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.
Claudia Vizcarra 