Many of the hits on this blog recently are from people searching for information on candidates for the State School Board. I am going to link you to excellent resources for finding more out about your candidates (If you are in State School District 13, you can read on this blog 3 posts within the last few days about the candidates in our district.), but just as importantly, I am going to ask that you spend 20 minutes to read the history of how the State School Board election process was changed from a normal election process to a warped, non-democratic selection committee which allows or disallows certain candidates to run.
In effect, 80% or so of the candidates allowed on your ballot in any district for State School Board were vetted and voted upon by just 7 businessmen on a 12-person committee appointed by virtue of their close relationships with the governor's office, with power to summarily dismiss other qualified candidates who did not meet their philosophical or professional expectations. They often opposed the candidate favored by the education rep.'s who served on the same governor-appointed selection committee. And even if the "education bloc" had won the vote and allowed other candidates onto the ballot, what kind of process is that?! It is not right for a narrow, non-elected group to have power over the public ballot. Can you imagine if our candidates for governor or the state legislature were chosen that way?
The committee in several districts eliminated the candidates who were strong advocates for schools and replaced them by candidates who are more pro-voucher and "reform" as defined by the legislature. They also gave low rankings to and cut three incumbents, Teresa Theurer, Richard Sadler (the elected board chair...), and Bill Colbert. I don't even agree with Bill Colbert much, but he can't run for re-election in his own district because some insider circle businessmen don't like him? That's beyond silly.
So read all about the process and the specific sad outcome of the committee vote in June in the Accountability blog. Then contact your legislator in November and tell him/her that this is a priority issue.
Getting to know your State School Board candidates:
1. Another Accountability post shows the information available online about each of the candidates.
2. Utah Moms Care blog links to the two voting organizations which distributed surveys to the State School Board candidates on their opinions. (Check her entries for September and October for more specific information on Districts 1, 4, 7, 8, and 12, including some direct information from candidates.)
3. Utahns for Public Schools candidate surveys
4. Utah League of Women Voters candidate surveys
.
Showing posts with label Trent Kaufman. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Trent Kaufman. Show all posts
Sunday, November 2, 2008
Saturday, September 13, 2008
State School Board District 8 didn't get vetted by the biased committee and Trent Kaufman is an interesting study
The first purpose of this post is to clarify a blank spot in my understanding. I hadn't realized until a few days ago that there was a State School Board race with only two candidates to begin with. Trent Kaufman is challenging incumbent Janet Cannon in State Senate District 8.
No other candidates filed in District 8, so Cannon and Kaufman totally avoided the whole process of the biased nominating committee and the governor narrowing the field down to three and then to two. Outside of some legislative insiders, most feel it's a horrible process, and it was particularly partisan this year with "business interests" voting as a bloc (I use the quotes because business owners are not a monolithic group with similar views in my experience. These business rep's appointed by the governor are from influential circles with narrow views.), and with the governor, eliminating three incumbents without allowing the public to decide on their job performance. (I don't even like Colbert's positions, but he should get a chance to stand for re-election.) Sara Brate at the Accountability Blog compiled the committee votes in a Google doc.
I wrote a little about the process, but mostly just linked to excellent posts by Sara. (From the link--Did you know that in 2006 two State School Board candidates received over $30,000 dollars each from Parents for Choice in Education? One of them won their election and one didn’t.)
This has colored the thinking of those public education advocates paying attention, but with the lack of attending controversy, District 8 still managed to slide under the radar, at least for me. The race had gotten the least publicity of all the districts until the Tribune article last week showed that Kaufman had raised a surprisingly high amount of money ($7,939 to Cannon’s $0), much of it from out-of-state donors. This fact immediately triggers alarm bells for those who remember PCE’s attempt to stack the school board in 2006, and perhaps some faulty assumptions as well. I know I immediately assumed Kaufman was one of those candidates vetted through the biased committee when I read he was facing an incumbent. It took me a minute to go look up the race on the state election site when I couldn't find District 8 on the voting spreadsheet above. I bet others connected those dots erroneously too because we've been so concerned about the process. I'm posting this to clarify there is a race that didn't get filtered through the committee, and that Trent Kaufman actually has public school credentials, while having no real history on charter schools. I do not mean this to “vet” him fully…I still have unanswered questions about his positions, especially on vouchers, and am still taking his explanation of the money he raised with a grain of salt.
This stems from the summary I posted of the new legislative-leadership-hosted Red Meat Radio show's first broadcast the other day (Exciting Episode #2 is this morning! I really don't care about the Palin debate, but I'll have to tune in second hour to hear Senator Stephenson's take on merit pay and those "callous" teachers.) , including a segment where Kaufman explained why he thought the Tribune was trying to unfairly label him as a voucher supporter.
