On Wednesday, Scott Ewart hosted the second in his series of Board of Education online debates, this time for District 5. (See my analysis of his D4 debate here.) I procrastinated on listening to the debate and writing an analysis because this district, comprising most of the western half of Howard County, is unsurprisingly devoid of progressive candidates.
For me, District 5 is a lot like the prize counter at an arcade. There are all these giant stuffed animals, skateboards, and electronics on display, but you’ve played enough games at this arcade to know that your prowess at skee-ball isn’t going to send you home with anything like that. You’re well aware that when you hand your pile of tickets to the attendant, you’ll have to choose between a couple of pieces of hard candy, a Batman temporary tattoo, or a smiley-face keychain. But you have to pick something, otherwise all that whack-a-mole was for nothing.
That’s pretty much where I am with District 5 BOE candidates.
Before I get to the candidates and their performances at the debate, I’d like to make a quick point about credentials. People like to point to professional accomplishments and advanced degrees as proof of someone’s qualifications to serve on the BOE. However, let’s get real for a second. A Ph.D. means someone is highly educated in their field. It does not necessarily mean they know anything about overseeing a public school system with its complex policies and diverse student populations. Let’s use BOE member Chao Wu as an example. Dr. Wu is a highly educated man with a successful career. If you need expertise in computer science matters, he’s your guy. But can he explain what FERPA is or tell us how concentrated poverty affects our schools? Can he explain why educational equity is important based on our country’s history? The letters after his name won’t answer those questions. Point being, advanced degrees do not automatically qualify anyone to be on the BOE. What does qualify someone is their understanding of public schools and the human beings within them. The policies and multiple levels of government involved. The history of public education and current research. That’s what matters.
But what do I know? I have only a bachelor’s degree.
Yun Lu
That said, let’s begin with Dr. Yun Lu. Dr. Lu is a statistician for the federal government and a community volunteer. During the debate, she was well-spoken and intelligent, and she avoided negativity and mudslinging. However, I have serious doubts about her grasp of the issues concerning our most vulnerable and disadvantaged student populations. Her campaign website is short on platform content and even shorter on substance. As an example, she states that she “advocates for closing the achievement gap by truly understanding the students and tailoring teaching approaches to individual student needs.” (Gee, why didn’t anyone in the history of public education ever think of that?) Beyond that, I see some statements about data, fiscal responsibility, and “kids first,” but I cannot extrapolate what, exactly, she plans to do on the BOE. The phrase “redistricting for capacity only” has become somewhat of a dog whistle for folks who oppose redistricting as a tool for reducing the negative effects of the concentration of poverty in schools. Dr. Lu’s stated adherence to this position and her implication that reducing the concentration of poverty is a political matter – rather than a civil rights issue – make me wary of how, or if, she will support our most vulnerable students.
Saif Rehman
IT executive Dr. Saif Rehman is one of the champions of the “Improve, Don’t Move” anti-redistricting movement, whose core belief is that throwing money at schools with low-income students is all that’s needed to achieve equity and solve the problem of concentrated poverty in schools. His campaign website uses the all-too-familiar “neighborhood schools” dog whistle and is nearly entirely focused on anti-redistricting (yawn). During the debate, the best way I could characterize Dr. Rehman is “out of touch.” His assertion that distance learning during the pandemic could be used to close the achievement gap was so laughable I almost snarfed hot coffee through my nose. His accusation that Dr. Martirano’s redistricting plan was an “experiment” (yet another dog whistle) that “divided the community” betrayed his stunning lack of self-awareness, given that it was the angry reactions and hurtful words of community members – including Dr. Rehman – that created the division. Finally, his analogy likening HCPSS leadership to a 747 jet needing experienced pilots rather than people who have only used a flight simulator was an egregious insult to the educators that currently sit on the board and work in Central Office.
Gene Ryan
I didn’t know much about Gene Ryan until now. Having read his website, I see him as a dedicated public servant who is actually qualified to be on the BOE, having served in that capacity in his home state of New Jersey. He is admirably open about his background. During the debate, he chose to present himself as more angry than qualified, and that was a significant turn-off for me. He disparaged and criticized HCPSS, the Superintendent, and the BOE. His statement that Dr. Martirano has “fun socks” but doesn’t bring anything else to the table was insulting and inaccurate. I heard a lot of criticism and not much in the way of solutions. The final nail in the coffin was when he said that HCPSS Policy 6010 (which governs school attendance areas and redistricting) should be thrown out except for capacity. My dog’s ears perked up when he said that, so…
Cindy Vaillancourt
Cindy Vaillancourt has a storied history serving on the Howard County BOE, which I won’t rehash here because y’all know how to use Google. She is running to re-join the BOE in D5, and while a former BOE member has experience and knowledge from which to draw, my observations of Cindy recently make me question what her core values are. She has spent an inordinate amount of time in the Howard County Neighbors United anti-redistricting group since its formation, attempting to be a voice of reason among the unreasonable, but just as often validating their self-serving views. During the debate, her statements that home values are important to people and that stability should be a student right struck me as worrisome – as if home values and school boundaries should be more important to the school system than equity. When it came to the budget, she spoke of the need for a “fresh approach,” but she had nothing to say about what that approach is. The biggest head-scratcher came when she suggested that the BOE needed to find four people who could be assertive enough to rein in the Superintendent. It’s clear that she has forgotten that the goal of the BOE is to take the Superintendent’s educational recommendations under advisement and to vote on what’s best for the district – not simply to wield power over him.
At the end of the day, none of these candidates are particularly suitable for the BOE. Like District 4, it seems that several of them are running on anti-redistricting sentiment and not much else. It’s ironic how many of them use some form of the cliché “think outside of the box” in responses that are firmly inside the proverbial box. This is especially true for budget questions, where candidates cannot seem to expound beyond the elementary concept of “look for savings.” For once, I’d like to see candidates who bring legitimate education experience and tangible, viable ideas to the dais, but we’ll have to wait for the Districts 2 and 3 debates to get that. Stay tuned!