Explore more of our great network. Explore more sites.

Top Ad

Sign up for the Daily North Shore Email

Comments

  1. Lisa, Steve, and I all support the Reconfiguration 2.0 team. We are trying to ensure that they consider all options in developing a recommendation so that they are ultimately successful. We shared the alternative financial model with 2.0 before we ever talked about it publicly. Eventually, we started to discuss it publicly to bring more visibility to it and we were pleased when the members of 2.0 agreed to consider it. The model is based on the hundreds of pages that I have read from 2.0, and probably nearly as many hours that I spent as a member of that team or subsequently working through the details and developing this perspective.

  2. Eva,
    Not one of these candidates hold the view about standardized testing that you state they do. Your statement is false. I encourage you to read everything we have said or written.
    Sincerely,
    Steve Welhouse

  3. This letter is a perfect example of the shifting political sands in the race for the 112 board. That it is happening after early voting has begun and so close to election day is a sad commentary on the inability of the political forces driving this shift to reach a consensus among themselves and with the community at large. Most surprising is that the Care slate is in a huge state of flux, not only with its leadership, but the candidates themselves. This letter endorses two of four on the Care slate and a third that tried, but that could not get, Care’s endorsement. My understanding of a political organization’s endorsement is that the Caucus or PAC vetting the candidates to earn its endorsement is firmly committed to supporting, and campaigning for, those candidates it chooses all the way to the finish line. This letter presents an endorsement for a third slate at the 11th hour that muddies not only the waters, but the messages promoted these many months by the endorsing bodies and the candidates themselves. While there was a time I considered voting for the Care slate, the shifting political sands of the past couple of weeks have jolted me off that position. I will instead vote my conscious, not a straight party ticket, and that includes this one. Let the chips fall where they may.

    • I find this to be an interesting comment. Brent Ross was endorsed by the Caucus and have they supported him along the way? CARE on the other hand has said from the beginning that they support the candidates individual views and purposely endorsed candidates with diverse opinions and who have fresh ideas. The letter was submitted by residents who support three candidates and I’m proud to have received such an amazing endorsement.

      • Thank you for lending your perspective Lisa. While you may be spinning this as an endorsement letter from 112 residents, several members of Care’s Endorsement Panel signed it too. That fact runs counter to the concept of an endorsing body pledging to support all the candidates they vet and endorse to the finish line. Wellhouse did not earn Care’s endorsement, so why are these Care members lending their support to his campaign now? By signing their names to this letter, it undermines the value of their endorsements, and Care’s credibility as a political organization, as it shows members of Care’s endorsement panel can change their minds about the horse they bet on after their bets are down, and the para mutual windows have closed. The same applies to any organization that vets and endorses candidates.

    • CARE has not stuck by all its candidates, Lisa. It backed you and Ross, along with Brunk and Campell initially, and then shifted (or at least part of its leadership shifted) its support to you, Ross and Welhouse, including a horrible and unjust trashing of Brunk along the way. Yes, I know that others in CARE then revoked this new position and went back to the other slate, but therein lies the divisiveness and political theater of CARE — a loosely knit group of those who opposed the last referendum (including me), but who cannot even begin to agree on anything amongst themselves. I also will vote for a couple candidates sometimes supported by CARE (Campbell and Brunk) along with a couple who have proven their commitment to HP and to finding better solutions than the previous referendum and BDR3 (Jenks and Ross).

  4. As an advocate for public education for Illinois kids as well as heavily lobbying legislators the past two years with parents across the state against the misuse, severely flawed and invalidity of the state test, PARCC, implemented to punish school districts using experimental data, I feel it’s unfortunate the above candidates are using state testing outcomes as a part of their candidate platform.

    Standardized test and punish polices have been designed to falsely deem students, teachers and their schools as failing or revealing ‘not enough growth’ data. To subject kids, as young as nine years old, especially English Learners, food insecure or low SES kids, to test upwards of 6 to 9 hours, will not make kids smarter nor will it make property values rise. The homes they live in that their parents own are not taking the tests. Our kids are.

    There’s no doubt the above candidates care about all of the schools in NSSD112 and I’m sure are decent people. However, I can’t, in good conscience, vote for candidates who feel it’s ok to use punitive state tests to determine the value of a house let alone kids.

    Eva Watson

  5. I don’t believe that Hirsh, Ross, and Welhouse have ever declared they wouldn’t work with the 2.0 team. In fact, Brent Ross was a key member of the team until he began his campaign. They have all participated in meetings and communications with 2.0 and in some way have each had work experience in similar areas that they can bring to the table and enhance the board with. True they were not part of the previous referendum and were opposed to BDR3, but I welcome a set of new ideas not only with respect to reconfiguration but also desperately needed curriculum improvements, diversity needs, etc.

  6. These candidates seem to be the only three out of the nine that don’t support the work of the 2.0 Reconfiguration Community Team. Personally, I find it alarming that they’re pushing a reconfiguration plan and proposing of tax referendums without the research and analysis coming from the 2.0 team that is comprised of community members. We need to elect candidates that are willing to listen and work with the 2.0 Team, not candidates that are pushing a singular agenda proposed by a political organization. It’s time to get politics and PAC money out of our school district and elect candidates that want to work with our community. IMO, Lasko, Kessler, Jenks, Brunk, Mordini, and Campbell are all better options that have demonstrated a true commitment to work with the 2.0 team.

    • 100% agree — if we elect 3 board members who have chosen to discount and disregard the diligent work of 2.0, and propose their own plan and referendum based on opinions of some friends who work in the education field, we will lead this community to another failed referendum (and I should mention that I opposed the first) and school closures decided due to lack of funding to continue operations (a new form of BDR3) rather than a well-researched plan to be proposed by 2.0. Jenks and Kessler, combined with Brunk and Campbell, gives us a board that has stood on both sides of the issue, yet has proven they can work together to come up with a solution based on community input and strong research via their work together on 2.0.

Post a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Daily North Shore encourages comments, but we have specific guidelines that you can find here. A general principle is: Do not state anything in a comment that you would not say in public and do not state anything about another person that you would not say to his or her face.

Post comment mobile ad section