Sunday, October 23, 2016

Nays and Yays: Board of Ed Elections in Cecil County

I had hoped that the circus-like atmosphere surrounding the primary election season had died down (at least locally), but no. With a little more than two weeks to go, we’ve got attention-seeking behavior and nastiness--and I’m not even talking about the presidential race: these absurdities have now become characteristic of our board of education elections, too. Essentially, we can divide the candidates in the races for Districts 1 and 2 into two categories: The Nays and the Yays.  



The Nays

District 1: Kevin Emmerich
In the Chesapeake City district, Kevin Emmerich began his campaign by running together with Ron Lobos. The two advertised themselves during the primary season as the “conservative slatecandidates. In fact, in addition to some campaign funding from his own money, Emmerich received an unspecified level of campaign funding from the Conservative Education Slate political action committee (PAC), the amount of which is not publicly disclosed. (To research campaign finance disclosures, search candidates and PACs here. )

In discussing their candidacies on the Cecil County Campaign for Liberty’s Facebook page last winter, Lobos indicated that he was the primary mover in that relationship but that he needed Emmerich “just to second” his motions on the Board of Education to bring about the changes he wants:
When Lobos lost the District 2 primary race by such a large margin (Jim Fazzino received more than twice the votes that Lobos did, and Erin Doordan received nearly twice the votes that Lobos did), one wondered whether Emmerich was still enthusiastic about the prospect of public office without Lobos at his side to guide his thinking.

Emmerich and Bill Manlove are the only two candidates running for the District 1 seat, so they did not need a primary run-off. Thus, their campaigns have been largely quiet until recent weeks. The “loudest” move that Emmerich made during primary season was, however, one of its ugliest moments. He is the candidate who originally posted the “Stool Bus” photo on Ron Lobos’ publicly accessible Facebook page:
That photo created a great deal of understandable public outrage and shed considerable light on Emmerich’s and Lobos’ judgment and on their cynical motives in running for public office. Their idea of a joke was not funny to parents, educators, and other decent human beings who do not view children as excrement.

When voting for the District 1 seat (and remember--no matter where you live in Cecil County, we ALL get to vote for ALL of the seats), ask yourself,

“Do I want a man on the Board of Education who does not respect the nonpartisan nature of the job, who takes his marching orders from someone who lost the primary election, and who does not care about children and or education?” If the answer to this question is "No," vote for Bill Manlove.

District 2: Ron Lobos
Ron Lobos came in third in the District 2 primary with 18% of the vote, but for some reason, as of October 20 (yes, just a few days ago), he has decided to run as a write-in candidate. Perhaps he thought primary voters were just playing hard to get?

I went into depth on Mr. Lobos’ beliefs back during the primary season (click here and here). From the start of that season, Lobos and his supporters have been a vicious personal attack machine. In advocating for his bizarre stances on issues involving the school budget and the Common Core State Standards, he has attacked the school system, his fellow candidates, and even children by allowing the Stool Bus photo on his Facebook page. Not satisfied with Emmerich’s candidacy alone, he has decided at the 11th hour that he wants back in.

Here is Lobos’ Facebook post announcing his write-in intentions:
Note from this announcement that Lobos continues to claim that he is running as the conservative voice in the campaign, with a blatant disregard for the fact that the office is nonpartisan. If that weren’t disturbing enough, he describes Jim Fazzino as “left of left,” which I am sure was news to Jim given the party affiliation under which he has voted for many years now. If you’re going to violate the spirit and procedure of a nonpartisan race, Mr. Lobos, at least check your facts.

Speaking of disregarding facts, Lobos' first candidate post since filing as a write-in candidate shows yet another misunderstanding he has regarding the job of Board of Education member:
"Our" (presumably Lobos and Emmerich) "competition" (presumably Fazzino and Manlove) "supports federal control of our schools"? When has that topic ever come up? When did Fazzino or Manlove ever say or do anything indicating that they want federal control of public schools? Not once. This is a desperate final attempt to gain control of elected offices that Lobos and Emmerich should never have. One of Lobos' chief advisers, Mr. Vincent Sammons, posted this item on Jim Fazzino's campaign Facebook page on Friday, presumably attempting to goad Jim into voicing an affinity (that Jim does not have) for federal control of schools:
Spin doctoring is one thing; political operatives engage in that type of slanted analysis all the time. But to make this kind of blatantly false, outrageous statement in a last-minute bid for power is unethical and simply pathetic. Either the Lobos contingent genuinely does not understand the issues influencing public education, or they are hoping that you, the voter, don't understand them so that they can manipulate you into voting for them. Either way, that's unacceptable.

