Citizen Involvement Mission

As mayor, Rice promulgated a citizen involvement mission to guide all actions conducted by the mayor's office (Tupper 1993):

To provide honest, accessible leadership and outstanding service to the citizens, employees, and regional neighbors of the City of Seattle, and further develop a clear collective sense of vision, empowerment, and responsibility, in order to make our diverse City and the surrounding region an even better place to live, learn, work, and play.

Upholding his campaign promise, Rice went to work organizing a Seattle Education Summit, an event he hoped would utilize the input of the Seattle community on implementing real change for the ailing Seattle School District. Mayoral intervention in urban education reform was a bold move for a first major initiative. Mayors are often hesitant to spend their political capital on public education, since they do not appoint school board members and have no control over the district's fiscal policy. However, as others have affirmed, mayoral leadership is needed to bring full engagement of the community to public education and to ensure school system accountability. Further, mayors often see an improving public school system as a key social indicator for urban livability and indeed community development. This was Rice's motivation for undertaking the Seattle Education Summit in 1990.

Seattle Education Summit

To begin the planning process, Rice appointed Constance Rice and Ancil Payne as co-chairs of the agenda committee. Payne, a beloved community steward with a long political and broadcasting career, and Rice, a community leader with a doctorate in education, were charged with developing the summit. Many leaders supported the idea of hosting an event that would gamer community-wide support and work toward the goal of improving the schools. However, outlining the detailed plan of the event was a more complex task that took months. A planning mission statement was created to guide all of the subsequent planning: “The purpose of the Summit is to move all segments of Seattle toward a comprehensive solution to problems facing our schools and community” (Education Summit Planning Mission Statement 1990).

A committee of sixty stakeholders, widely representative of the community, was created to oversee the planning of the summit and to ensure the different components of the event remained aligned with the larger issues. Long-term strategies were developed to work toward the renewal of "educational equality, safety, and parental confidence in our schools” (Rice 1990). Rice included representatives from every sector in the planning process because he felt they would all be critical players in the implementation of the action plan for improving the schools. And, while he intended to be present and participate in the event, he understood he could not be a part of everything and instead associated himself with a respected group of professionals.

Underlying Theory

From the inception, Rice and summit organizers intended the event to be accessible to every citizen. Just as every person in the public, private, and nonprofit sectors stood to benefit from high-performing local schools, so the responsibility for improving them falls on every citizen. The goal was to engage not only principals, teachers, students, and parents but also citizens from the larger community. Further, effort was made to promote the summit as worth the time necessary for full participation.

At the heart of the summit was the belief that results of community engagement were in no way predetermined. Indeed, if priorities were already known, resources used to plan and implement the summit would have been wasted. The election of a new mayor created hope for change and opportunity for consensus among disparate stakeholders.

To guide the summit planning process, a list of values and preferred outcomes was developed. Many of the statements in this list focused on the inclusion of all citizens and an intention to bring in groups or individuals who typically did not participate in community debates (Education Summit Implementation Plan 1990). Further, no one was to dominate the summit. The summit provided for future engagements. Success was defined as the creation of “a positive environment for similar cooperative community processes organized around other issues.” School-related outcomes were encapsulated as “the summit should end in general agreement that the groups and individuals who participated will commit resources and work together to achieve progress on three to five major education issues” and that both short-term and long-term achievable action steps will be identified. A final value was that the summit would not be a “quick fix” for the schools (Education Summit Implementation Plan 1990).

Community Summit Meetings

The summit convened community meetings intended to identify the priorities of the community for improving schools that would lead to the discussion at a citywide summit. Summit organizers understood the importance placed on including all segments of the community. Recruiting an extensive and diverse participation from all neighborhoods was a formidable task in recruitment and cooperation.

As locations around the city were considered, several critical components were assessed: available parking, proximity to public transit, handicap accessibility, a separate room suitable for child care, the capability for wired technology, and a space large enough that groups could be separated for smaller discussions. By fulfilling these criteria and providing food, summit organizers hoped to eliminate any barriers preventing an average citizen from participating. Further, organizers included meetings on Sunday to accommodate those who could not come to Saturday meetings. Thirty-two locations meeting the criteria were chosen throughout the city and included community centers, high schools, and elementary schools.

