therefore part of the troubled Goodloe-Johnson era. (Patu was the dissenting vote against Enfield’s appointment.) So, choosing Enfield as a leader does not represent a fresh new beginning for the district. Arguably it would be best to have a superintendent who is independent and untarnished by such past associations.

16. Her close association with controversial education reformist Vicki Phillips of the Gates Foundation.

For a number of years, Susan Enfield has had a close affiliation with the controversial ed reformist Vicki Phillips, now of the Gates Foundation’s education department. Cronyism, the overuse of costly outside consultants and other issues apparently cropped up for Phillips in both Portland, OR and PA, where both women worked together, according to this article: Calls of cronyism add to concerns over core curriculum (http://www.portlandtribune.com/news/story.php?story_id=117339349292820000) Enfield worked for Phillips at multiple locations, following her from Pennsylvania to Oregon and now to Seattle (via Vancouver, WA). Is Enfield influenced by this association? Will the Gates Foundation, which embraces a controversial education reform agenda, have even more access to the superintendent and influence district policy?

17. If the school district can conduct a national search for its director of communications, surely it can conduct one for the far more important superintendent position.
Earlier this year the Seattle School District found the time and resources to create a committee of over 30 people and conduct a “national search” just to find its director of communications! (Lesley Rogers of Strategies 360, who was local.) Surely the district will do no less to find the best candidates for the unquestionably more important position of district superintendent.

See: Chief Communications Officer appointed

March 25, 2011

Seattle Public Schools on Friday announced the appointment of Lesley Rogers as the district’s Chief Communications Officer, following a national search.

Rogers, who starts April 4, will oversee internal and external communications for the District. She replaces Bridgett Chandler, who resigned on Jan. 3. The appointment follows a national search and interview process that included a team of more than 30 people – District staff, school staff, community members, a union representative and parents. Candidates in the final interview had to present a professional development workshop, a strategic communications plan, a mock media roundtable and take a writing test. (…)

18. Other districts consider many candidates for superintendent. Broward County in Florida recently considered over 40 applicants for its school superintendent position (School Board Announces Receipt of Applicants for Superintendent of Schools http://www.browardschools.com/superintendent/resume.htm). For Seattle to only consider one candidate is shortsighted, and essentially amounts to a no-bid contract.

19. Why not conduct a local search? Surely there are candidates right here in the Seattle area who are respected, knowledgeable figures of integrity who would be eager to steward our school district, and not merely passing through. A well-respected retired principal, perhaps. A community leader whom families trust. Maybe a search does not have to be national nor expensive.

As a parent in SPS whose children have suffered under the churn and mismanagement of the previous superintendent who clearly was not a good choice for our district, I’m sure you can understand that I want to see the district hire the very best candidate possible, of unquestionable integrity and commitment to our kids and city. That is why I urge you to conduct a thorough search for superintendent.

Thank you for your consideration of these thoughts.

Sincerely,

Sue Peters

SPS parent
Co-founding editor, Seattle Education Blog
Contributing writer, the Huffington Post
Founding member, Parents Across America