Updated to include President Katims’ response to a public commenter.
The Edmonds School District Board of Directors had further discussion at its Tuesday, April 12, business meeting about its search for an interim superintendent, including an announcement by Board President Nancy Katims that the board will hire someone outside the district for the interim role.
Current Superintendent Dr. Gustavo Balderas recently announced that he will soon be leaving the district to accept a position with the Beaverton, Oregon School District. His last day will be June 30.
Since it is likely to take months to find Balderas’ replacement, the board said at its March 27 meeting it would be hiring an interim superintendent.
On Tuesday night, Katims said the board will restrict the interim superintendent search to external candidates, rather than hiring someone from inside the district. While the board’s decision may come as a surprise to many, Katims said the board felt that hiring externally makes the most sense at the moment.
“We know this decision will not make everyone happy,” Katims said. “But part of this thinking is related to potential, unintended consequences if we were to hire an internal candidate.”
Katims went on to say that if an internal candidate is hired, the board would then have to search for another interim employee to fill that position, and so on.
Since the last school board meeting, the board has created a list of potential candidates for the interim superintendent position and will be interviewing two of them later this week. Katims said if neither feels like they are a good fit for the district, the board will continue to look until it finds the right candidate. The interim candidate would be hired to fill the role for no more than one year.
The top criteria the board will be looking for are as follows:
- The ability to keep people calm, foster unity and continue forward with the district’s strategic plan
- Prior experience as a superintendent or extensive knowledge about the Edmonds School District
- Skills on how to increase graduation rates and overall student achievement
- Sufficient people skills to keep current staff intact and the ability to recruit even more assets to the district
Also during the meeting, the board held an extended public comment session to allow citizens more time to voice their concerns. These sessions are normally limited to 30 minutes but on Tuesday night, public comments continued until everyone had spoken to ensure more people could be heard.
Each commenter was given a total of three minutes to speak. The district did not make direct comments on any topic but will send a follow-up response to each speaker within the coming few weeks.
Among the topics:
– One speaker expressed concern about the open speech regarding transgenderism in the school district. The speaker said that by openly speaking about this topic and accepting it as normal, it is on a path “to destroy the children in the district.” The speaker urged the district to stop educating about sexuality in schools and leave such topics to parents, should they decide to teach their children about it. “Do your part to educate, not indoctrinate,” she said.
A letter read from another speaker touched on what she viewed as a conflict of interest between the district and parents specifically regarding the COVID-19 pandemic policies.
“School government has a vested interest in the system as a whole,” she wrote, “while parents have a vested interest in the children.”
The letter went on to accuse State Superintendent of Public Instruction Chris Reykdal of threatening to withhold tax funds from the district based on whether it complies with current health policies. According to the commenter, no one in the state superintendent’s office has the power to withhold any form of district funding.
The letter writer claimed the board of directors is giving up too much power and conceding to those in higher positions, who should not have the ability to make decisions for the district. She urged the board to not be intimidated by other governing bodies.
Another speaker voiced her concern regarding the new Woodway Center for some of the district’s kindergarten students, and how the district is determining which students should be sent there. If schools had received the support and extra staffing they have been asking for all year, the speaker said, children wouldn’t need to attend another school.
“Support the kids where they are,” she said, “before taking them out of the schools they know.”
President Katims gave a response at the end of the meeting regarding why the school places emphasis on supporting transgender children within the district.
“If you look at our strategic plan, one of our most important pieces is that we want all of our students to feel that they belong,” Katims said. “This is one of the most important things. Part of that means that there are students in marginalized groups, who typically or traditionally have not felt that they belong. This includes students of color, LGBTQ students, special ed students, English language learners, immigrants, many students who we feel have been to some extent in their lives, neglected in terms of feeling that they belong to the overall group and that they feel welcome. And that is why we pay special attention to students in those groups. This does not take away from students who typically and traditionally feel like they belong. We want everybody to feel like they belong.”
In other business, Assistant Superintendent Dr. Greg Schwab introduced a new tutoring program the school district is preparing to release. Paper Tutoring will be fully online and accessible to any high school student at any time.
The program will provide assistance to students in over 200 subjects. Support is currently available in English, Spanish, Mandarin and French.
All the student advisors who serve on the school board voiced their excitement for Paper Tutoring, adding they wished it had come sooner so students could have used it during online learning.
“It’s a great idea that Paper Tutoring is offered at all hours,” said student Lia Addisu. “I know a lot of students have other responsibilities and commitments, where they aren’t able to … have any tutoring because they aren’t able to do their homework until late in the night.”
Assistant Superintendent Dana Geaslen also presented a regular COVID-19 update to the board. Out of the total number of PCR and rapid tests given from March 22 to April 12, only 11 came back with positive results.
