For Whom Should I Vote?

I was told to start a new thread when I asked for guidance from MOL posters whose opinions I trust. Not having a child in the schools and not being familiar with current issues facing the District it was difficult to evaluate the candidates even after reading their responses to the questions posed by Village Green.

So I am looking for advice.

ASKED to start a new thread (not told)

Thank you for doing so, so people can read facts on that thread and opinion over here.

As my own personal opinion, I think the differences are quite clear.

Maini and Sabin seem like lovely people, but their ideas and comments in the written questionnaires and the debates just seem incredibly vague and non-specific. I still have no idea where they stand on anything. I would probably say the same for Ms. Lind, but I have even less idea about her since she missed the debate, has not sent out a mailing, doesn't have a website and doesn't seem to be out campaigning.

For me, Pai, Eastman and Freedson have taken strong positive positions on issues that are important to me, notably retaining levels with choice and fiscal responsibility. Pai and Eastman have a solid record of experience and a record on the BOE they can be proud of. Freedson is an amazing person who I have gotten to know as my neighbor and she brings fresh new ideas and solid education experience to the BOE. In my opinion, these 3 are the obvious choice for our BOE.

As for the remaining 3 candidates, all I can tell is that they are against EVERYTHING. (Levels, The Superintendent, Testing, Consultants, Public Comments, Resignations, etc). I think Johanna Wright already fills the role of dissenter well on the BOE and I don't think we need any more negativity.

Lost,

You may want to specify that this question is about the BOE (if it is), or you may get suggestions about whether to write in Gerry Ryan or not.

I think Maini and Sabin have integrity and are not engaging in the game of mischaracterizing their opponents views, or promoting divisiveness and fear, as the Pai-Eastman-Freedson ticket is doing. I find a lot of the latter's campaigning deliberately misleading. For example, they claim everyone else is for de-lelveling, when this is not true. And they claim that they are the only candidates who care about the tax burden. This is false as well.

Annemarie Maini is a math expert with an advanced degree in math and experience in math education. She has an MBA from Cornell, and she owns and operates a Montessori preschool in our community. She has been deeply involved in the PTA's in our community, and seems universally liked and respected throughout the community. Why wouldn't someone want her on our school board?? Chris Sabin has lived in our community his whole life. He's spent much of his non-work life supporting and working with children, mostly through sports programs. I can personally vouch for the importance of sports programs in high school as one of the things that kept me engaged academically. He also has expertise in communications, which the district desperately needs. I don't think anyone disputes that. Together they do seem like lovely people, but more than this, they seem like they have the ability to reach across the ideological divides in our community that make it really hard to get anything positive done. We need new people with fresh ideas on the board right now.

I like what I've read about Dorcas Lind. She seems to care deeply about bringing people in the community together for quality education, at least from her statements on the Village Green. She's got my third vote.

Good luck trying to figure this all out. It took me two weeks, and you have only two days (with an extra hour, though!)

Like I said, positions that seem incredibly vague and non-specific. It's not about "caring" about taxes or levels, it's being willing to make a firm commitment. Every one of the candidates has a solid resume. This should be a discussion of ideas and issues, not about who has lived here the longest.

The quality of ideas, willingness to be specific and board and K-12 curriculum experience is why I am voting Pai, Eastman and Freedson. I am linking to some key text that led me to this decision.

http://villagegreennj.com/schools-kids/freedson-stronger-early-education-key-access-equity-policy/

http://villagegreennj.com/schools-kids/letter-editor-freedson-will-bring-expertise-curriculum-instruction-boe/

http://villagegreennj.com/schools-kids/opinion-board-education-member-care/

Good Luck in making your decision

Again, as I've said on the other thread, the "firm commitment" to keeping the tax rate at 2% was not demonstrated by the incumbents. We have their voting record before us. They voted with the majority of the school board this year to authorize a 2.4 percentage of the total operating budget. In other words, they voted to use the "banked cap," money that is held in reserve, in order to meet the needs of the district. I happened to think this was the right thing to do. But the point is, ALL members of the school board must adhere to the state-mandated cap, and all will have to make decisions at budget time whether to dig into reserves to cover district needs, or whether to make significant cuts to district spending. The incumbents voted for the former this year. How can Mr. Eastman and Ms. Pai campaign that they are the only candidates who will "Vote to Keep School Tax Increases At or Below 2%," as their literature claims? This is why I think their campaign is being dishonest and misleading. They should explain their vote, and not run away from it.

