What truly separates a legitimate school board candidate from one who should never serve is not a political party designation or a loud campaign but having a plan of positive action and a willingness to work for a solution.

Those solutions are not for problems which are exclusively in certain schools with certain students being taught by certain teachers. The problems that we as a school system (and most likely others) face mainly are systemic and rooted in policies that are crafted and decided upon at levels outside of a school system.

When a school board candidate wants to talk about how things are taught in schools and wants to change the curriculum, they should not be running for a local school board seat. They should run for state legislature which has a direct influence on curriculum and the state board of education as they appoint members.

When a school board candidate spews platitudes about how he/she will “bring schools back to the parents” or “back to the public” and to teach “better values,” then that person is more than likely to have been “educated” by what other uninformed people have been screaming into sponsored microphones.

When a candidate bases a campaign for local school board on a platform to abolish the teaching of CRT or to stop the supposed indoctrination of students or to stop wasteful spending, then that candidate is just looking for a problem to yell about without bringing any solutions. Why? Because bringing solutions means that you understand what the real problems are and truly understand how public schools work.

There will be candidates who do get elected this November who do not really need to be on a school board. And they will make themselves known very quickly.

They’ll be the reactionary people who constantly talk about what they think is wrong with public schools yet provide no solutions while at the same time blame the very people they are supposed to support and never take any responsibility. 


Source link

About Author

Clarence Choe