While cases continue to decline , Geaslen said that two classrooms had to switch to remote learning for two weeks due to outbreaks. Geaslen reported that the classrooms are now out of quarantine and doing well.
The district will continue to have PCR and rapid tests readily available at all schools, as well as health screeners and containment spaces.
— By Lauren Reichenbach
I’m very disappointed in My Edmonds News for amplifying the hate-fueled comment at the Board meeting about transgender people, while ignoring my comment at the end of the meeting regarding the district’s goal to ensure that ALL our students feel that they belong, no matter if they are students of color, LGBTQ+, immigrants, English Learners, Special Education, etc., as well as our students who are not in any marginalized group.
Teaching about gender identity is part of the state standards in Health Education. If a parent wants to opt their student out of any activity, including those designed to help our students understand and appreciate the many differences among us, it is the parent’s right to do so. But it is the district’s responsibility to educate and support all our students with the long-term goal that they become thoughtful, respectful, and successful citizens.
Director Katims — we appreciate the feedback and I will touch base with the reporter to made sure we add your comment to the story. — Teresa Wippel, publisher
Nancy Katims – A little over one to two-thirds of parents strongly believe that public schools have no business injecting “transgenderism” or any of the other recent sexual-identity based ideologies into the classroom. I’m one of them. For many (most?) of us, this stems from strongly and deeply held personal beliefs.
It is unseemly and disrespectful for anyone to label an idea that they disagree with as “hate speech,” particularly when that idea is not represented by a sad minority (anti-Semitism, for example) but is one shared by a significant plurality. For a public official, it is especially dangerous – such action has a chilling effect on speech, doubly so nowadays when some academics and public officials are openly saying that what they define as “hate speech” should result in criminal penalties.
I ask that you show some kindness and respect for parents. Parents have the inviolable right to not have their children indoctrinated into the latest ideology developed by fringe academics. Please respect the fact that not everyone thinks like you and that doesn’t make them a bad person nor their thoughts “hate speech.” Please think about the term “hate speech,” who defines it, and if you would like all the powers of definition and consequences to be given to your ideological opposite. Please be kind.
Melinda Hernandez
. “Do your part to educate, not indoctrinate,” she said.
Indoctrination is what the other person does. Education is what I do.
And teachers shouldn’t be allowed to inject themselves into education!
Melinda Hernandez — I appreciate your sharing your perspective. However, when someone says that talking about transgenderism and accepting it as normal is on a path “to destroy the children in the district,” that is without a doubt a hateful statement to all transgender people. We have transgender staff, parents, and students in our district, and we respect and appreciate all of them. You say, “Please be kind.” Acknowledging their rights as all people should is what’s kind. Saying they are “not normal “ is not kind.
You refer to a percentage of people believing a certain way as giving legitimacy to that belief. During the Holocaust a huge percentage of German citizens believed that Jewish people should be exterminated. That certainly didn’t make it right.
As I mentioned in my earlier comment, our teachers follow the state standards. Any parent who does not want their child to participate in an activity or lesson may opt their child out. That is their right, and it is respected.
Nancy – Thank you for your quick reply. I don’t think we have any common ground upon which to speak – you clearly think that it is OK for non-family adults to discuss intimate sexual matters with other people’s children and to indoctrinate them into an ideology that is absolutely opposite to the deeply held personal and religious beliefs of roughly half of all parents.
That’s fine, I guess. We will be removing our children from the public school system. Many others will do so, too, to protect them from the harmful ideology that you wish to expose them to. I regret that you are unable to recognize the harm that you are doing to children and their families – a thing that would likely have resulted in criminal action against you, a few short years ago – and I hope that you are able to understand, at some point in the future, just how poorly this serves students.
Again, thank you for your response.
I was heavily and repeatedly indoctrinated when I was young. Parents, schools, the press – all indoctrinated me on a daily basis. It took me many years of anxiety, guilt, hiding, to free myself of the harmful oppression that had been pounded into me by a harmful ideology.
The, at around 20, I began to question the things that I had been taught and to overcome the harm that ideology had done to me.
I came out to myself and my friends as gay, and I have been a better, more honest, happier, and more productive than was ever possible as long as the hetero-only ideology was enforced upon me.
I fail to see how acknowledging differences can be thought to be destructive. In truth, it saves lives. Enforcing isolation and ignorance does no one any good.
Nathaniel Brown, thank you for sharing your life experience. I hope as the world continues to become more enlightened and knowledgeable about human biology, fewer and fewer people will have to go through the tortuous emotions that you endured for years.
Thank you. The problem is that so many people think we don’t really exist, we’re not real, and if they can just ignore us and erase us – cancel us – we’ll simply go away. This kind of thinking is why LGBT kids kill themselves at two or three times the rate of their heteronormal brothers and sisters. This kind of thinking is why three of my friends, though happily married, are wholly estranged from their families – mothers and fathers who thought being LGBT was a “phase” or a “choice,” and will never have the joy of participating in their children’s lives and families.