Mr. Kaufman emailed to thank me for writing about the show and explain more of what he said because I had tuned in part way through his interview. He feels Paul Rolly was falsely labeling him as part of the "charter school movement" because of an anonymous tip when the opposite is true from his record, and that Lisa Schenker also had him pegged unfairly. Here is what he wrote:
I liked that Mr. Kaufman explained his position clearly and was not defensive. I don't have first-hand experience with schools back East, but have heard similar comments about the higher school standards (especially in Virginia) from many friends and acquaintances--raising our standards seems a worthy goal. I'm glad that he understood my suspicions about his out-of-state donations and would like to learn more about his statement that previous school board candidates have raised even more money than him. Is he referring only to the two PCE candidates who received $30,000 in out-of-state pro-voucher money in 2006, or were there others? If he's got thousands more than his fellow candidates now, how much more will he have by November? I honestly wonder if any other school board candidates will raise $8000. What big donors are interested besides PCE?
I also 124% agree with his dislike of partisan politics in school boards. For the record, Senator Stephenson, the host of last Saturday’s show who interviewed Kaufman, co-sponsored and voted for Senator Bramble's bill (SB 194) in 2007 that would have made state school board races explicitly partisan. It passed the Senate before dying in the House.
From Kaufman’s explanation and then looking at his website and biography, I also thought that maybe he was characterized unfairly...until I went back and read Rolly’s article. I don’t think Rolly does much more fair than that, in terms of his comments about Kaufman. Yes, it is possible to make assumptions about Kaufman, but I think the column makes things more clear, not less. (In fact, I’m kind of embarrassed I didn’t retain the information after reading the article months ago.) Rolly clearly treats Kaufman differently than the other candidates he reported on, stating “the committee won’t have influence” and that he was a high school principal, while calling the others “the most fervent charter-school advocates and pro-voucher devotees.” I explained in my last post that I think Kaufman over-reacted to the Schenker article as well.
So…I like many of Kaufman’s positions (on class size [in the Opinions section] and merit pay)...and I’m suspicious of his funding, some of his supporters (Senator Stephenson, Jeff Hartley—former XO of the Utah GOP…as well as some non-fawning, quality endorsements from Patty Sandstrom and Gardner Brown), and think he’s making a mountain out of a molehill with his complaints about the media. There’s not a lot of information about Janet Cannon out there, no website that I could find, but here’s a small bio and an article about an award she received in 2006 for her service on the State School Board. It seems at first glance that district 8 has two good candidates to choose from. Keep researching and choose carefully.
No other candidates filed in District 8, so Cannon and Kaufman totally avoided the whole process of the biased nominating committee and the governor narrowing the field down to three and then to two. Outside of some legislative insiders, most feel it's a horrible process, and it was particularly partisan this year with "business interests" voting as a bloc (I use the quotes because business owners are not a monolithic group with similar views in my experience. These business rep's appointed by the governor are from influential circles with narrow views.), and with the governor, eliminating three incumbents without allowing the public to decide on their job performance. (I don't even like Colbert's positions, but he should get a chance to stand for re-election.) Sara Brate at the Accountability Blog compiled the committee votes in a Google doc.
I wrote a little about the process, but mostly just linked to excellent posts by Sara. (From the link--Did you know that in 2006 two State School Board candidates received over $30,000 dollars each from Parents for Choice in Education? One of them won their election and one didn’t.)
This has colored the thinking of those public education advocates paying attention, but with the lack of attending controversy, District 8 still managed to slide under the radar, at least for me. The race had gotten the least publicity of all the districts until the Tribune article last week showed that Kaufman had raised a surprisingly high amount of money ($7,939 to Cannon’s $0), much of it from out-of-state donors. This fact immediately triggers alarm bells for those who remember PCE’s attempt to stack the school board in 2006, and perhaps some faulty assumptions as well. I know I immediately assumed Kaufman was one of those candidates vetted through the biased committee when I read he was facing an incumbent. It took me a minute to go look up the race on the state election site when I couldn't find District 8 on the voting spreadsheet above. I bet others connected those dots erroneously too because we've been so concerned about the process. I'm posting this to clarify there is a race that didn't get filtered through the committee, and that Trent Kaufman actually has public school credentials, while having no real history on charter schools. I do not mean this to “vet” him fully…I still have unanswered questions about his positions, especially on vouchers, and am still taking his explanation of the money he raised with a grain of salt.
This stems from the summary I posted of the new legislative-leadership-hosted Red Meat Radio show's first broadcast the other day (Exciting Episode #2 is this morning! I really don't care about the Palin debate, but I'll have to tune in second hour to hear Senator Stephenson's take on merit pay and those "callous" teachers.) , including a segment where Kaufman explained why he thought the Tribune was trying to unfairly label him as a voucher supporter.