As a new member of the community 10 years ago I remember being baffled by these Education election threads. We'd moved from Brooklyn and knew that Maplewood schools were much better than our options there but also saw there was a lot of back and forth about the quality of Columbia High School. Our biggest dilemma was which pre-school to enroll our kids in.

Fast forward, we now have kids attending elementary, middle and Columbia at the same time. I learned about the upper levels from watching my neighbor's kids attend and graduate middle school and high school. I saw that all my worries about the high school were completely unjustified.

New parents: you have nothing to be concerned about. Maplewood schools are not just excellent, they are awesome. Your kids will get a great education. The breadth of potential activities and support at Columbia is much better than anything I experienced. Of course there is always room to improve: missing a gifted and talented program, more STEM programming, the achievement gap, the aging facilities, quality of communication from the administration, and our tax burden are real issues we need to continue to work on.

Over the last 5 - 6 years I became aware that there is a group of people in town who believe that the de-leveling classrooms is the number one priority for educational progress. And I've also seen that this initiative seems to be more based in belief than any statistical proof of delivering the claimed benefits. That's the source of so many long MOL educational threads that are baffling to read through.

I thank Jeff Bennett for his service on the BOE as he seemed to lead the way on investigating the stats.

I'm voting for Eastman, Pai, and Freedson. I have more trust that they're looking at all the facts to make improvements that are grounded in reality to ensure that our great school system continues to improve for all of our kids. And I thank all the candidates who are running for an unpaid position because they are so passionate about bettering our children's lives.

michaelgoldberg said:

As for the remaining 3 candidates, all I can tell is that they are against EVERYTHING. (Levels, The Superintendent, Testing, Consultants, Public Comments, Resignations, etc). I think Johanna Wright already fills the role of dissenter well on the BOE and I don't think we need any more negativity.

Moreover, if you are a dissenter, you have to very clearly explain your alternative point of view. Dissent without presenting viable alternatives is not particularly helpful.

Ok JohnGillam, it's been explained on all the threads where you have been slamming Mr. Eastman and Ms. Pai by several posters including Jeff Bennett. Mr. Eastman and Ms. Pai voted to keep the Tax Levy for an all in rate of 2%. They were outvoted. Then, when it came time to vote to send the budget to the county they voted to support the majority voice and to speak as one with them - which your pal Bill Gaudelli noted in his parting remarks made when he left the board as one of the important take-always he learned from being in the board . This is especially true of someone in board leadership as Eastman and Pai are.

So now this makes 5 times or so thatyou've been schooled on this yet keep posting this misinformation on Maini and Sabin's behalf. Pethaps you can just say what it is they stand for - since it is hard to figure out from debates and literature and questionnaires . Reading their answers I kept thinking of Tevye from Fiddler - "On the one hand....and then on the other hand....

Johngillam189 said:
I think Maini and Sabin have integrity and are not engaging in the game of mischaracterizing their opponents views, or promoting divisiveness and fear, as the Pai-Eastman-Freedson ticket is doing. I find a lot of the latter's campaigning deliberately misleading. For example, they claim everyone else is for de-lelveling, when this is not true. And they claim that they are the only candidates who care about the tax burden. This is false as well.
Annemarie Maini is a math expert with an advanced degree in math and experience in math education. She has an MBA from Cornell, and she owns and operates a Montessori preschool in our community. She has been deeply involved in the PTA's in our community, and seems universally liked and respected throughout the community. Why wouldn't someone want her on our school board?? Chris Sabin has lived in our community his whole life. He's spent much of his non-work life supporting and working with children, mostly through sports programs. I can personally vouch for the importance of sports programs in high school as one of the things that kept me engaged academically. He also has expertise in communications, which the district desperately needs. I don't think anyone disputes that. Together they do seem like lovely people, but more than this, they seem like they have the ability to reach across the ideological divides in our community that make it really hard to get anything positive done. We need new people with fresh ideas on the board right now.
I like what I've read about Dorcas Lind. She seems to care deeply about bringing people in the community together for quality education, at least from her statements on the Village Green. She's got my third vote.
Good luck trying to figure this all out. It took me two weeks, and you have only two days (with an extra hour, though!)

