This is part II of information about a local school board
election. I hope the thought process is valuable beyond the very local area.
I left off part I with this question for school board
trustee candidates, about priorities: You
have three constituencies in your elected position
as school board trustee: taxpayers, students, and teachers. How do you
prioritize these constituencies, and why?
I’ll introduce each of the three candidates, along with their order
of priorities. I do think there’s a right answer, but almost no one ever gives it. I’ll
cover my reasoning below.
Darcy Mingoia is
the PAC candidate, running in tandem with Kevin Hoffman for the other open
position (we didn’t hear from candidates for that position yet). She sees
herself as conservative. She works in fundraising for the community college
system, and even worked with the local chamber of commerce some years back to
start the community college system. She has lived in the district for 34 years.
She has been a small business owner, and served as president of the chamber of
commerce for ten years. She went through school on scholarship (from a private
foundation) and believes the community needs to help students get through
school. Her kids went into engineering. She worked as a PTO and library
volunteer, and then stayed connected as a volunteer representing the business
community. She was instrumental in getting the access channel on cable so the
community could view school board meetings.
She has a good resume. However, reaction to questions about
the PAC showed her bristling, feeling adversarial to us Tea Partiers. I learned
more about the PAC at this meeting, and I feel less knee-jerk rejection of
anyone they put forward. Still, what I see is that the PAC has been detrimental
to our district, regardless of their possibly well-meant intentions.
·
She answers the priorities question in this
order: students first, then teachers, then taxpayers.
Bill Morris is
the incumbent, and is probably best known for his vote against that big pay
raise (discussed in part I). He’s been targeted for removal based simply on
that vote, but he has fairly frequently stood alone or nearly alone against the
rest of the board. He says he frequently puts forward ideas, but they do not
get brought up for discussion, let alone for vote. It’s a tough position to be
in. For a while, he was undecided about whether to run again, but in the end
decided that he needed to keep standing firm; we needed someone who would.
He works for food services in HISD (Houston Independent
School District), so his work lets him handle large portions of school budget,
but without a conflict of interest within our district.
He is a man of few words. I would have liked to hear more
details from him, more positive. He seems frustrated by the situation and
mentioned a number of negatives. For example, a controversial issue has been
the use and upkeep of a huge facility the district built (pretty much against
the will of the people), with a football stadium, basketball arena, and theater
areas. It is shared by various high schools in the district, but the rest of
the time should be rented out to the community to mitigate costs. Some of that
does happen, but there has been discussion about “thinking outside the box.”
Renting out for events that would like to serve alcohol, such as weddings or
some conventions, have been prohibited. Bill Morris is against that particular
type of use; it is, after all, a high school facility. If alcohol were allowed,
even under these specific circumstances, it would be the only such facility in
the state to allow it. Not a good precedent to set. So, whether you agree or
not, he is clear and firm in his position.
He pointed out that the head of the PAC had a school named
after her, after the PAC got a particular candidate elected to the board. There’s
an appearance of cronyism. Again, an apparent complaint. But, as a positive, he
did give us an update on the efforts to push for parity among funding per student.
Nearby Tomball district, for example, gets several hundred more per student
than CFISD students. There has been pressure on the legislature, without
effect. So now there is hope that pressure through the courts will have
success. That case is coming up October 22nd.
·
He answers the priorities question in this
order: students first, then taxpayers, then teachers.
Lillian Wanjagi
is a young mom, involved in higher education for 16 years, previously at Rice,
and now at University of Houston Clear Lake. She has a third grade daughter at
a school not far from me, who is her inspiration to get involved. She is
working on her PhD, and her research topic is related to student success. I
probably learned most from her during the Tea Party meeting (and conversation
afterward). She grew up in Kenya, going through a British school system, so she
at least has views beyond what has always been done here. I have seen school
function better than here, so I like that there’s an outside view.
Her main points included giving choice to parents, who are “the
main stakeholders in a child’s education,” and in setting priorities within a
budget that will best affect quality for the student. She brought some interesting
data. For example, of the $5000 per student spent in this district, $403 goes
to ESL (English as a second language). That is the highest per student cost for
a program. (Making sure you understand, this isn’t $403 per ESL student; it is
$403 per student in the district in order to have an ESL program for those that
need it.) For comparison, $82 per student goes to having sports programs; $55
goes to gifted and talented programs. (I can attest that the GT program is
sub-par, as you’d expect if you’re spending seven-to-eight times more for ESL.)