Mr. Kaufman emailed to thank me for writing about the show and explain more of what he said because I had tuned in part way through his interview. He feels Paul Rolly was falsely labeling him as part of the "charter school movement" because of an anonymous tip when the opposite is true from his record, and that Lisa Schenker also had him pegged unfairly. Here is what he wrote:
In April Paul Rolly, Tribune columnist emailed me and asked if I was a member of the Charter School movement. I said I didn't know what he was talking about and where he got his information. He said he couldn't reveal his sources but he was grateful I set the record straight. I poured over everything on the internet about me to try to understand where he would have gotten this from. I'm not part of the Utah education establishment, having worked in education in CA and MA, but not yet Utah, so I can't imagine who in Utah would have come up with the idea that I somehow was part of the charter school movement (whatever that means). On my resume it shows that I presented at the CA Charter School Association Conference about some tools created in public schools that might be relevant to charter schools too. I can only assume that that's where he got his angle.
He then wrote a story about how there was a pro charter, pro voucher candidate as well as a pro union candidate running in every race and simply glossed over my district instead of pointing out that there are two pro public school candidates in District 8. This is when I realized it would be hard for me to prove my loyalty to public schools in this campaign, since Janet has proven to support public schools too. In other words, Rolly wanted it to be partisan even though it isn't a partisan election. I think we need to ratchet up the expectations within public schools in Utah (coming from MA, I have seen a real difference). That's my big "reform" message.
Lisa's first question for me on the phone was: "I heard you are involved in charter schools…" As you can imagine, I sighed and then explained who I am.
I'm actually glad to read that you are curious about my donations too. I thought Lisa was trying to make something out of nothing. So to hear you are curious means perhaps others are too. Several school board members have raised more than me in previous years, I guess others will simply raise money later in the campaign.
My real issue with Rolly and Schenker's questions is that I really don't like partisan politics entering the school boards in any form. I think the polarization that occurs is plain bad for kids. And it felt like the media was trying to create partisan divide where there wasn't any.
I liked that Mr. Kaufman explained his position clearly and was not defensive. I don't have first-hand experience with schools back East, but have heard similar comments about the higher school standards (especially in Virginia) from many friends and acquaintances--raising our standards seems a worthy goal. I'm glad that he understood my suspicions about his out-of-state donations and would like to learn more about his statement that previous school board candidates have raised even more money than him. Is he referring only to the two PCE candidates who received $30,000 in out-of-state pro-voucher money in 2006, or were there others? If he's got thousands more than his fellow candidates now, how much more will he have by November? I honestly wonder if any other school board candidates will raise $8000. What big donors are interested besides PCE?
I also 124% agree with his dislike of partisan politics in school boards. For the record, Senator Stephenson, the host of last Saturday’s show who interviewed Kaufman, co-sponsored and voted for Senator Bramble's bill (SB 194) in 2007 that would have made state school board races explicitly partisan. It passed the Senate before dying in the House.
From Kaufman’s explanation and then looking at his website and biography, I also thought that maybe he was characterized unfairly...until I went back and read Rolly’s article. I don’t think Rolly does much more fair than that, in terms of his comments about Kaufman. Yes, it is possible to make assumptions about Kaufman, but I think the column makes things more clear, not less. (In fact, I’m kind of embarrassed I didn’t retain the information after reading the article months ago.) Rolly clearly treats Kaufman differently than the other candidates he reported on, stating “the committee won’t have influence” and that he was a high school principal, while calling the others “the most fervent charter-school advocates and pro-voucher devotees.” I explained in my last post that I think Kaufman over-reacted to the Schenker article as well.
So…I like many of Kaufman’s positions (on class size [in the Opinions section] and merit pay)...and I’m suspicious of his funding, some of his supporters (Senator Stephenson, Jeff Hartley—former XO of the Utah GOP…as well as some non-fawning, quality endorsements from Patty Sandstrom and Gardner Brown), and think he’s making a mountain out of a molehill with his complaints about the media. There’s not a lot of information about Janet Cannon out there, no website that I could find, but here’s a small bio and an article about an award she received in 2006 for her service on the State School Board. It seems at first glance that district 8 has two good candidates to choose from. Keep researching and choose carefully.
The Paul Rolly column and Lisa Schenker article containing information about State School Board District 8
These are the two articles Trent Kaufman referenced in his radio interview last week. I am underlining the bit in Rolly's column about State School Board District 8, and inserting a bracket in bold halfway through Schenker's article where the information about Kaufman begins.
http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_8941295
Rolly: Pro-voucher candidates pack races
By Paul Rolly
Tribune Columnist
Article Last Updated: 04/16/2008 06:34:10 AM MDT
In Monday's column, I noted the influence of the lobbyist-laden
nominating committee beholden to legislative leadership, and how that
group has much say over which State School Board candidates will
appear on the ballot.