After the locations were confirmed, the plan for recruiting diverse stakeholder participant groups was put into action. The Rice mayoral campaign had a significant number of grassroots organizations and volunteers that aided in its success; they were subsequently called upon to assist in outreach for the summit. Sue Tupper, lead community organizer for the summit, figured that going door-to-door in every neighborhood to advertise the event was not feasible. Thus, she and her team obtained the list of Seattle voters who consistently vote in local elections. At the very least, this list provided a large pool of participants who were informed about the schools. Outreach teams were sent throughout the neighborhoods armed with invitations personally signed by Mayor Rice to attend the community meetings. Tupper believes the invitation from Rice was a powerful tool, symbolizing an opportunity to ease conflict and promote solutions to school crisis. Houses that were “door-belled” also received subsequent mailings and phone calls prior to the community meeting. To ensure that every citizen heard about the summit, a multipronged media campaign was launched. Press releases and public service announcements were widely distributed.

While a major mayoral initiative, resources to plan and implement the summit were not exclusively city funds. Bob Watt, then deputy mayor, remembers participating in significant fund-raising for the event. Also, there were considerable in-kind resources from stakeholders: computers were donated, much of the facilitation was accomplished with donated labor, and there was no cost associated with the use of the sites selected. Even with this support, Watt estimated the cost of the summit to be around $100,000, a cost yielding much more in benefits.

Community Summit Meetings

In April 1990, over 1,950 people gathered at thirty-two sites around the city to discuss and prioritize the issues facing the schools and the ways in which to improve them (Summary of Community Meetings 1990). Tupper remembers the relentless rain during the days leading up to the April meeting and the fears they ah had that nobody was going to show. Instead, the sun came out and so did the community. Site managers, included in the training and organization of the event, organized the participants into groups of ten at the different sites. Participants were welcomed and informed of the agenda and process for the day's discussions. Every group selected a timekeeper, a recorder, and a leader, who was given the task of reading the instructions at every table and beginning the discussion. There were few planned speeches. Posturing was not allowed, but people were afforded the opportunity to speak their mind. Community meeting organizers wanted to ensure the day began positively, so each group was instructed on how to participate in a visionary exercise. People were encouraged to imagine the results of the summit five years down the road. Participants were then asked to share what they saw and what they believe would need to be accomplished at the summit to produce those outcomes. This exercise was not meant to take more than twenty minutes to complete, and from there participants were told to begin a list of current problems. The visioning exercise created a positive start for ah participants and prevented any negative agenda from dominating the discussions.

When problem lists were complete, participants prioritized them by selecting the top five most distressing issues. This exercise, repeated at all of the sites, produced a community-initiated comprehensive list of the schools' most pressing problems or issues. Organized community groups who had a specific motive or stake in the summit were encouraged to meet before the community meetings to plan which issues they would include as a priority. These groups were interspersed with the average citizens attending the community meetings, preventing any special interest group from promoting their agenda.

Soon after the community meetings, summit organizers and Rice and his staff gathered in a room where the walls were covered by the prioritized lists developed at the meetings. Very quickly, patterns and reoccurring themes emerged and evolved into the most frequently stated priorities. The reports from the thirty-two sites were compiled into a final report that was prepared for the city wide summit meeting in May 1990. At the core of this report were the five priorities determined at the community summit meetings (Summary of Community Meetings 1990):

1. Enhance the learning environment for students and teachers.

2. Involve the community in school-based decision making and make schools community focal points.

3. Make sure every child is safe, healthy, and ready to learn.

4. Recognize and celebrate cultural diversity in the schools.

5. Enhance basic education funding.

To the surprise of some and to delight of others, busing was not a common response and thus not included among priorities. Perhaps participants felt they had addressed busing with their vote in the election five months earlier, or perhaps they believed there were larger issues at the root of busing or related issues. Success of the community meetings was evident in the number of participants and in the robustness of the reoccurring priorities. Organizers were pleased with the quality of discussion and effort put forth in the community meetings and were confident outcomes would lead discussions at the summit. Tupper remembers the renewed energy organizers felt after the community meetings: “Everyone was excited to get back to work to make the [citywide] summit equally successful."

Citywide Summit

Summit organizers were not the only ones energized by the successful community meetings. A number of positive newspaper articles and editorials portrayed the city's collective hope that the summit was genuine in its attempt to reverse the recent negative discourse surrounding Seattle schools and to listen to the community for change. One editorialist for the Seattle Times who attended the community meeting at a local high school wrote there was “enough [hope] to make you nervous, because hope is such a fragile thing. Now that so much of it has been generated, the next steps are critical" (Cameron 1990). In other articles, Rice was quoted as hopeful but cautious: “Some of the changes identified at the community meetings are things we can do right away. But many of these changes will take time" (Flores 1990a).

