Conscience Voting: Why I am ONLY voting for Kelly Kent for Culver City School Board

There is no question that Kelly Kent brings to this election a number of important qualities, which are enough to make it easy to vote for her. Here, here, here, and here  are just a few of our community members’ expressions of support for Kelly. And on her website, you can find the details of her vision for our schools.

Many voters might feel compelled to select two among the three contenders. I have decided to vote for just one: Kelly Kent.  I know that in this election, I am being asked to vote to elect members of our community who will best represent us and will be a part of building a vision for our schools that I support.  I wish I could select two, but I can’t, and I will explain why.

First, I think we must be clear that by having two candidates running on a slate, what we are really being asked is to make a choice, not simply for two individuals to fill the empty seats, but between two different visions for our community.  This is not just something I believe, it has now been made clear by the fact that only Scott McVarish chose to respond to requests for an interview by the Culver City News.  It seems obvious that he is speaking for both of them. Anne Burke declined repeated requests for an interview.

In his interview, McVarish speaks about the $106 million dollar bond as one of his campaign goals. Ensuring the bond projects move forward is a task of the Board, not a vision.  What McVarish refers to as his vision is his proposal for Career Academies.  In his interview in the Culver City News he presents the rationale for these academies this way: “The majority of our students will not graduate, statistically speaking. I think there’s a message in our society that tells students you have somehow failed, and I think that sends the wrong message.”

This is the vision that the Burke McVarish slate is proposing for our community. They are actually asking us to give up on the college dreams not only of over half of the students in our community, but of their parents’ and of everyone that believes in them.  In an earlier post I laid out the facts about why this means giving up on on every 3 out of 10 Asian American students, nearly 4 out of 10 White students and about two thirds of our African American, Latino students and students living in poverty.  In the same post, I laid out the many facts that point to why, in this economy, it is especially critical for our schools to prepare as many students as possible to attend college. And I also mentioned that just taking college preparation courses (which are often more rigorous), increases students earning potential, even if they choose not to or cannot afford to go to college.

It is clear that preparing all students for college is a tall order, and considering the rising cost of college and admission requirements, even with college preparation, the option remains unattainable for many. This does not mean we give up. And suggesting that we should in their election platform, means they are suggesting our community returns to an era of lower expectations. This is unconscionable.

And let me be clear, our schools must create opportunities for experiential learning and to explore different careers. But the choice must be left to students, they shouldn’t have to choose between college and career, by being tracked into one academy.  We must commit to the twin goals of preparing our students for college and for careers, especially because there is now consensus that the academic knowledge needed for college and for higher paying careers is virtually the same.

In Kelly Kent, we have a candidate who believes in the potential of every student, and who has not given up and is not suggesting that we give up. On the contrary, she is asking us to believe, because she believes.  Her background as an educator who prepares teachers to understand the latest in brain science speaks to this directly. She has spoken to us about developing the growth mindset in students, a theory that is fully supported by brain science. When students and educators have a growth mindset, they understand that intelligence can be developed. Students focus on improvement instead of worrying about how smart they are. They work hard to learn more and get smarter.

This is the vision that I am voting for and why I am voting ONLY for Kelly.

But there is a second aspect of my reasoning in voting only for Kelly, that relates more specifically to the mechanics of elections.

Voting for only one candidate is known as ‘bullet’ voting, but I am calling conscience-voting instead. When two candidates in a two seat election run on a slate, they combine resources, such as having common lawn signs, promotional materials and a shared campaign manager and volunteers. This practice disadvantages a third candidate in a race.  When a person displays a lawn sign because they support one of the candidates, they can’t help but advertise the two candidates, and the slate.

But more importantly, if you vote for Kelly and one of their candidates, you may inadvertently be diminishing Kelly’s chances to win, as your second vote is adding a vote to one of the two other candidates. In Culver City, only the top two vote getters are elected.

In voting only for Kelly you strengthen your vote, a vote for a vision that that uplifts us all. This is why I call it conscience voting.

Are UPCC Candidates Looking out for All Students with their Career Academies?

The two United Parents of Culver City candidates running for School Board, Anne Burke and Scott McVarish, are presenting Career Academies as a way to prepare students who might otherwise not go to college to access higher paying careers. They suggest the trades as an example.

On its face this seems like a good idea.  The issue gets more complicated when you look at who exactly they are talking about.

Let’s start with the good news.  Nine out of every 10 students graduate from high school in Culver City. This is higher than both the county (78%) and the State (81%). And while there’s variation (91% of Asian students, 90% of White students, 89% of Latino students, 86% of African American students), nearly 9 out of 10 students facing poverty graduate from high school in Culver City.  This is good.