Someone asked if we know how much of our budget goes to
paying to educate and provide food and other services for children of illegal
immigrants; we don’t have that data, although there were efforts in the last
legislative session to try and obtain the data. The ESL program is, in theory,
intended as a way to give a start to new immigrants (and schools don’t ask if
the immigrants are legal or not) to get educated while learning the language.
Many of these are certainly legal. But all the children of illegals will fall
in this group as well. As Wanjagi said, we are required to educate all
students, including illegals, but we’re not required to spend more on them than
on our own students. So it’s about how you prioritize the spending per child,
so that you get the quality we all want.
· She answers the priorities question in this
order: students first, then teachers, then taxpayers. However, more than once
she said, “Parents are the most important stakeholders.” That comes very close
to being a better answer.
In reality, the school board is hired for a specific purpose
by the taxpayers and are not accountable to either the students or the
teachers. But people hear a different question than I’m asking: “Who is most
important to you?” Anyone involved in education who doesn’t answer that the
students are most important is in the wrong place. But believing you’re
accountable to students isn’t helpful. Students are likely want easy grades and
fun classes—not necessarily things we know will lead to the outcome of best
educated students. So saying you’re “for the children” isn’t very informative. So
sometimes you have to look at the priority order between teachers and
taxpayers.
In very fact, the trustees’ job is to carry out the mission
of educating our children to the level we
taxpayers request and expect, for the money we have contracted to provide.
If they can’t do the job to the satisfaction of the taxpayers, they should be
replaced with someone who can. What the students and teachers think of the
trustees is irrelevant. If they are
faithful in their stewardship to the taxpaying community, the students will
receive a good education—better than we’re seeing. And I don’t mean to imply
that teachers are irrelevant. It is important to hire, retain, and compensate
the best teachers we can get, in order to meet the mission. If trustees are
being accountable to the taxpaying community that hires them, they will do what
it takes to meet the mission. Teacher skill and satisfaction will be the
result.
When a trustee mistakenly bows to the will of teachers
(teacher unions/organizations), they may be betraying the taxpayers who hired
them. That we have such resistance to merit-based pay and other performance
related issues means someone is protecting ineffective teachers—which benefits
neither the students nor the good teachers, and certainly not the taxpayers in
their educational mission.
All three of our candidates were glad Texas has refused to
accept federal money that came with strings attached. Texas is a rarity in this
decision. But we believe we’re better off without submitting to yet more
federal mandates.
All three of our candidates said they were in favor of
keeping control as local as possible.
The priorities question is an indicator to me about how a
person will decide issues. I’d have to look at my past notes, but I believe
every PAC member has placed teachers ahead of taxpayers.
Which means we have to rule out Darcy Mingoia, even though
she would probably not be a disastrous choice. But we have two candidates who
seem to understand better than she does about the commitments being made to the
people doing the hiring. It is parents, and broader than that, all taxpayers,
who are paying for a particular outcome. We don’t want loyalties to some other
constituency standing between us and the people we’ve hired.
Between Bill Morris and Lillian Wanjagi, I’ll let you
choose. If I’m valuing fresh ideas, I’d probably go with Ms. Wanjagi. If I’m
looking for ability to stand strong against difficult opposition, I’d go with
Bill Morris. While I’m technically still undecided, I think I’m leaning toward
the incumbent, because we need a guarantee right now that this one position on
the board will stand firm.
As an addendum, three weeks later, I am persuaded to vote for Lillian Winjagi, rather than Bill Morris. Mr. Morris did not attend the public candidate forum, which, outside our Tea Party meeting, was a rare opportunity for voters to get familiar with the candidates, who must run without party affiliation. I'm not convinced he wants the job. Ms. Winjagi filed to run before he had declared he would run again, and when he later filed, it may have been because he was unaware of a conservative alternative if he failed to run. I'm concerned about splitting the conservative vote, but I think that is happening regardless of my choice, so I'm just going to vote for the person I think is the best candidate.
ReplyDelete