No one has done more to mischaracterize their opponents ' views in the last week than this poster "johngillam189." If he is not speaking for Maini and Sabin directly then he has done them a disservice. I've known Ms. Maini a long time and think she is a very nice person. I have watched all 3 debates, been to the website and FB page and agree with Michael Goldberg that as a candidate, she and her running mate have not been specific or forthcoming about what they would do if elected. I don't know what her "child-centric approach" means for middle or high school students. I don't know what it means to "put the needs of all students first" when it comes to making policy decisions or whether there are costs associated with that. I disagree with Maini's statement at the first debate that the math program only works for 10 percent of our students. I believe she has a specific plan for math but she is not saying what it is - she just prefers to speak in platitudes as a candidate. She did admit at the first debate that pre-school education is different than K-12 education, which I appreciate. Mr. Sabin IMO has been underwhelming at all of the debates and does not seem well-versed in the issues. His closing statement at the first debate, "Vote for us because we've lived here a long time" leaves me cold, although I have lived here longer than 7 of the 9 candidates. Maini-Sabin left many unanswered questions to the 11 questions posed by the Village Green, including one I am interested in about Gifted and Talented education. I saw on the Maini-Sabin mailer posted on the Maplewoodian website that their endorsers include Andrea Wren-Hardin, Sandra Karriem and Beth Daugherty, all of whom had no interest in doing anything for the G and T kids, even though it was required by the state.

As someone who watches the BOE meetings and has written to the BOE on issues which concerned me, I have found Madhu Pai to be one of the most responsive BOE members, and more responsive than all of the BOE members listed as endorsers on the Maini-Sabin mailing. She is consistently the voice of reason on the Board and asks excellent questions, including, as she said at the third debate, constantly asking the administration for data on the impact of the middle school deleveling. Peggy Freedson's education and experience in K-12 literacy education would be a fantastic resource for the Board. I agree with her about needing to make our elementary writing experience more content-rich. Wayne Eastman did the district a service by drafting the new Access and Equity policy and I would like to see him implement it.

I believe the tone of Team SOMA at BOE meetings and at debates is rude and disrespectful and would not serve the district well. I don't agree with their anti-PARCC or anti-Common Core views. The fact that the teachers union NJ Education Association gave them a large donation is also troubling.

If Dorcas Lind wanted to run, she should have done much more to get her message across since the other candidates have been campaigning since the summer and she failed to appear at the first debate and avail herself of the local media to make her views known.. Since one of the big complaints about our district is the communication, she should have made her communication to the public a much greater priority.

For me, the best candidates are Pai-Eastman-Freedson.

"I thank Jeff Bennett for his service on the BOE as he seemed to lead the way on investigating the stats."

Actually, we don't have the facts. The district does a dismal job of collecting relevant and necessary data to assess anything. We don't have any evidence at all that leveling works, and no evidence that de-leveling affects the achievement gap. We only have Mr. Bennett, whom I respect, but who cannot claim to have the numbers he needs to draw any conclusions, because the district does not collect this data. I hope a new board will demand this data from the administration in its efforts to implement the Access and Equity policy. The incumbents inspire no confidence that they will demand any of it, as they've not done so for 3.5 years, and 9 years in Mr. Eastman's case. And 9 years is really too long for anyone to be on a local school board.

But it is now evident--thanks for being so transparent--that the Pai-Eastman-Freedson ticket is all about the old leveling debate. Full Stop. No one in this election is calling for deleveling. Pai-Eastman-Freedson are claiming their opponents are calling for de-leveling, but Maini and Sabin are clearly not. They were very clear and specific in the debates about this, and in their posts on the Village Green. Malespina has explained her position, and called the incumbents out for distorting it. Pai-Eastman-Freedson are peddling fear. It's an ugly campaign tactic, but as old as the hills.