The influence of the nominating committee arises when more than
three candidates file for a school board district. The committee pares
the number to three, then sends the names to the governor, who chooses
two for the election.
Here are details showing how this year's election could be stacked
with pro-voucher candidates for the state school board, a board that
has opposed vouchers.
Noting that the most fervent charter-school advocates and
pro-voucher devotees share many of the same donors and campaign
organizations, the five candidates in District 1 include a former
charter-school board member, the author of a highly disputed
pro-voucher study at Utah State University and an officer of the Cache
County Republican Party that supported vouchers.
The five candidates in District 4 include the board chair of a
charter school and a former legislator supported by voucher advocates.
The backgrounds of the six candidates in District 7 don't paint a
clear picture of their stance on vouchers, although one reportedly was
asked to run by one of the stoutest voucher supporters in the Utah
Senate.
The seven candidates in District 11 include a former spokesperson
for Parents for Choice in Education, the board chairman of a charter
school, the communications director for Parents for Choice in
Education and the husband of a charter-school founder.
The five candidates in District 12 include the husband of a
charter school principal and the wife of a staunch pro-voucher state
senator. And the seven candidates in District 13 include a board
member of a charter school who also is a trustee of the pro-voucher
Children First Utah, the sister of the pro-voucher chairman of the
Utah Republican Party and a member of the Utah County Republican
Central Committee, which took a strong pro-voucher stand.
The only district in which the committee won't have influence is
District 8, which has only two candidates - incumbent Janet Cannon and former high school principal Trent Kaufman.
Meeting of the minds? Since the Legislature created the law
allowing charter schools to become part of the public school system
several years ago, the State Office of Education has had several
challenges ensuring that, as public schools, they adhere to the
constitutional requirement of church-state separation.
Liberty Academy originally advertised itself as a "Utah Christian
public school." More than one charter school asked students applying
for admission to include on the application their baptismal date and
what their parents' "callings" were in church.
State school officials are still pondering the practice of renting
out the school bus for transportation to LDS seminary by the Paradigm
charter school, as well as Eagle Mountain's Maeser Prep renting space
owned by the school for LDS seminary classes.
prolly@sltrib.com
http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_10367623
State Board of Education: A new name may go on ballot for school board
Candidate Ted Heap's failure to file a financial disclosure raises the possibility, officials say
By Lisa Schencker
The Salt Lake Tribune
Article Last Updated: 09/03/2008 12:02:09 AM MDT
One candidate for Utah State Board of Education is out of the race, which could leave room for someone who didn't make the ballot, according to the Lt. Governor's Office.
District 11 candidate Ted Heap did not file a campaign financial disclosure report by the deadline Tuesday, meaning he is out of the race, said Mark Thomas, office administrator at the Lt. Governor's Office. Thomas said it's his understanding that Heap purposefully didn't file, but he didn't know why.
Attempts to reach Heap for comment Tuesday were unsuccessful. Thomas said his office is now looking into how another candidate might be chosen to appear on the ballot.
Six candidates filed to run for the District 11 seat, but Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. chose only two to appear on the ballot after a governor-appointed committee narrowed the field. The committee and governor chose Heap and Dave Crandall over the other four candidates, including incumbent Bill Colbert.
Heap has worked as a developer and a U.S. Air Force Intelligence Analyst. Crandall serves as chairman of the Summit Academy charter school board and works for a Sandy consulting company.
Colbert said he is interested in serving longer on the board if he's asked.
The governor-appointed committee, however, ranked Colbert second to last among the six candidates. The next highest ranked candidate after Crandall and Heap was Ralph Haws, chairman of the Jordan School District's west-side transition team. Haws said he is still interested in appearing on the ballot for state board.
[KAUFMAN INFO STARTS HERE.]
Financial disclosures due Tuesday also showed that one candidate has pulled far ahead of the others in terms of money raised.
Trent Kaufman has already raised $7,939 for his District 8 race against incumbent Janet Cannon. That's more than 13 times as much as any of the other 12 candidates for school board had raised as of Tuesday. Most state board candidates haven't raised more than $15.
"The amount I've raised is not quite yet, but close to, commensurate with how serious I am about the need for change on the school board," Kaufman said.
So far, nine of Kaufman's 18 contributors live outside of Utah and $1,344 is Kaufman's own money. Kaufman said all those out-of-state contributors are friends, former co-workers and/or family. He said none of them donated because of vouchers. Kaufman said as far as he's concerned the voucher issue is "off the table."
Kaufman is a former teacher and principal with a master's degree in educational leadership. He said he's also a doctoral candidate at Harvard Graduate School of Education in education policy.
