Showing posts with label Coombs. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Coombs. Show all posts

Wednesday, June 1, 2016

Gadzooks, what an election!


I have slices of four posts in mind.  I have skeletons for some, nervous systems for others.  I am hoping to roll those out over the course of June.

This is more of a “Did you know?” piece based on the 2016 Howard County Board of Education Primary Election Results.  Based on the data available on the Maryland Board of Elections website:

-       Kirsten Coombs finished in first place among the 11 candidates.  We knew that.  But did you know that she won 92 of the 118 Election Day/Polling Place precincts?  She also won among Early Voters and Absentee/Provisional Voters.  What about the other 26 precincts where she didn’t win?  She placed second in 19 and third in 7.   This indicates wide and deep support, countywide, for Ms. Coombs.    
-       How big was the win?  Coombs, with 35,298 votes, shattered the previous high-water mark for recent Board of Education primary elections, which was 28,320…which was set by one J. Siddiqui in 2008.  More on her shortly.
-       Fun fact: there is higher turnout in General Elections compared to Primary Elections, but Coombs’ vote tally, in the 2016 Primary Election, would have been sufficient for her to win a Board of Education seat in the 2010 General Election, ahead of Brian Meshkin and Cindy Vaillancourt.   
-       Who failed to finish in the top three in every single Election Day district?  Ellen Flynn Giles and Ann DeLacy.  It is not my intention to be cruel here, but rather to point out that this election cycle constitutes a referendum on the direction of the Howard County Public School System.  DeLacy and Giles finished second and third respectively in both the 2012 Primary and General Elections.  For them to be swept across the board four years later with 8th and 9th place finishes demonstrates the strength of positive, change-oriented, reform-minded platforms.
-       Dr. Janet Siddiqui is in serious trouble.  As the last incumbent standing in this election cycle, she becomes the WHOLE poster child for a failing status quo.  She managed to win only six election day precincts.   Of the top six vote-getters, there were 123,369 votes for challengers compared to 24,660 votes for the “strongest” incumbent: Siddiqui, so 83.3% for reform candidates against 16.7% for Siddiqui.  There might not be enough orange paint in the County to vault her out of fourth place. 

What will come next?  The Presidential Campaign? Thoughts on Downtown Columbia and Sensible, Civic-Minded Growth?  Shenanigans in Wilde Lake? Adventures with Slats?
  
Stay tuned, as more will follow.


Saturday, March 19, 2016

The Road to Ellicott City (2016): Part Three


I set fire to three earlier iterations of this post.  Then the Middle Tennessee State 24-hour Dysgraphia hit.  I shall never visit Murfreesboro again.

Let me go straight to the headline: I am undecided on my third vote.  As of this writing, I have four serious contenders for the third choice.  I have ruled none of the challengers out, but there are four tiers:

Tier Four [Definite No]

Dump DeLacy/Dump Siddiqui (sung to the tune of Allan Sherman’s “Hello Muddah, Hello Fadduh (A Letter from Camp).”

Also Bedolla.  No response = an automatic no vote.

Tier One [Definite Yes]

Coombs and Ellis.  Awesome Squared.

Tier Three [Maybe, but not terribly likely at the moment]

Ponnuri:  Tech guy.  His questionnaire focuses on several broad themes, including “independent thinking,” “accountability,” and “empathy.” Not much in the way of specifics.

Would he be a good member of the Board of Education? Probably. Am I buying into his campaign’s value proposition yet?  No, not right now.

Andrews:  Definitely a stronger candidate compared to his 2014 bid.  He believes we “must address the discipline gap if we want to close to achievement gap.”  This writer strongly agrees with this sentiment.  He re-visits the importance of “respect” in his questionnaire, this writer also agrees with that line of thinking. 

I am not convinced that he is the right person for the job in 2016, but I respect his growth as a candidate for the Board of Education over the past two years.  He deserves serious consideration.

Tier Two [Perhaps]

Giles:  Yes, I am considering voting to re-elect one incumbent.  I think she is smart, capable, and has an impressive record when it comes to public service, most notably as it pertains to education issues. 

Her responses to the questionnaire were thoughtful.  Her stated “first year” priority to “restore public trust in our school system by engaging our staff and community to better inform us as we make decisions” indicates an awareness of the larger institutional challenges facing the Board of Education.  In terms of policy, I am in agreement with her when it comes to “expand[ing] elementary world language so that all students can graduate proficient in a second language.”