The fact that Jim is not “left of left” will not silence Lobos and Emmerich. With their mindset, unless you are right wing to the point of reactionary, unless you agree with them on every single issue, you cannot possibly be a “Republican” or a “conservative.” Their narrow worldview and chronic use of false information have no place at the helm of a government body that educates children in our society. All through the primary season, the voters weren’t buying what Lobos was selling. I hope they send the same message to Lobos (again) and Emmerich now.


The Yays

District 1: Bill Manlove
Mr. Manlove, a longtime public servant in Cecil County, seeks reelection in the Chesapeake City district. Mr. Manlove has an endearing willingness to cut the tension in difficult conversations with a humorous remark, and he is so gentlemanly in thought, word, and deed that even campaigning makes him uncomfortable. He would rather just do his job. Anyone who attends Board of Education meetings regularly knows that Mr. Manlove cares about kids. Period.

Mr. Manlove is a father, grandfather, great-grandfather, and public servant of the first order. He has engaged in no nastiness, and he has only campaigned on his record and concern for children. He knows how education works, and he has worked for years to make it better. He is the man for the job.

District 2: Jim Fazzino
In the Elkton district, parent Jim Fazzino seeks his first elected office. In the primary season (because three candidates were running for one seat in a nonpartisan race), a run-off election occurred among Fazzino, parent Erin Doordan, and Ron Lobos. The results of that election were as follows:
Source: Maryland Manual Online
Those results narrowed the field and pitted Fazzino against Doordan in the general election. Over the summer, Doordan withdrew from the race citing family concerns, and that change caused Fazzino to run unopposed.

Throughout his campaign, Jim has focused solely on issues affecting students and never once engaged in negative campaigning or personal attacks. Jim has respected the nonpartisan nature of Board of Education seats. To that end, Jim’s campaign has been funded solely by himself and community members, and he has not accepted any PAC money from any political party.

In his discussions with system teachers, administrators, and leadership, Jim has asked tough questions about the concerns facing our schools, and he has continued to campaign tirelessly even after he knew he was running unopposed. (Go ahead: Ask him how many schools he has visited.) His behavior as a candidate speaks volumes about the kind of person he is and whose agenda he will serve on the board of education. He is all about the kids, and he has shown that time and again.

Many voters are frustrated by this year’s presidential race because they find the major candidates to be objectionable. In our local Board of Education races, we do not have that same problem: We have Bill Manlove and Jim Fazzino. Vote for thoughtful, rational people who believe in education, family, and community; who conduct themselves like the gentlemen they are; and who never stoop to personal attacks but rather campaign with ideas and facts.


Save the future!

Vote Manlove.

Vote Fazzino.

Kids are counting on you.  

* * *
Full Disclosure: Any post about the current election season will reiterate my earlier disclosure: I support Jim Fazzino for the Elkton seat on Cecil County Board of Education, and my husband is his campaign treasurer. I additionally support Bill Manlove for the Chesapeake City seat on the Board of Education. As you make choices this campaign season, evaluate everyone’s agenda in this situation and determine for yourselves who is giving you factual information and whom you believe to be trustworthy.