Cannon has not yet raised any money to campaign for her seat, according to the disclosure reports. She could not be reached Tuesday for comment.
http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_8941295
Rolly: Pro-voucher candidates pack races
By Paul Rolly
Tribune Columnist
Article Last Updated: 04/16/2008 06:34:10 AM MDT
In Monday's column, I noted the influence of the lobbyist-laden
nominating committee beholden to legislative leadership, and how that
group has much say over which State School Board candidates will
appear on the ballot.
The influence of the nominating committee arises when more than
three candidates file for a school board district. The committee pares
the number to three, then sends the names to the governor, who chooses
two for the election.
Here are details showing how this year's election could be stacked
with pro-voucher candidates for the state school board, a board that
has opposed vouchers.
Noting that the most fervent charter-school advocates and
pro-voucher devotees share many of the same donors and campaign
organizations, the five candidates in District 1 include a former
charter-school board member, the author of a highly disputed
pro-voucher study at Utah State University and an officer of the Cache
County Republican Party that supported vouchers.
The five candidates in District 4 include the board chair of a
charter school and a former legislator supported by voucher advocates.
The backgrounds of the six candidates in District 7 don't paint a
clear picture of their stance on vouchers, although one reportedly was
asked to run by one of the stoutest voucher supporters in the Utah
Senate.
The seven candidates in District 11 include a former spokesperson
for Parents for Choice in Education, the board chairman of a charter
school, the communications director for Parents for Choice in
Education and the husband of a charter-school founder.
The five candidates in District 12 include the husband of a
charter school principal and the wife of a staunch pro-voucher state
senator. And the seven candidates in District 13 include a board
member of a charter school who also is a trustee of the pro-voucher
Children First Utah, the sister of the pro-voucher chairman of the
Utah Republican Party and a member of the Utah County Republican
Central Committee, which took a strong pro-voucher stand.
The only district in which the committee won't have influence is
District 8, which has only two candidates - incumbent Janet Cannon and former high school principal Trent Kaufman.
Meeting of the minds? Since the Legislature created the law
allowing charter schools to become part of the public school system
several years ago, the State Office of Education has had several
challenges ensuring that, as public schools, they adhere to the
constitutional requirement of church-state separation.
Liberty Academy originally advertised itself as a "Utah Christian
public school." More than one charter school asked students applying
for admission to include on the application their baptismal date and
what their parents' "callings" were in church.
State school officials are still pondering the practice of renting
out the school bus for transportation to LDS seminary by the Paradigm
charter school, as well as Eagle Mountain's Maeser Prep renting space
owned by the school for LDS seminary classes.
prolly@sltrib.com
http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_10367623
State Board of Education: A new name may go on ballot for school board
Candidate Ted Heap's failure to file a financial disclosure raises the possibility, officials say
By Lisa Schencker
The Salt Lake Tribune
Article Last Updated: 09/03/2008 12:02:09 AM MDT
One candidate for Utah State Board of Education is out of the race, which could leave room for someone who didn't make the ballot, according to the Lt. Governor's Office.
District 11 candidate Ted Heap did not file a campaign financial disclosure report by the deadline Tuesday, meaning he is out of the race, said Mark Thomas, office administrator at the Lt. Governor's Office. Thomas said it's his understanding that Heap purposefully didn't file, but he didn't know why.
Attempts to reach Heap for comment Tuesday were unsuccessful. Thomas said his office is now looking into how another candidate might be chosen to appear on the ballot.
Six candidates filed to run for the District 11 seat, but Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. chose only two to appear on the ballot after a governor-appointed committee narrowed the field. The committee and governor chose Heap and Dave Crandall over the other four candidates, including incumbent Bill Colbert.
Heap has worked as a developer and a U.S. Air Force Intelligence Analyst. Crandall serves as chairman of the Summit Academy charter school board and works for a Sandy consulting company.
Colbert said he is interested in serving longer on the board if he's asked.
The governor-appointed committee, however, ranked Colbert second to last among the six candidates. The next highest ranked candidate after Crandall and Heap was Ralph Haws, chairman of the Jordan School District's west-side transition team. Haws said he is still interested in appearing on the ballot for state board.
[KAUFMAN INFO STARTS HERE.]
Financial disclosures due Tuesday also showed that one candidate has pulled far ahead of the others in terms of money raised.
Trent Kaufman has already raised $7,939 for his District 8 race against incumbent Janet Cannon. That's more than 13 times as much as any of the other 12 candidates for school board had raised as of Tuesday. Most state board candidates haven't raised more than $15.
"The amount I've raised is not quite yet, but close to, commensurate with how serious I am about the need for change on the school board," Kaufman said.