I found it interesting that while multiple candidates mentioned the Glenwood Middle mold issue as an example of the failure to follow certain HCPSS Guiding Principles, Giles defended the approach to that problem, citing the “quality of the report and the inclusive nature of the plan.”  She did note that “we (presumably the Board of Education) must improve our processes for fulfilling public information requests so that the responses people get answer their questions fully and promptly.”  I don’t believe I am with her on the former point, but I concur with Giles on the latter.

The concept of “right association” is a big thing in my corner of the world.  If I thought that the Board, and the County, would get the Best Giles along with the election of two reform-minded candidates, I would probably vote for her.  Pound for pound, her credentials compare favorably to almost every other possibility.  But elections are more than just resume evaluations.  There are other well-qualified alternatives, and perhaps we need three new reform-minded voices on the Board.  This brings us to the other candidates.

Miller:  Great background as an educator.  Very detailed responses.  Talks about needing to develop an “atmosphere of trust” and an “atmosphere of openness.”  I agree. Beyond that, he says we should “develop/re-start a budget oversight committee.”  Yes, indeed.  He wrote that we should “enable the public to be assured that the students are attending ‘healthy schools.’”  He says we should “cultivate a partner-like atmosphere with parents of special education students.”  He wants to “reduce the amount of instructional time lost to standardized over-testing and a poorly-conceived teacher (and administrator) evaluation system.”  He indicates that we should “resist unproven fads and the tendency to ‘fly planes while building them.’”  No disagreement there.

I am not sure about his concerns about the “World Language component of the Elementary School Model” where he says that “with the knowledge I presently have, I would not continue the program as it presently exists.”  Assuming my interpretation of his statement is accurate, I believe I am more aligned with Giles on that particular issue.  That said, I am not a subject matter expert on this topic…perhaps I need to read more on this specific debate.

His passion for education is evident in his responses. 

His belief that the “single biggest dysfunction impacting the Board is a lack of commitment to complete integrity.”  Strong words, ones that (I believe) represent the opinions of many of our neighbors. 

So why not Miller as a lock for the third choice? I don’t know.  His mastery of detail is impressive.  Perhaps he could have articulated those elements as the supporting points of an overarching Plan or Vision. 

He is in the running, but I am still considering two other challengers.

Cutroneo:  “Building back trust is the number one priority.”  She recommends “education town halls throughout the county.”  She is calling for, “with each new initiative policy, a more formal process in decision making…”  It is clear that she wants to open decision-making processes up, so the widest possible array of community members can have a voice, as well as access to the data used to inform policies. 

She indicates that she “would reinstate a BOE auditor or ombudsman type position.”  Sounds good to me.

She notes that “instead of jumping on the bandwagon for the latest, greatest, and glossy curriculum, we need to look at best practices throughout the country and grow from within.”  I appreciate this perspective.

On the Guiding Principles question, she reflected upon “the case of a special ed parent [name known but redacted] trying to obtain [a] special education audit.”  She believes, in this case, “that the Board acted in a manner that ran counter to the principle of collaboration, trust, and shared responsibility.” I agree with her on this point.

So why not Cutroneo for the third vote?  As of this moment, it is because she is running on a slate with Christina Delmont-Small…and I believe that while both have impressive advocacy credentials, Delmont-Small’s are slightly stronger.  That said, I haven’t made up my mind…yet.

Delmont-Small.  Right now, at this very minute, she is my third vote. 

First, her PTA and PTACHC experience is great, as is her work on the Operating Budget Review Committee.  Her backing by the HCEA is important in my household.

She pulled the old Kobayashi Maru on me on the questionnaire.  Basically, for non-Star Trek fans, she refused to accept the premise of my clones question.  Importantly, she did so cleverly.  Essentially, she used the question as an opportunity to reflect on the necessity of “different opinions and ideas on the BOE and a BOE that will embrace respectful discussion of opinions and thoughts that are contrary to their own and be able to disagree in a respectful manner.”  Well played.

Beyond that, she hit the high notes regarding the need to “increase transparency and accountability,” calling for a “student/school focused approach,” and the need to “change/improve relationships.”  As part of that third platform element, she correctly noted that “the superintendent is accountable to the BOE on all matters related to the operation of the school system.  The superintendent is not an elected member of the BOE, she is an employee of the BOE.” Obvious to many? Yes.  Needed to be said?  Absolutely yes.

