How can Seattle schools move forward when the school board is stuck in the past?

As most school board observers know, the critical work of the board is performed in the work committees outside of the view of only the most die hard parents, those who can skip work to attend. Board decisions are usually made before the public board meetings are held. The public board meetings are not very useful but for the illusion that public testimony might cause change. Does that method really work?

I found a site that has a new approach for school boards that you might find interesting;

"New Roles for Board Members

Assuming such a role is taken on by the superintendent, what, then, becomes the role of the school board?
Traditionally, few boards ever have meetings without the superintendent physically present; they are much like children relying on a parent—or students relying on a teacher. Just as we see with kids in a classroom, when excellence is not demanded, when thoughtfulness is not valued, and when self-directed meaningful work is not required, then apathy and mediocrity result. Is it any wonder trustees have abdicated their responsibilities over the years? Or that they spend board meetings debating the merits of selling candy bars at fund raisers? They've come to believe that they can't do much, don't know much, and shouldn't do much—and act accordingly."

more