So far, nine of Kaufman's 18 contributors live outside of Utah and $1,344 is Kaufman's own money. Kaufman said all those out-of-state contributors are friends, former co-workers and/or family. He said none of them donated because of vouchers. Kaufman said as far as he's concerned the voucher issue is "off the table."
Kaufman is a former teacher and principal with a master's degree in educational leadership. He said he's also a doctoral candidate at Harvard Graduate School of Education in education policy.
Cannon has not yet raised any money to campaign for her seat, according to the disclosure reports. She could not be reached Tuesday for comment.
Monday, September 8, 2008
Red Meat Radio—Who do you trust more? Politicians or the media?
I first saw the announcement in my UPD update: the legislative Republicans (and they claim Democrats) are going to host their own radio show every Saturday morning from 8-10 to “set the record straight” “for those tired of getting their news filtered by the liberal local media.” Then I saw the Senate Site announcement and this kcpw interview where Senator Stephenson constantly repeats how constantly the local media’s lies distort the truth. Paul Rolly and the Out of Context blog commented, as well as JM Bell (Be ready for some language, but check the comments at the bottom of the post for examples of the legislature winning the spin war). I don’t agree with JM’s politics that often, but this statement is right on:
Last Saturday morning, Sep. 6th, was the first show. I had a commitment until just before 9:00, but caught the rest of the show. The first thing I heard was Senator Stephenson interviewing Trent Kaufman, candidate for State School Board District #8. Kaufman was complaining about an article by Lisa Schenker of the Tribune, who often covers education stories. She called him to ask about the disproportionately large amount of money he had already raised for his campaign, much from out-of-state donors. This would be an important angle I think in any political campaign, but especially in a State School Board race contested the year after the huge influx of out-of-state money during the voucher referendum, and hundreds of thousands of dollars during the Utah legislative races in 2004 ($250,000 that year alone) and 2006. (See a bunch of good posts from the Accountability Blog on the subject.) Kaufman said the money came from friends and family and explained that he would never, ever have dreamed that vouchers would come into this. He “could tell” that Schenker really wanted to write a story about how voucher money was coming into the race, and although she quoted him correctly, the subtle feeling was still there. And he thinks she would have written lies about him if he hadn’t spoken with her. Stephenson agreed and pointed out that around 130,000 people live in state school board district and so you need lots of money.
Kaufman may be a potentially great school board member (I 100% agree with his comments about class size at the bottom of his bio), but he kissed up to Senator Stephenson about “all that he does for Utah” and came off to me like he was trying to make an issue out of nothing in order to please the anti-media legislators. I think the fact he’s raised $8000 dollars in a school board race where $15 is the norm is suspicious, and that Schenker’s article covers that without even a whiff of accusation. The fact is stated and the situation itself raises eyebrows. Kaufman’s website alleviates most of my concerns, but I will rightfully be very suspicious of any out-of-state money coming into school board races. That’s all my opinion—see for yourself in the article that was “set straight.” Here’s the relevant half of Schenker’s article that talks about Kaufman. Realize the article was titled “State Board of Education: A new name may go on ballot for school board” and the Kaufman stuff doesn’t start until over halfway though.
I wish now I’d taken notes, but the second hour was largely about Utah’s bad math standards and interviews with Oak Norton and Senator Dayton. I don’t know if I agree with their very possible assertion that our math standards are weak (I don’t work with those standards and my kids aren’t in school yet.), but the only media debunking was when they would argue the media was not dissecting and reporting test scores the way they think is the right way. It was more of a bully pulpit for Norton’s new website and the push for Singapore Math to be instituted statewide. I expect to hear a lot more of this as they struggle to find enough dishonest reporting each week and instead turn to just advocating their positions.
Relevant side note: As I said, I’m not in a position to accurately evaluate the effectiveness of math programs, but I see in this movement the same kind of one-sided justification of a favored position I’ve previously written about. Norton’s website has a frontpage headline and link about a study that shows all constructivist studies are wrong. The little I know of the basic concept of Singapore Math seems very interesting to me, but it’s still just one program trying to make money in a crowded market. This homeschooler curriculum review section shows a diversity of opinions and opposite interpretations from people who presumably have no need to mince words or protect a school or specific company. (The first three reviews are all positive, but you get a wide variety of reviews after that.) It’s the exact same curriculum, but it gets attacked for being both too repetitive and not repetitive enough for students to master basic concepts. Some find it entertaining, some “very dry.” Does it cover concepts too slowly or too fast? The same section also has similar reviews of Saxon Math, the beloved curriculum of many area charter schools. The reviews come in mixed as well--it is perfect for some kids and doesn’t work at all for others. I don’t believe there is one sure curriculum and teaching method that will help all students. A comment on their petition page (Use the find function to search for Ofa Moeai’s comment down the list.) expressed the same type of concern. The Board President of Liberty Academy Charter School said she found that Singapore Math was nice, but needed to be supplemented to reach Utah’s state standards, let alone world class standards. The webpage editor then puts in a note that they propose to change the Utah standard to mimic the standards of Singapore Math thus solving the problem. A bit myopic maybe? The Singapore program might be good enough for a large enough percentage of all kids to be worth the shot, but it can’t be the panacea it portrays for all students. I think commentators too often get hung up on their personal silver bullet.