She talks about the importance of “electing individuals to the BOE who will bring the voices of parents, teachers, and administrators to the BOE and will ask the hard questions and ensure that the school system operates in a manner that is accountable and transparent.” 

So why not Delmont-Small for the third vote?  Honestly, I would have loved to have seen a bit more policy in her responses.  A bit more detail.  She had the “vision thing” down cold.  I believe she gets the nitty-gritty, but she kept her responses focused on broader, bigger themes.  That said, I think she would make a great Board of Education member.  That is why she leads the Tier Two pack. 

Of course nothing is a lock until I vote. 

Stay tuned, as more will follow.






  


Wednesday, March 16, 2016

The Road to Ellicott City (2016): Part Two


First, let’s review the questionnaire I developed for the Howard County Board of Education candidates.

“1) Thought experiment. Much is made of the Board of Education acting as a collaborative body, but it is one comprised of unique individuals with different backgrounds, perspectives, and talents.  With that in mind...

What if you can replace, immediately, all of the other board members with clones of yourself.  Assuming you can work collaboratively with your other selves, what specifically would you want to accomplish in the next two years? In the next four?

2a) If you are an incumbent:  Why should we trust you with another four year term?

2b) If you are a challenger:  Why should we trust you with a four year term?

3) What is the single biggest dysfunction impacting the Board and how can it be resolved over the course of the next four years?

4) The HCPSS lists, among a set of “guiding principles,” the following:

“Fostering a culture of collaboration, trust, and shared responsibility” (source: http://www.hcpss.org/about-us/)

Thinking about the past four years, Please provide one example of how the Board advanced that principle and one example of how the Board acted in a manner that ran counter to that principle.  Please elaborate on both examples.”

The first question was designed to identify the agenda and vision of each individual candidate. 

The second question assumes that public trust in the Board has taken a hit in recent years, and that it would be instructive for voters to hear from the candidates how they intend to earn the public’s trust.

The third question does not presuppose that the Board is dysfunctional, although I believe that argument can be made, but for the candidate to 1) show their thinking regarding the single biggest dysfunction and 2) their ability to identify a solution to fix the problem. 

The fourth question is intended to shed light on their perceptions of what the Board has done well, and where the Board can improve, regarding that important guiding principle. 

Following the receipt and review of their questionnaire responses, I will definitely be marking my primary election ballot for:

Kirsten Coombs.  I know Kirsten as a community activist and chronicler of local events.  Her background as an accountant and experience as a member of Citizens' Operating Budget Review Committee are also compelling reasons to cast a ballot for her.  In addition, she can ask direct, informed questions while still being able to work with others in a respectful, collegial manner.  She has a deep understanding of education issues.  She received the endorsement of the Howard County Education Association.  I believe Kirsten, alongside like-minded colleagues, can help the Board chart a new, more productive way forward. 

Her answers on the questionnaire reflected a much-needed emphasis on promoting transparency, on “data based decision making,” and on accountability.  Her support for a “tracking log of Public Information requests that would allow people to track the status and resolution” of such requests strikes a chord.  Her stance on the reinstitution of “in-house counsel” is smart while her call for helping “parents of children with special needs” is compassionate.

Moreover, she was willing to acknowledge when the Board advanced the principle of collaboration, citing the occasion when the Board “acted unanimously to listen to the community’s concerns about the calendar including non-Christian holidays.”   This demonstrates an ability to be fair-minded, which I believe to be an important characteristic for any Board member.

Mavis Ellis.  Mavis possesses impeccable education credentials.  Her years as an educator, her long track record of professional accomplishments, and her leadership roles inside and outside of the classroom amount to an ideal candidate for the Howard County Board of Education.  Her reform-minded perspective and considerable subject matter expertise are attributes the Howard County Public School System needs.  Her endorsement by the Howard County Education Association is well deserved.

Her responses to my questionnaire were extremely detailed and thoughtful.  Her call to reinstate the Citizen’s Operating Budget Review Committee, for the HCPSS to provide an “inclusive curriculum,” for the “parents of students receiving Special Education” to know that “the Board will listen to their concerns without being judgmental,” and for a “listening campaign” to gather perspectives on “education priorities” from organizations around the County show her commitment to respecting the opinions of others.  It is evident that, if elected, she will be a constructive collaborator. 

I think both Kirsten and Mavis would be excellent Board members.

What about my third vote?  That will be the subject of Part Three.

Stay tuned, as more will follow.