The citywide Summit was held in May 1990 in the centrally located Seattle Center. On the first day, the public attended or joined small group discussions on issue priorities. On the second day, meetings included only preappointed task forces composed of representatives from the community meetings. Each group at the community meetings selected one representative to act as spokesperson at the summit. Additionally, there were representatives from the school board, city council, county council, and other public officials, who increased the level of political discourse at the summit. Undoubtedly, this was the reality in which any proposed solution would have to be considered.

Even though not all of the almost 2,000 participants of the community summit meetings could attend the citywide summit, organizers were diligent to keep them engaged. After having worked hard to gain the trust of the public, considerable effort was made to keep everyone abreast of the progress of the summit. Further, a larger goal of the summit was to foster trust and belief in the utility of civic engagement for sustained participation. All community meeting participants were sent a copy of the citywide priorities that were to be used as the focus of the summit discussions and contact information if the individual had any questions or concerns. In order to sustain legitimacy, organizers wanted to ensure that all future discussions and actions steps implemented could be directly traced back to the community meetings. As one of his administration's first events, Rice was adamant that the summit be a positive experience for the community participants.

The first day of the summit was devoted to discussions of the priorities outlined in the reports from the community meetings. The day began by viewing a professionally made video that welcomed the participants, provided background information, and explained the purpose of the summit. It summarized the results of the community meetings and presented a balanced account of the issues to be discussed. In addition to outlining current school problems, the video highlighted successful efforts the school district and other players were helping implement (Education Summit Implementation Plan 1990). Participants were separated into working groups and charged with the task of further discussing the given priorities and potential action steps required for each and perfecting the priority statements by the end of the day. While increased state funding, higher salaries for teachers, and other large-ticket items were often included, organizers encouraged participants to keep centered on solutions community members could implement. Rice and other leaders assured participants they understood the need for additional resources and would lobby state lawmakers to bolster education funding (Flores 1990a).

The second day was devoted to determining the action steps that would help achieve those goals. Additionally, all of the discussions from the first day of meetings were entered into a central computer system. When the participants returned on the second day, they were asked to confirm that what was recorded was indeed what was said. This step is crucial in any implementation of effective citizen engagement, as participants want to know they have been heard and heard accurately. A community leader from different sectors was assigned to chair five working groups, each addressing a priority identified by the community summit meetings. Attaining additional education funding from the state, perhaps the hardest priority to achieve, was given to Dan Evans, former Washington State governor and U.S. senator . Other leaders included business leaders and a librarian. These groups were to identify specific action steps and spend the next month beginning to implement these steps or working to build commitments from community and business leaders that could be unveiled at the community celebration scheduled for June 1990.

Many of the summit's critics voiced concern that the city did not need another report that would gather dust and provide few tangible results for the schools. Rice was aware of this criticism and placed great importance on working to create real results for the schools. A summit implementation group was established to provide an ongoing mechanism to monitor and coordinate initiatives the working groups created (“Are We Sustaining..1990). This group had very similar membership to the planning committee, including leaders from the public and private sectors, schools, and community. It was developed to assume responsibility for the short-term and long-range implementation plans and was a visible commitment to action by those involved in the summit. Significant community participation made the summit successful, but without the commitment from public leaders to turn participation into action, the summit could have resulted in another dust-gathering report.

The summit implementation group vowed to support implementing the initiatives in “Are We Sustaining Commitment and Accountability?” (1990). Within this report, vital players in the schools – such as Rice, the city council, Superintendent William Kendrick, members of the school board, Seattle community colleges, the Seattle Business Alliance, and representatives from the teachers' labor union – all pledged their support. Indeed, by the middle of May 1990, even the most staunch cynics and critics had to publicly associate themselves with the summit's positive results, given such widespread community support.

With the backing of major political, business, and community leaders and a number of confirmed short-term victories, Rice and summit organizers were ready to unveil the results and celebrate the success of the summit with the entire Seattle community.