Tuesday, September 20, 2016

Clinton vs. Trump: One Teacher's Perspective


I have a lot to say about this election cycle, but I had no intention of doing so here unless the two major candidates put forth an education policy proposal worth noting (either good or bad). That day has come. This piece concerns the education policy proposals of Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. Below is a description of what this piece is not about. If those are the things you want to rant about, you can move along to a different blustery blogger babe.
This blog post is not about…
  • convincing die-hard Trump voters to vote for someone else. (Notice that I used the term “die-hard.” I’ve given up on them, but I am definitely trying to convert people on the fence or who are on the verge of checking out of the process entirely.) Those die-hard folks have made it clear that nothing Mr. Trump says or does (no matter how childish, ill-informed, or downright inhumane) will change their minds or even give them pause. Nothing shames them. I do not respect the very narrow brand of patriotism to which they subscribe, and I can tell you this: they care nothing for my opinions and have no intention of listening to them in any serious or thoughtful way.
  • defending Hillary Clinton against attacks concerning her alleged dishonesty or corruption. No amount of demonstrable bipartisan evidence of a lack of criminality regarding election fraud, Benghazi, emails, or Vince Foster will convince those folks that the conspiracies they see do not exist. Many people have decided that they are going to think poorly of her on those issues no matter what the truth is, and this indicates an emotional prejudice that facts cannot penetrate. I am not nominating her (or any other political leader) for sainthood any time soon, but I know who the dangerously deceptive and corrupt candidate is in this election, and it’s not her.
  • explaining the education platforms of every single candidate for president. I would never support any Libertarian Party candidate because of that party’s longstanding opposition to the very existence of public education. I do not support any Green Party candidate because that party has, over the course of the past two decades, shifted focus on their key issues so many times as to be vertigo-inducing. I vote based on issues, and I have no idea what Green Party members truly believe other than “not them.” Not voting, for me, is not an option because this is America, someone has to steer the ship, and not voting (although your right), to me, shows a lack of understanding concerning how serious this election is and a lack of civic responsibility.
So now that I’ve started off things with a bang, you may disagree with me on any or all of that. Great. You’re an American and get to think for yourself—and so do I. As with all my previous posts, I will back up my argument with authoritative links to verify my evidence, and I will say exactly what I believe is true.
Now, let’s get to policy. Discussing policy is tricky because, if you don’t love the stuff like I do (and hardly anyone does), it can be tedious. Thus, we need a frame with which to view it. My husband has been obsessed with the text, The Political Mind: Why You Can’t Understand 21st Century Politics with an 18th Century Brain, by George Lakoff, so let’s use that. Lakoff proposes that we can break down all policy (public, corporate, office, even family policies) into two categories: policies created out of respect for Authority and policies created out of respect for Empathy.
Policy Based on Authority
In this framework, people are born essentially “bad” and “out of control” and need competent Authority to show them the right path in life. Therefore, the role of government is to control citizens in a way that guides them to do “good.” Authority understands what is good and evil and can keep us in line with the good; this is fair to everyone because there are clear good behaviors and clear bad behaviors. To be the Authority, one must be good, and self-discipline demonstrates goodness.

Obedience to Authority leads to freedom. Because we are following Authority, we are self-disciplined enough to be entrusted with freedom. Disobedience requires punishment; those who need punishing are acting with evil intent and are not self-disciplined. The good will thrive, and the bad will not. Discipline is a sign of morality; success is a sign of morality.
In education, we have seen the influence of Authority-based policy with a law like the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) in 2002. NCLB started with President Bush and Congress informing schools of what was “good” and “right.” Schools that were viewed as “successful” were self-disciplined and followed the guidance of Authority. Test scores proved a school’s discipline and, thus, morality. Poor test scores indicated that a school had strayed from the disciplined and correct path, so those schools were punished to bring them back into line.

Schools that continually “failed” were stripped of supports sometimes to the point of elimination (i.e., firing everyone) because they must be bad and must contain bad staff to receive those scores.  NCLB provided clear “success” guidelines. Authority-based policies are fundamentally about reward and punishment.
Policy Based on Empathy
In this framework, we view democracy as the result of caring about our fellow citizens. We have a government that intentionally protects individual freedoms for everyone because we empathize with others and want to make sure that everyone has the same necessities for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Therefore, with Empathy, the role of government is to protect citizens and to empower them. Caring for others involves not just kindness and consideration but also responsibility and strength. To care for others is to accept one’s responsibility for them, and leaders must be strong to care for the people in their charge.
In education, schools systems provide care and empathy, but they do this through responsibility and strength.
  • They take responsibility and care for students by providing safe buildings, nurturing classrooms, and caring staff.
  • They empower students by providing a challenging curriculum, educated and resourceful teachers, and relevant technology and programs.
In contrast with the Authority-driven NCLB, the Race to the Top (RTTT) initiative focused more (but not entirely) on Empathy. The Common Core State Standards  (CCSS) that grounded that initiative are reflective of a system that cares for its students. CCSS intentionally gave teachers a great deal of latitude in how to implement those standards in the classroom to maximize that respect for the individual learner. With that empowerment, the CCSS demonstrated a respect for teachers and their ability to tailor instruction for students (respect for teachers as professionals—imagine that).