It’s when you start looking at the number of students who graduate having taken the necessary courses to enter a state university that we see dramatic differences.  Instead of 9 out of 10 students, only 4.5 students out of 10 are graduating prepared for college.  Again, there’s variations: 71% of Asian students, 56% of White students, and only about 35% of African American, Latino, and 36% of students facing poverty are graduating prepared to go to college.

So, we must understand that when UPCC backed candidates propose Career Academies  they are talking about every 3 out of 10 Asian students, nearly 4 out of 10 White students and about two thirds of our African American, Latino students and students living in poverty. This should give us reason to pause.

But the problem with this proposal is not simply that it affects students differently, and that it assumes that all these students and their parents are okay with not getting college preparation from our schools.  The larger problem is that not preparing students for college has serious implications for these students, for our communities, and for our economy. These implications cannot be taken lightly.

The latest report from the Public Policy Institute of California entitled “Will California Run out of College Graduates?” presents some important facts:

• California will fall about 1.1 million college graduates short of economic demand if current trends persist—a problem they call the workforce skills gap.
• By 2030, the demand for highly educated workers will exceed the supply.
• It is unlikely that further increases in international migration will be sufficient to close the gap.
• The greatest increases in unemployment have been among workers with only a high school diploma or with some college education but no bachelor’s degree.
• Having a college degree is becoming more valuable every day. In 2005, college-degree holders earned slightly above 60 percent more than similar workers who held only a high school diploma; by 2013, they earned about 70 percent more.

Another report helps us see that ensuring our schools aim to prepare all our students for college is critical, even sooner than 2030.  In a phenomenon known as Upcredentialing, “jobs that once required less than a bachelor’s degree – administrative assistants, computer support specialists and food service managers, for example – are now often marketed as positions that require a college education.”  And they argue: “In many occupations, there is an increasing credentials gap: The demand for college-educated workers exceeds the number of current workers with a college degree. In some occupations, the gap is as large as 20, 30 or 40 percentage points.”

Even if you argue that not all students will be able to get into or afford college, you must consider this: students who take college preparatory courses earn more when they enter the workforce.  Is it fair to deny them an opportunity to be prepared for higher earnings also?

At the Ask 2 Know Forum, Scott McVarish brought out a drill to illustrate these Career Academies and how taking this path is a great opportunity for these students.  Anne Burke, who presents as the first in her family to go to college, amused the students but did not even mention that she had similar aspirations for them.  Although the students in the room voted in higher numbers to support these candidates, it’s unclear what the results might have been if the students more clearly understood what Scott and Anne are actually suggesting.

Career Academies can be structured to prepare students for college, but this is not how the UPCC candidates are presenting them. The Linked Learning approach, which is supported by Superintendent Tom Torlakson, and the Legislature, has been proven to increase college attendance rates, to result in higher income potential after graduation, and to increase civic engagement.

When you meet Kelly Kent, you can see that she believes that our schools should aim to prepare every student to go to college.   She may not have won the popularity contest at the Ask 2 Know Forum, but she’s clearly the one who understands that taking this issue seriously is an important responsibility of the Culver City Board of Education.

What the School Board election in Culver City could be about…

With the departure of beloved teacher Nancy Goldberg from the School Board, we are ushering a new era in Culver City where regardless of who wins, the School Board will be composed only of parents in our schools.  One could argue this is a very good thing, since the Board’s principal charge is to define the direction for our school system, and who can do this better than those who have as large a stake in it as parents do?  In just two election cycles, the emergence of United Parents of Culver City has made it clear that parents’ voices are important.

What is less clear is what these voices are saying and if United Parents of Culver City is effectively presenting a consensus of these voices.  They made their case that the facilities bond is important, the bond was approved decisively, with 76% of the vote in the June 2014 election.  For the School Board election this November, they are suggesting that parents are demanding urgency for the execution of these projects.

I’m a parent in the schools and for me, it is important that our facilities are in good shape and that the bond projects move forward. That said, I feel it is most essential to focus on outcomes, on how well we are preparing our students for the future, the principal task at hand for the School Board.

Like other parents in our schools, a few weeks I got the results of the new SBAC tests. And while I am not a big fan of measuring schools by their standardized test scores, I decided to take a look at the disparities between our elementary schools.  This is what I found: In English Language Arts, El Marino topped the charts with a whopping 74% of students meeting and exceeding the standards and Farragut came next with 67%.  After a 20 point drop  we find  students at La Ballona, Lin Howe and El Rincon.   In Math, El Marino leads at 76%, followed by Farragut at 62%, and after a 24 point drop you find Lin Howe, El Rincon and La Ballona.

These disparities look even more dramatic when you look at the whole population of students and take into consideration family income and ethnicity.  In English, African American and Latino students facing poverty are separated by at least 37 points from White students who are not facing poverty. And in Math they are separated by at least 46 points.  Can we really have such disparities in outcomes and still suggest that parents have more urgency about facilities than about instruction?