A Celebration and Commitment to the Seattle Schools

June 16,1990, had been selected as a day for celebrating the end of the Education Summit and the beginning of the implementation of the resulting recommendations. The day had been designated, but what would be celebrated and by how many people were larger unknowns that left many organizers anxious. As the day grew near, and the successes from the summit were counted, the anxiousness morphed into excitement. The day began with a culmination breakfast at Garfield High School. Among the attendees were summit organizers and political and education leaders. Members of the media were also on hand to capture these leaders signing agreements and pledges to continue their cooperation and support of the developed initiatives, all while standing behind a banner proclaiming Just the Beginning in large bold type. The afternoon was spent at the Seattle Woodland Park Zoo, where the public was invited to a rally celebrating the summit's achievements. Three hundred parents, educators, and children gathered for entertainment, carnival-style food, and an update on the summit progress.

In just two months, the summit brought in $1 million of new resources to the Seattle Schools. Following are a few of the successes noted (McCloud 1990):

• The region's Metro Transit Authority agreed to provide up to $200,000 or more in free bus passes for school field trips to enhance learning opportunities outside the classroom.

• The Seattle business community agreed to finance and develop a training institute for school district personnel, principals, and teachers.

• The Seattle-King County Health Department and several local healthcare providers agreed to develop a comprehensive student healthcare system.

• The State of Washington agreed to provide additional early childhood education funding.

• The Seattle Public Library agreed to work with school libraries to coordinate information, making textbooks and assigned reading available at city branch libraries.

While these smaller victories would not be the catalyst for broad systemic change the district needed, there were vitally important victories for keeping the support for the Education Summit high. Furthermore, they bolstered the efforts to attain the larger victories.

The working group charged with researching new funding options, led by former Governor Dan Evans, addressed the dropping enrollment in the Seattle schools, as the number of students enrolled is linked to state funds the district receives. They also explored other avenues for increased funding, including private foundations and efforts to strategically lobby the state legislature to lift the “levy lid" that limits local financing of school districts (Flores 1990b). Mayor Rice pledged to give updates every six months regarding Summit Implementation Group progress and other task forces working to implement more change for the Seattle schools. Less than six months after that community celebration, Mayor Rice gave a very positive update with the passing of a voter-approved levy guaranteeing additional funds for Seattle's students.

The Family and Education Levy

In November 1990, just one year after the divisive busing initiative threatened to cause irreparable damage to the Seattle Schools, the Families and Education Levy passed and stood as a statement of the city's support for the schools and the biggest financial contribution to come out of the summit. Making children “safe, healthy, and ready to learn” was not only a priority of the levy but was also used as the motto by which the levy was promoted throughout the city. The levy guaranteed $69.2 million at about $8.5 million annually for seven years, paid through increased property taxes. The levy passed with 57 percent support from those who voted. However, according to the Seattle Times, in 1990, 86 percent of Seattle voters did not have children (Seattle Times Editorial Board 1990). Support of this levy by so many voters who did not have school-age children illustrates the extent to which the summit gained the trust of the larger community and successfully portrayed the importance in leaving the whole community vested in the success of the schools.

The city aimed to address multiple issues outside the classroom that can affect the ability of a student to learn or remain in school through graduation (Bock 1990). Additionally, the levy freed up $2.1 million in the district's budget that could be redirected to classroom education. The following goals undergirded the Family and Education Levy as Proposition 1 on the November 1990 ballot (Street 1990):

• Implement community priorities established through the Education Summit.

• Make children safe, healthy, and ready to learn.

• Support families and strengthen parent effectiveness as educational partners.

• Develop community schools.

• Build stronger partnerships between schools and community-based agencies.

• Celebrate cultural diversity and promote equal learning opportunities.

• Free school district resources to improve classroom learning environments.

The programs funded by the levy included expanding latchkey programs, dropout prevention, and adding school counselors, nurses, and family resource centers (Bock 1990). As can often happen when a city government works to improve the state of a school district, there was opposition from a school board fearing then- power being usurped. However, this levy was savvy in its efforts to relieve some of the financial burden on the school district and, in essence, assist the school board in its mission. This effort confirmed the role of the city to assist in the well-being of its youngest constituents.

The levy was reauthorized by Seattle voters in 1997 and again in 2004, when it was expanded to contribute $116 million over seven years (City of Seattle 2008). A sharper focus was placed on preparing children for school, improving academic achievement, and reducing disproportional results in the schools. Further, an emphasis was placed on serving students and schools that have traditionally under- performed and on improving early learning in the first three years based on current research identifying this crucial time in a student's development.