To continue with my rundown, Rep. Urquhart had taped a commentary about Sarah Palin and Sen. Stephenson, our host for the day, summarized something that Rep. Becky Lockhart had planned on calling in about, but was unable to. I was interested more in reading about the math program stuff and don’t exactly remember what that last issue discussed was. I assume they spent the first hour attacking Bob Bernick for his twisting of legislators’ words in a meeting he didn’t even attend.
Beyond my discussion of the specific topics of Saturday’s show, here’s the substantial question: Do you feel this new program addresses a substantive problem? Is the “liberal local media” really distorting the truth as told by our legislative leadership? Who do you trust more? Senator Dayton and Bramble went on and on about this at the public meeting I attended in January, saying we “should be offended” by the ethics accusations in the papers. I think I was too lenient in my post on that meeting and how vehement they were that we not trust the media. I think I could sit and chat with Senator Dayton on some subject not related to politics or education, but I don’t trust her research and judgment on education issues, despite her position as chair of the Senate Education Committee. I certainly don’t trust Senator Bramble or Senator Stephenson. I thought Senator Valentine’s explanation to me during a November voucher meeting about why the $7200 dollar spending figure was “intellectually honest” was intellectually dishonest.
So the short conclusion is that I generally trust the media A LOT more than I generally trust politicians. That’s not saying I trust media a lot, but that the gap between the two is wide. I really don’t trust any of them that much, and my trust for both national media and politicians is substantially below that for their local counterparts. Politicians and the hardcore believers in either “liberal” or “conservative corporate” media tell themselves in their echo chambers that it’s the media’s fault, but they have no one to blame but themselves for consistently playing politics over truth and well-reasoned debate. I would bet the general public agrees with my trust hierarchy here:
The middle two could be switched, but I feel pretty comfortable hypothesizing the general public would agree with my two endpoints.
What do you think? Who is trusted more or less? Did anyone else listen to the red meat radio show?
.
Republicans in Utah acting picked on and oppressed? With a straight face? Are you kidding me? You guys have no sense of shame, irony or, for that matter, self awareness.
Last Saturday morning, Sep. 6th, was the first show. I had a commitment until just before 9:00, but caught the rest of the show. The first thing I heard was Senator Stephenson interviewing Trent Kaufman, candidate for State School Board District #8. Kaufman was complaining about an article by Lisa Schenker of the Tribune, who often covers education stories. She called him to ask about the disproportionately large amount of money he had already raised for his campaign, much from out-of-state donors. This would be an important angle I think in any political campaign, but especially in a State School Board race contested the year after the huge influx of out-of-state money during the voucher referendum, and hundreds of thousands of dollars during the Utah legislative races in 2004 ($250,000 that year alone) and 2006. (See a bunch of good posts from the Accountability Blog on the subject.) Kaufman said the money came from friends and family and explained that he would never, ever have dreamed that vouchers would come into this. He “could tell” that Schenker really wanted to write a story about how voucher money was coming into the race, and although she quoted him correctly, the subtle feeling was still there. And he thinks she would have written lies about him if he hadn’t spoken with her. Stephenson agreed and pointed out that around 130,000 people live in state school board district and so you need lots of money.
Kaufman may be a potentially great school board member (I 100% agree with his comments about class size at the bottom of his bio), but he kissed up to Senator Stephenson about “all that he does for Utah” and came off to me like he was trying to make an issue out of nothing in order to please the anti-media legislators. I think the fact he’s raised $8000 dollars in a school board race where $15 is the norm is suspicious, and that Schenker’s article covers that without even a whiff of accusation. The fact is stated and the situation itself raises eyebrows. Kaufman’s website alleviates most of my concerns, but I will rightfully be very suspicious of any out-of-state money coming into school board races. That’s all my opinion—see for yourself in the article that was “set straight.” Here’s the relevant half of Schenker’s article that talks about Kaufman. Realize the article was titled “State Board of Education: A new name may go on ballot for school board” and the Kaufman stuff doesn’t start until over halfway though.
Financial disclosures due Tuesday also showed that one candidate has pulled far ahead of the others in terms of money raised.
Trent Kaufman has already raised $7,939 for his District 8 race against incumbent Janet Cannon. That's more than 13 times as much as any of the other 12 candidates for school board had raised as of Tuesday. Most state board candidates haven't raised more than $15.