By writing the standards in a way that is broader (and thus more flexible) than previous state standards, the CCSS empower students to have more choice and voice in learning, challenge them to learn at higher standards, and hold the education system responsible for providing appropriate instruction based on student needs. Importantly, unlike nearly every Authority-based federal education proposal, RTTT provided actual money to states who signed on to the requirements, thus demonstrating an Empathy-inspired sense of federal responsibility to put its money where its mouth is.
Authority does also play a role in RTTT. Because of the RTTT requirement of using the PARCC or Smarter Balanced assessments to measure progress, schools still comply with a standardized assessment of academic progress that Authority views as valid and “good,” regardless of whether it actually is. These scores are not the “be all, end all” for schools to the extent that they were under NCLB (at least not yet), but they are still a major focus for schools and, in states like mine, they are—unfortunately, and to our collective shame—a requirement for high school graduation.

Note the fundamental conflict of enforcing student-centered, Empathy-based instruction with an Authority-based assessment. It would be very difficult to prove the value of those non-standardized instructional practices (which are absolutely the ethical approach with students) with a standardized assessment. The two are in natural conflict, and therein lies our biggest conundrum in education policy today.
That last paragraph may have clued you in to the fact that I lean heavily toward the Empathy side. I am all about standards and expectations (and defend them all the time), but I do not believe in one set of rules for all learners, and I do not believe that any standardized assessment has earned the right to be a graduation requirement or to be the focus of curriculum and instruction.