If you think things are going well in the school system, and have been going well for the past few years, you should vote for the incumbent slate. If you think things are not going well now, and are heading in a bad direction, you should vote for one of the other slates. Depending on how "not well" you think things are going, you can vote for a slate that is pushing greater change, versus one that wants to just tinker around the edges a bit. No matter where you end up on the "well, not well" spectrum, you should vote for candidates whose positions are clear to you, so you know exactly what you are voting for. I know this sounds simplistic, but with all the mud flying around as we get close to election day, its a good way to focus on who you want to vote for.

Word of warning of people reading.

@Johngillam189 seems to be part of the Maini-Sabin campaign, and so his statements should be taken with a spoonful of salt.

alp said:
Word of warning of people reading.
@Johngillam189 seems to be part of the Maini-Sabin campaign, and so his statements should be taken with a spoonful of salt.

Frankly, he's such a terrible advocate for his preferred candidates that I'm a little surprised Maini-Sabin haven't asked that he cease and desist.

relx said:
If you think things are going well in the school system, and have been going well for the past few years, you should vote for the incumbent slate. If you think things are not going well now, and are heading in a bad direction, you should vote for one of the other slates. Depending on how "not well" you think things are going, you can vote for a slate that is pushing greater change, versus one that wants to just tinker around the edges a bit. No matter where you end up on the "well, not well" spectrum, you should vote for candidates whose positions are clear to you, so you know exactly what you are voting for. I know this sounds simplistic, but with all the mud flying around as we get close to election day, its a good way to focus on who you want to vote for.

+1

To recap all the positives I see in the district lately - New Access and Equity policy, fantastic principal at CHS and SOMS, new Superintendent with good ideas for improving communications and engagement, new asst. super for curriculum who has good ideas and follow up and is accessible, more course offerings in STEM at CHS - programming, robotics, science research, new clubs at CHS including a drone flying club and an I-Gem chapter in the works and a BOE that has been able to vote unanimously on a few important policies.

michaelgoldberg said:
Like I said, positions that seem incredibly vague and non-specific. It's not about "caring" about taxes or levels, it's being willing to make a firm commitment. Every one of the candidates has a solid resume. This should be a discussion of ideas and issues, not about who has lived here the longest.

So you are fine with your chosen candidates misrepresenting the views of the other candidates? You want specifics, but then support those that provide misleading specifics to enhance their appeal. I don't get it.

With all due respect I do not know most of you.

OTOH, while I have no idea who tjohn is in real life I have read his posts in Politics for years, and have great respect for his opinions.

So, Mr. Tjohn, are you for the same slate as Mr. Goldberg? That is, the incumbents, Pai and Eastman, and Freedson, I think?

tjohn said:

michaelgoldberg said:

As for the remaining 3 candidates, all I can tell is that they are against EVERYTHING. (Levels, The Superintendent, Testing, Consultants, Public Comments, Resignations, etc). I think Johanna Wright already fills the role of dissenter well on the BOE and I don't think we need any more negativity.

Moreover, if you are a dissenter, you have to very clearly explain your alternative point of view. Dissent without presenting viable alternatives is not particularly helpful.

sprout said:
Lost,
You may want to specify that this question is about the BOE (if it is), or you may get suggestions about whether to write in Gerry Ryan or not.

I will not ask GERARD W. RYAN whether I should write him in, but I may ask his preferences for the BOE.

michaelgoldberg said:
ASKED to start a new thread (not told) ">
Thank you for doing so, so people can read facts on that thread and opinion over here.
As my own personal opinion, I think the differences are quite clear.
Maini and Sabin seem like lovely people, but their ideas and comments in the written questionnaires and the debates just seem incredibly vague and non-specific. I still have no idea where they stand on anything. I would probably say the same for Ms. Lind, but I have even less idea about her since she missed the debate, has not sent out a mailing, doesn't have a website and doesn't seem to be out campaigning.
For me, Pai, Eastman and Freedson have taken strong positive positions on issues that are important to me, notably retaining levels with choice and fiscal responsibility. Pai and Eastman have a solid record of experience and a record on the BOE they can be proud of. Freedson is an amazing person who I have gotten to know as my neighbor and she brings fresh new ideas and solid education experience to the BOE. In my opinion, these 3 are the obvious choice for our BOE.
As for the remaining 3 candidates, all I can tell is that they are against EVERYTHING. (Levels, The Superintendent, Testing, Consultants, Public Comments, Resignations, etc). I think Johanna Wright already fills the role of dissenter well on the BOE and I don't think we need any more negativity.

