The contrast between candidates Cathy Jo Alberson and William P. Soules
for the District 37 senate seat appeared in the Sun-News’s 1 October article and endorsement, and at the
candidates’ debate on 3 October. I found
neither the paper’s unexplained “fresh perspective” opinion of Alberson credible
(she is the Second Vice Chair of the Dona Ana Republican Party—a fact not
disclosed in her candidate’s bio), nor its once-convicted-always-a-convict opinion
of Soules sensible (he and all other school board members violated an open
meetings provision a decade ago).
The debate did a better job of giving an overall impression of what the
candidates know or do not know about one of their most important issues:
education. However, platitudes about its
importance or recitations of K-12 problems should satisfy no one; only their
proposed solutions should.
The candidates’ websites contain statements more or less detailed on
education. I make allowances for their
decisions to write long or short, specific or general, statements in this
format. Even so, Alberson’s statement is
inadequate because it mentions only one problem, literacy, and only one
solution, third-grade retention. She gives
no information about her qualifications or experience in public education. Soules’s statement links problems to
solutions: curriculum enrichment, teacher support, educational leadership, and affordability
of higher education. He details his qualifications
and experience.
The differences in qualifications and experience are stark. Alberson has a degree in finance and a
background in business. She has no formal
training or professional experience in education, and homeschools her children—a
significant but undisclosed fact with two implications. One, she has no parental experience with public
or private school education. Two, for
reasons unexplained, she finds schools not suited to her children’s needs or
not to her liking. She is not alone in
her concerns about the content or quality of public education. But her lack of training, experience, information,
understanding, and empathy regarding public education makes her unprepared to address
statewide issues and unsympathetic to constituent interests. Worse, given campaign funds from the Tea Party
and the governor’s PAC, she likely shares their rigid political ideology on
educational issues and, in the absence of a background in public education,
would likely take direction from them on appointments and legislation.
Soules has considerable training and experience in public
education. He has three degrees,
including a Ph.D. in psychology and education.
He has been a teacher, a school administrator, and a member of the LCPS
School Board and the DACC Advisory Board.
This range of experience indicates a long-term involvement with, and
commitment to, public education as well as knowledge of the connections between
education and jobs. Even in his
relatively short statements of positions, he reveals a solid understanding of
diverse and complex educational issues at all levels. He also shows an awareness of the level of
expenditures on public education and the need to control costs. I am neither surprised nor dismayed that the
NEA and the teachers union support his candidacy because his approaches and
positions, developed long before this campaign, suggest independent thinking which
happens to coincide with, not comply, with theirs.
I invited both candidates to detail their views on education at my favorite
restaurant for face-to-face interviews, Ciro’s. I said that I would focus on education but ask
some questions on a different subject (to see how they handled an issue
involving conflicting values). My education questions
were simple ones: What are your first three areas of concern, and what
legislation would you propose or support to address them.
Alberson did not meet me for an interview. Last week, she accepted my invitation, then
postponed it because of death and illness in her extended family. Tuesday morning, she scheduled a Wednesday
meeting, then Tuesday evening abruptly cancelled it without explanation. She did not respond to my query what was I to
think. But I think that I know what to
think. Alberson is a stealth candidate
who knows little or conceals much about her positions on education and sensitive
social issues; see my blog next week).
Soules’s three areas covered different aspects of major issues with
public education: funding, accountability, and emphasis. The first is state funding of local
districts. Soules believes that difference
among districts require an abandonment of top-down, one-size-fits-all
approaches. Districts should receive
block grants with general criteria to enable accountability. The second is state evaluation of
teachers. Soules believes that teacher
evaluation should be adapted to local circumstances, and multi-dimensional,
with student performance as measured by test scores one part of the overall
evaluation. The third is the attention
and resources given to technical/vocational education. Soules believes that a greater jobs-skills
orientation in K-12 public education will, on balance, do more for the future
employment of more students than the preparation of students for the
college-preparatory track.
The choice between these contrasting candidates is clear and all
yours.
No comments:
Post a Comment