The very word “standardized” means “one size fits all,” and that is a bullet to the heart of individual learner needs. You cannot serve both of those masters at the same time, and thus one has to choose. I choose meeting individual learner needs and leave the standardized test notion to people whose limited understanding of learning means they only see the world from a “pass/fail” perspective (e.g., myopic government officials who make this stuff a graduation requirement without any proof that these assessments actually show what students know, understand, and are able to do).
Hillary Clinton on Education
So how do Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump fit into all of this? On Hillary Clinton’s website, you will find that she leans toward the Empathy side. She provides written explanations of her ideas, and some of the key tenets of her education stance include
  • expanding early child education programs,
  • making college debt-free,
  • expanding technology use in schools,
  • repairing crumbling school facilities, and
  • creating new forms of training and professional development for teachers.
Each of these ideas empowers students by providing them with greater opportunities and resources.
In the area of protection, Clinton’s education policy also
  • explains the connection between a strong economy and education,
  • requires a tougher approach to sexual assault on college campuses, and
  • reforms school discipline policies that unwittingly foster a school-to-prison pipeline effect.
Each of these ideas protects students by ensuring their physical safety and shows the sense of responsibility she believes the government has toward children. Empathy. Protection. Empowerment. Responsibility. This is how a guiding philosophy like Empathy takes shape in the form of policy.
That said, I don’t kid myself that she has no Authority in her. Clinton was active both during her Arkansas years and during her husband’s presidency in promoting the Standards Movement, the initiative that led us to instructional standards and standardized testing in the first place. But those pieces are no longer the focus of her platform, and that in and of itself is very interesting. Like her speech at the Democratic National Convention, her stated policy proposals suggest a sensitivity to the fact that few parents (voters) believe in the standardized testing paradigm in which we have abused (yes, I said abused) kids for the past 15 years. Her focus now is on protecting and empowering students, and she accepts the federal government’s responsibility in that regard. Nonetheless, Authority will certainly be a part of actual policy (Authority typically makes its big move further down the legislative road, when crafting regulations to fit policy), and finding the right balance of that will be crucial.
Donald Trump on Education
One of the reasons I haven’t written about these issues before is because Mr. Trump has been quite vague on the issue of education. He has no written education proposal, but on a video on his website, he lists these items as his education priorities:
  • Education decisions must be made at the local level.
  • Common Core must go.
Note that he provides this information in a video clip that is less than a minute long and provides no details about either of these positions. So analyzing what he really means is a challenge. About two weeks ago, however, he gave the closest thing to an education policy speech he has given so far while campaigning. In that speech, he added the following elements:
  • He proposed spending $20 billion in federal government block grants (i.e., vouchers) so that children in low-income areas can attend private schools (although states would not be required to use the money for that purpose).
  • He proposed promoting the growth of charter schools.
This information demonstrates that Mr. Trump clearly falls on the Authority side of education policy. Public schools are “bad,” so to fix them, students should be given the money to leave them (vouchers), businesses should be hired to run them (charter schools), and local education agencies should make the decisions surrounding them (the abolishment of national standards like the CCSS and the $20 billion in discretionary federal monies to states). The abandonment of public schools inherent in these ideas shows that he believes that federal money and authority should follow the reward-and-punishment mentality. I have a problem with that.
For decades now, advocates of Authority-based education policy have fixated on two ideas that, although advocated by people with good intentions, have some sinister roots and consequences.
1.     Vouchers: Proponents of school vouchers argue that public schools are a mess, private schools are great, and thus public money should involve a “choice” component so that parents can take their tax dollars and apply them to whatever school they like (public or private). These proponents believe that all private schools are better than all public schools despite all evidence to the contrary (see this study commissioned by Mr. Vouchers himself, George W. Bush, that embarrassingly disproved his theory about public vs. private education). Under the veil of “choice,” vouchers seek to abandon public responsibility for education and give public money to private entities without requiring them to meet any public standards of accountability.
2.    Charter schools: Proponents of charter schools believe that private companies would do a better job of managing schools than governments do. Parents, in turn, often perceive any charter school as better than any regular public school and clamor for their kids to attend them despite the clear evidence to the contrary (see this analysis of the ongoing charter school data spin-doctoring). The fact of the matter is that few charter schools do a better job than their regular public school counterparts. This charter concept advocates giving public money to private companies with much less accountability than regular public schools must navigate.
When it comes to Mr. Trump’s stance on local control, I do not wholly disagree with him. Local control is an important part of public school governance, and you may have read my thoughts on our current governor’s recent mistakes in this regard. That said, local control involves a balance among power and responsibility; it’s not “all or none.” Under the law, federal, state, and local governments all share part of the public education pie, and that is a logistical and financial necessity. I have no problem with national standards like CCSS because we tried state standards under NCLB, and the state-to-state variations were a fiasco. Honestly, if I thought for one minute that Mr. Trump had ever read or understood the CCSS, then maybe I could take him seriously on this topic. The fact of the matter is that, as with his policy positions on nearly everything else, Mr. Trump’s education policy suggests not only that he does not understand the complexities of these issues; they show that he does not care about them either and has given them no time or thought.
His public policy statements on education amount to three chants that he believes will appeal to what has sadly become the Tea Party base of the Republican Party:
  • Yes vouchers!
  • Yes charter schools!
  • No Common Core!
His lack of depth and detail on these policies show the laziest approach to education that a candidate could take. He proposes no new thinking, no reasoning for his position, and no acknowledgement of specific problems facing education. He presumably felt he needed to say something about education, so he said as little as he could with the tiniest crib notes possible. Each of these three items is solidly on the Authority side of policy with no nuance or balance with Empathy at all (note that unidentified standardized test scores are the rationale he touts for his opinions in the video). Students and their needs are nowhere. Policy does not interest him. The needs of the average citizen do not interest him. Nothing interests him but the care and feeding of his considerable ego. He wants to dominate.
He is solely Authority. Punishment. Control.
So who’s the better education president? I do not agree with everything Hillary Clinton has ever done concerning schools, and I am not likely to agree with everything she does during the course of her [fingers crossed] presidency. What is clear to me as a voter, a mother, and a teacher is that her public record shows a lifelong commitment to children’s rights here and abroad and to improving schools because she sees the "long game" where this country is concerned. Whether you like her or not (something that, by the way, should not be a factor in hiring someone for this job), she has a proven track record in complex policy understanding and experience, and this knowledge enables her to create legislation that achieves goals. Her approach will be a mix of Authority and Empathy that leans in the Empathy direction, as policy concerning children should.
Donald Trump does not care about children or the betterment of this nation. He is intellectually disinterested in anything that does not concern his own ruthless quest for power and control. He has no regard for your children or their future, and he’s made that clear not only with his nearly nonexistent stance on education but also with the lack of attention and detail he gives to every other policy issue as well. That’s terrifying. He’s a dangerous man. I love this country, and I care about kids and the future, so my choice is clear. I’m with her.

Follow by Email