On the other hand, four of my friends are married to their same-sex spouses, deeply happy, and loved and supported by their families. Which situation is better?
Tragically, the parents who so vehemently oppose inclusive philosophies and programs are the ones whose LGBT children are repressed, frightened, and in danger of suicide. And those parents will never know it until in one way or another, it is too late.
Inclusive programs do not “indoctrinate” kids, or make them “choose” to be LGBT, but they do recognize reality and promote understanding and honesty while helping to prevent tragedy.
It is sad to see this kind of discussion. Educating our kids is a “Paramount Duty” of all of us. Our State Constitution has that language and the McCleary decision move us a little bit forward on forcing the State to step up to that principle. The current case moving its way through the courts will likely advance the role of the state in doing more for educating our kids.
We have learned a lot about how educating our kids during the CV19 ordeal and “science” would suggest there is no single method, or process that works for all. Too many kids cannot read or do math at their grade level and far too many kids do not graduate, and many kids are just not prepared for the realities of making a living upon ending their public education. What we have learned is we need multiple approaches to better educate our kids and some of the successful models do not rely on the current school systems as we know it today.
In round numbers the state allocates about $16k/kid. The 295 separate districts can, if the voters agree, can add around $2.5k. Then mostly at the local level we have to provide space for the kids to learn. Currently that is about $3k per year. As a society we are now more than ever adding Early Learning (age 3-4) to the mix and if done using our current models will be a whopping increase to the total costs. “Equity” in education will move toward the model of some form of schooling from age 3 to not just K-12 but 2 years of publicly funded education beyond HS. Education will be a 17 yr experience.
As citizens and taxpayers, we will never agree on “a” way that works best and we may end up concluding that attaching the dollars to the kid and letting the parents chart the best plan for their kids may be the best model. Just as we are rethinking the issues of work models, we should spend some time rethinking our education models. Choice may be best.
As is his technique, Darrol once again confuses a perfectly good emotions and ideological based argument, by introducing those pesky facts and figures into the discussion. He’s always trying to help us make sense out of the senseless. He’s right, though, this is a very sad conversation. As he points out so well, here, the general consensus is and has been the state has a legal obligation to educate our children.
Maybe it’s even time to take another look at this basic idea of what the State’s legal duty is? Maybe ” public” education should be an opt. in proposition, rather than an opt out one. You put your child in “public education,” you pay public education taxes. You put your child in private education, you don’t pay public education taxes. (While you are at it, please cut my public education taxes in half, since I never had any kids, but do want children educated to be responsible and productive citizens).
If you are a parent who views “Transgenderism” as an “ideology” rather than an unfortunate but real medical condition, your children probably belong in a private school setting where only one view of the world is ever taught. We have to quit trying to force our own particular values on each other (except our children until they are 18.) No one likes that. “Public” should be charged with teaching all views of any given aspect of human life and “Private” should be charged with doing whatever it wants in this respect and people should have a choice as long as it doesn’t force harm on other people (over age 18) as a result. All easier said than done.
Clinton, I think you agree with some of my points but hard to really be sure. The state constitutional requirement puts education as a paramount duty to provide. It does not say that it must be through the 295 separate school districts. We have 1m kids in K-12 among our 7m citizens, about 77k per grade. Adding 2 grades below and above adds 300k kids or a 30% increase to what now is becoming the new norm for education. We have always had private schools and in recent years the state will allow up to 40 charter school to emerge under the wings of our 295 districts. My question is basically this….”should we the taxpayers advocate for more charter schools and if so, should the state money for education follow the kids to these schools?”
Things often work best when new ideas are offered as a form of competition. We do that when we let competition “build a better mouse trap”. Maybe we should do that with education to see if we can improve the outcome for our kids.
Darrol, my good friend, Yes, I think I do pretty much agree with you on this one. I’m a little skeptical of the idea of competition building the better mousetrap, however. (Pitting public vs. private schools).
I’d be inclined to view it more as facilitating the choice of public or private schools by parents based on their perceived views of the world. If parents want to send their children to a private school with a specific view of what is the “right” world and what is the “wrong” world, that should be their option in a truly free society. Definitely let them off the taxation hook, if they are willing and able to pay the cost of a private school education that favors their particular life view or views.
If 25% of the population decided to go this route, the costs for public education should, theoretically, go down by about 25%. The lady who thinks her child is being indoctrinated by the “ideology” of Transgenderism should have a choice to send her child where she wants and have to only pay for that education, not pay for both her options. That doesn’t mean I agree with her view. My agreement here is irrelevant. All that counts is her opinion in the matter until her kids are of the age to make their own decisions about what is right and wrong in their own world views.