"The amount I've raised is not quite yet, but close to, commensurate with how serious I am about the need for change on the school board," Kaufman said.
So far, nine of Kaufman's 18 contributors live outside of Utah and $1,344 is Kaufman's own money. Kaufman said all those out-of-state contributors are friends, former co-workers and/or family. He said none of them donated because of vouchers. Kaufman said as far as he's concerned the voucher issue is "off the table."
Kaufman is a former teacher and principal with a master's degree in educational leadership. He said he's also a doctoral candidate at Harvard Graduate School of Education in education policy.
Cannon has not yet raised any money to campaign for her seat, according to the disclosure reports. She could not be reached Tuesday for comment.
I wish now I’d taken notes, but the second hour was largely about Utah’s bad math standards and interviews with Oak Norton and Senator Dayton. I don’t know if I agree with their very possible assertion that our math standards are weak (I don’t work with those standards and my kids aren’t in school yet.), but the only media debunking was when they would argue the media was not dissecting and reporting test scores the way they think is the right way. It was more of a bully pulpit for Norton’s new website and the push for Singapore Math to be instituted statewide. I expect to hear a lot more of this as they struggle to find enough dishonest reporting each week and instead turn to just advocating their positions.
Relevant side note: As I said, I’m not in a position to accurately evaluate the effectiveness of math programs, but I see in this movement the same kind of one-sided justification of a favored position I’ve previously written about. Norton’s website has a frontpage headline and link about a study that shows all constructivist studies are wrong. The little I know of the basic concept of Singapore Math seems very interesting to me, but it’s still just one program trying to make money in a crowded market. This homeschooler curriculum review section shows a diversity of opinions and opposite interpretations from people who presumably have no need to mince words or protect a school or specific company. (The first three reviews are all positive, but you get a wide variety of reviews after that.) It’s the exact same curriculum, but it gets attacked for being both too repetitive and not repetitive enough for students to master basic concepts. Some find it entertaining, some “very dry.” Does it cover concepts too slowly or too fast? The same section also has similar reviews of Saxon Math, the beloved curriculum of many area charter schools. The reviews come in mixed as well--it is perfect for some kids and doesn’t work at all for others. I don’t believe there is one sure curriculum and teaching method that will help all students. A comment on their petition page (Use the find function to search for Ofa Moeai’s comment down the list.) expressed the same type of concern. The Board President of Liberty Academy Charter School said she found that Singapore Math was nice, but needed to be supplemented to reach Utah’s state standards, let alone world class standards. The webpage editor then puts in a note that they propose to change the Utah standard to mimic the standards of Singapore Math thus solving the problem. A bit myopic maybe? The Singapore program might be good enough for a large enough percentage of all kids to be worth the shot, but it can’t be the panacea it portrays for all students. I think commentators too often get hung up on their personal silver bullet.
To continue with my rundown, Rep. Urquhart had taped a commentary about Sarah Palin and Sen. Stephenson, our host for the day, summarized something that Rep. Becky Lockhart had planned on calling in about, but was unable to. I was interested more in reading about the math program stuff and don’t exactly remember what that last issue discussed was. I assume they spent the first hour attacking Bob Bernick for his twisting of legislators’ words in a meeting he didn’t even attend.
Beyond my discussion of the specific topics of Saturday’s show, here’s the substantial question: Do you feel this new program addresses a substantive problem? Is the “liberal local media” really distorting the truth as told by our legislative leadership? Who do you trust more? Senator Dayton and Bramble went on and on about this at the public meeting I attended in January, saying we “should be offended” by the ethics accusations in the papers. I think I was too lenient in my post on that meeting and how vehement they were that we not trust the media. I think I could sit and chat with Senator Dayton on some subject not related to politics or education, but I don’t trust her research and judgment on education issues, despite her position as chair of the Senate Education Committee. I certainly don’t trust Senator Bramble or Senator Stephenson. I thought Senator Valentine’s explanation to me during a November voucher meeting about why the $7200 dollar spending figure was “intellectually honest” was intellectually dishonest.
So the short conclusion is that I generally trust the media A LOT more than I generally trust politicians. That’s not saying I trust media a lot, but that the gap between the two is wide. I really don’t trust any of them that much, and my trust for both national media and politicians is substantially below that for their local counterparts. Politicians and the hardcore believers in either “liberal” or “conservative corporate” media tell themselves in their echo chambers that it’s the media’s fault, but they have no one to blame but themselves for consistently playing politics over truth and well-reasoned debate. I would bet the general public agrees with my trust hierarchy here:
national politicians < national media < local politicians < local media
The middle two could be switched, but I feel pretty comfortable hypothesizing the general public would agree with my two endpoints.
What do you think? Who is trusted more or less? Did anyone else listen to the red meat radio show?
.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
