Continued…
6. Chris Hilfiger.
C-. Voters will not react well to
the fact that he has “not attended a board meeting in person.” Yes, you are busy. We all are.
Combating “waste and inefficiency” is not a unique point of
differentiation. Yes, the message appeals
to some voters, but they have other choices with similar priorities on the same
ballot. Overall, he didn’t provide much in
the way of meat in his responses. The
average media and policy attentive voter is likely to come away thinking that
he isn’t as immersed in the issues as the other candidates. The C- is a bit generous.
7. Anita Pandey. B+. Dr. Pandey is well-qualified based on her
extensive education background. So why
the (relatively) low grade? Whenever one
writes more than Robert Miller (the BoE version of the Mendoza line), that is
likely a sign that some careful editing would help. Even informed voters who take the time to
delve deeply into policies and platforms have their limits. There is so much there
there, that time-pressed readers might not locate the truly important
information. In fairness, this is not a
problem throughout her responses – but it is most apparent in the experiences
section (Question 1) and in the equity reply (Question 6). I believe she has some excellent content in
the “budget and financing” query (Question 4).
The line that “the last place we should cut funding is the classroom” is
simple yet powerful; and she backs it up with specific ideas as to how HCPSS
might be able to realize some savings.
She takes a novel narrative approach on equity, linking it up with the
history of Columbia, which should have some appeal, especially with Columbia voters.
She provides a great deal of supporting
material but the central animating principle, which appears to be located at
the end of the second paragraph in that section, is a buried lede. Her priorities response is
what, ultimately, gave her a B+ and not a B.
It was succinct, memorable, and well-rounded...moving from “outcomes…inclusive
pedagogy,” to budget issues, and to “listening to/learning from students…to
retaining and rewarding educators.” From a communications perspective, she ended
on a strong note. She just needs to bear
in mind the information delivery and exchange needs and preferences of the
Howard County electorate.
8. Carleen Pena.
B. There wasn’t much in her
responses to the first six questions that stood out. If a voter was looking for a reason to vote
for Pena, there wasn’t much until the “overcrowding” question (Question 7)
where she went into some detail on her thoughts on the problem and possible
solutions. That said, her choice of
language on busing as it pertains to diversity might be off-putting to some segments
of the electorate (and, in these times, a positive amongst others). Some language,
“our school communities are more than just polygons” or “robbing Peter to pay Paul”
was a bit boilerplate, she did best when she talks about what she is against or
has concerns about (PARCC, arming teachers).
I just don’t think there was enough, in this questionnaire alone, to change
many hearts and minds in her direction.
9. Chao Wu. B-. If brevity is the soul of wit, then this
response was the cleverest (although not humorous, pity). Very logical (engineering background, and it
shows) but sorely lacking in detail. Voters
might agree with his priorities, but without greater depth, some of his replies
come across as platitudes (“I believe equity is great…”)… well, OK then. Concise, but not illuminating. This was a lost opportunity for Wu to connect
with voters who prefer to receive information from candidate
questionnaires.
Next up, Part III: the final four.
In solidarity.
No comments:
Post a Comment