I found almost all the answers of all the candidates to be inscrutable.

Roland,

You have a good point. They all say they want better communication and then use jargon and various abbreviations. For instance, what the heck is Kiva?

Kiva is something our new Superintendent brought to our community. He explained it at his first Meeting before he officially started. It is a technique of gathering a lot of community input and opinions quickly and a way to reach consensus on controversial and divergent views of issues. Maybe others can explain more but that's all I got

I agree with everything michaelgoldberg said. I think you know me as Wendy Lauter.

For the record, dg64, MOD, and Michael Goldberg are all supporters of Mr. Eastman and Ms. Pai. The incumbents' supporters seem to be engaging in an effort to discredit anyone who opposes their candidates. As I've said several times, I support Maini-Sabin and I've also decided to vote for Lind. If I'm "working" for their campaign, then are dg64, MOD, and Michael Goldberg working for the Pai-Eastman-Freedson campaign? Or, are they supporters of these candidates who are expressing your own opinions? I am a supporting the three candidates I mentioned, and I am expressing my own opinions, based on my own research, about this election. Do you see the difference? I'm as concerned about the outcome of this election as the Eastman-Pai-Freedson posters.

I agree with the poster above who wrote: if you have been happy with the way the board has been functioning, vote for the incumbents. If you have not been happy, there are plenty challengers to choose from.

Absolutely, I am a proud supporter of Pai, Eastman, Freedson and now that I clearly know where they stand on issues that are important to me, I am trying to help them and am posting here under my real name. However, to be crystal clear - any posts here are my opinion and my opinion only. I do not speak on their behalf.

On the other hand, you (and nan) and your candidates seem to be unable to articulate a clear position on any issue. I think it is a brilliant campaign strategy so everyone can hear what they want to hear. Who doesn't have a "Belief that most children are capable of great things"? What does it mean that they are not in favor of "major-delevelling" at the High School? Someone in favor of delevelling will maybe think that means everything except math. Someone in favor of levels may think that as long as no big changes are made, it's OK. Which is it?

We have enough political doublespeak in National elections it would nice to hear clear positions in local elections and I have heard none. (and it sounds like others above haven't either) I welcome you to try to correct that perception, but all you have done is to try to attack me or the candidates I am supporting.

Johngillam189 said:
For the record, dg64, MOD, and Michael Goldberg are all supporters of Mr. Eastman and Ms. Pai. The incumbents' supporters seem to be engaging in an effort to discredit anyone who opposes their candidates.

Excuse me? I've looked at your post history.

You've been attacking both SOMA2015 and Pai-Eastman-Freedson, at one point attacking another candidate for a speech he gave at an elementary school. Is that really what your ticket wants?

Interestingly enough, MOD defended Maini-Sabin in a thread about a perceived conflict. dg64, MOD and Michael Goldberg may have made up their mind, but I've been reading their posts for years.

Please, just give it a rest.

I have not disparaged nor have I tried to discredit any supporters of the other campaigns. I have tried to show why I think the other candidates are weaker than the ones I'm supporting. And I have challenged some assertions that supporters of the Pai-Eastman-Freedson ticket that are not substantiated by the facts. This is a campaign where two incumbents are running for re-election for public office. They have a record. One of them has a very long record. Why are their records not fair game in this election?

I will if you will, alp.

Johngillam189 said:
No one in this election is calling for deleveling.

Out loud. Any more.

Chalmers and des summed things up exceptionally well.

No one in this election is calling for de-leveling. Please stop the fear-mongering.

Well, I just got a robocall from Pai, which makes me way less inclined to vote for her. (I'm joking, mostly. But I REALLY hate robocalls. Such an unnecessary intrusion, especially in something like a school board election. And the actual call was entirely content free. I'm supposed to vote for you simply because a recording of your voice calls my house and says your name into my ear? Really?)