If you see that the disparities begin in elementary school, you know that a solution that focuses on kids entering Career Academies in High School as a solution is not a comprehensive solution.

I believe that Kelly Kent is a better candidate because she understands how children learn and believes in every child succeeding.  I have a second vote, but until Anne Burke or Scott McVarish make me believe that representing all schools means understanding and caring to address these issues, I might just have to vote for only one candidate.

Democracy in Culver City requires a healthy dialogue, let’s press for it!

Voters in Culver City face an interesting dilemma for this November 3rd election. Should they vote for two candidates – Scott McVarish and Anne Burke – both parents at El Marino, who hold the exact same views? Or should they vote for Kelly Kent, a parent from Linwood Howe who presents a different agenda from theirs? Or, if they like Kelly Kent, should they try to discern whether they like McVarish or Burke better?  This last choice is harder because they represent similar interests, have a single campaign manager, and sound like they don’t hold different opinions at all.

So, voters have to turn to see which candidate is more qualified.  Hence the negative attacks that are littering the blogosphere. McVarish and Burke expressed, in the League of Women Voters Forum, their intention to laser focus on the Bond.  They went to the extent of suggesting that they would try to get the Division of State Architects to push our projects along. They suggested that a focus on Instruction is not needed. More recently, in an attempt to undermine Kelly Kent’s strong credentials in the instructional arena, McVarish suggested in an interview that she would be micromanaging District staff, and ultimately causing the Superintendent to resign.

All of this is silly. Voters in Culver City don’t need this kind of dialogue.  A School Board votes through its expenditures, whether bond, General Fund or any other funds, on the priorities they establish in the areas of instruction, facilities and operations.   These cannot be separated.

Voters look to endorsements and qualifications to determine which candidates they support.  But they need a third source of information.  To determine how well a candidate will represent them, voters need to know where candidates stand on the issues.

Burke and McVarish suggest that we should spend our bond dollars by providing air conditioning in every classroom.  The temperatures we are facing these days would make every voter agree.   How does the Superintendent feel about this? Well, if you are a parent, you heard him in a long phone message he left us at the beginning of our very hot days.  He made the case that it is a complex policy decision that needs careful consideration, including possible adjustments to the school calendar.

Here are some of the questions voters and Board members (current and future) will need to think about: How much would it cost to put air conditioning in every classroom? How would this affect our electricity bill? Which of the projects that were identified when the bond was approved would we have to give up if we did this? Would voters have approved the bond if this had been shown to be the principal use? As voters, we need to understand this better, before acting [pun intended] in the heat of the moment.

In her brochure Kelly Kent speaks of her background in neuroscience, and how brain research should help us understand better how students learn and create classroom environments that are conducive to learning.   Is this an issue that Burke and McVarish object to? Or do they believe there is a better way?

McVarish and Burke offer the idea of introducing Career Academies to meet the needs of students that are not graduating prepared to go to college.  Does Kelly Kent support this idea as well?

Some of us heard the Presidential debates.  After these debates, we got a better idea of where candidates stand on the issues.  In Culver City, we have few spaces to have debates where the issues are discussed in this way, unless we belong to an organization that is endorsing candidates or we attend forums.

I suggest that as voters, we ask the candidates to focus on the issues and stop the attacks and the innuendo.  A healthy dialogue about how we spend the over $100 million dollars in bonds that we approved is critical.  A healthy dialogue about how we address the needs of students who are not graduating ready to go to college is equally critical.

Please join me in demanding that the political conversation move from negative attacks to the issues that matter the most.

Why I’m Inspired to Vote for Kelly Kent for Culver City School Board

Saturday October 10, 2015

I’m starting my blog by sharing my opinion on an issue that is happening in the community where I live: Culver City.

Kelly Kent is running for Culver City School Board, and I am inspired to speak up for her and to go talk to my neighbors about her for three reasons:

* She is a parent and she is an educator. Having both perspectives allows her to see the work of the Board both from the perspective of the professionals who work in the schools and from the perspective of the parents being served. This is essential.

* Kelly understands that parent organizing must involve empowerment of ALL parents, not just some. By developing the before school Spanish program at Linwood Howe Elementary, she has helped parents see that the school appreciates their skills and values their language and culture. This work is essential for improving school culture and academic achievement.

* Kelly brings a fresh perspective to the Board. Her knowledge of how brain science can enhance learning and her experience supporting teachers will help our community understand how ALL students can be supported to reach their potential, not just some children. I know that she believes that every child should be prepared to graduate ready to go to college or prepared for a career, and this is fundamental to making sure that our schools serve our entire community well.

If you vote in Culver City, please join me on November 3rd to vote for Kelly Kent for School Board!