This Sunday the Signal did a piece on the state of fundraising for the local campaigns culminating this November. No surprises really. Scott Wilk leads the pack in fundraising for reelection to his COC Board Seat and has already transferred part of the money to his Assembly campaign, since his opponent Patrick Hill will raise no funds and will instead rely on the general public realizing that Scott is a bad, bad man because he wants to run for higher office.
Diana Shaw has raised only $1,420, $1,000 from one source, to run what appears to be a half ass campaign against incumbent Bruce Fortine for COC Board. Heather Davis ironically receives a $50 fine because she failed to file a report with zeros to make good on her promise not to raise funds.
But of most interest to me is a lab experiment in the making; the Sulphur Springs School District Board election.
I have written much about Priscilla Lofton’s insurgent campaign to dislodge one incumbent, but of more interest is the election setting a benchmark on the absolute power of incumbency.
According to the article, like Priscilla, the incumbent board members have raised NO funds for their reelection.
Therefore, the ONLY advantage the incumbents have over the energetic Ms. Lofton is the incumbency designation. Name recognition does not help because no one has seen a Sulphur Springs ballot since 2002.
I can’t wait to see the benchmark. If the incumbents win big while spending NO money everyone should abandon hope of ever dislodging an incumbent.
Loading ...
In the Sulphur Springs School Board Election the incumbents have a big advantage not simply due to their incumbency, but more specifically due to the fact that with each public appearance Mrs. Lofton seems to prove herself more and more incompetent.
Having attended a candidates night at one of local schools on Sept 27th I’m beyond perplexed as to how Mrs. Lofton could have received endorsements from any group whatsoever, let alone Republican groups that I have always been under the impression would be much more selective in carefully endorsing only a competent candidate.
Mrs. Lofton has admittedly never served in ANY leadership capacity at her school. She’s never held or even run for a position with her school’s PTA or for a position on her school’s Site Council. One would expect that if she had the urge to be a leader, this would be a logical place to begin and gain some experience and knowledge.
At the meeting Mrs. Lofton surprisingly came out against all day Kindergarten, which has been incredibly successful, not only in our school district and across our valley, but all over the world! Her response was that kindergarteners’ should have more time “at home with Mommy” The schools in our country are trying to increase effectiveness and success and one of the strategies that has worked around the world is to actually INCREASE the school day and year. Instead, Mrs. Lofton has gone the other way and elected to take the stance that the school district should reduce the school day by 50% for kindergarten, so that the kids have more mommy time? Is this really who our local Republicans want on the governing board of a school district??? I just don’t understand.
(For you spending hawks out there (and I’m one of them too) this move wouldn’t save the district a single penny since all day K v. half day K is revenue neutral.)
What other crazy, devoid of fact, ideas does Mrs. Lofton have that she hasn’t shared with us yet? I can tell for certain, that that unknown is exactly what scares me to death about Mrs. Lofton. The fact is it should scare all of us and it should scare any group that considers giving Mrs. Lofton their endorsement.
There is another candidates night Tuesday of next week (10/18) at Mitchell Elementary School at 7pm. I encourage all of those who reside within the Sulphur Springs School District boundaries (especially parents of children who attend schools in the district) to attend and see and hear Mrs. Lofton for themselves. You will be baffled at what you see!
Don’t care about the substance. Just care about the game. Candidate nights are neutral because only a handful of people attend.
Also, if Repubs are so careful about vetting candidates, how do you explain Christine O’Donnell?
To Concerned Parent:
First, if you are going to call someone incompetent you should state your name. I am not sure what your problem is with me for prior to the Candidates’ Night I have never met you. I am more concerned with you or your wife who was not concerned about the placement of the furlough days because it did not affect your paycheck all at once; you were not concerned about the disruption to the educational process.
In regards to full day Kindergarten, if you had heard what I said, my problem with full day Kindergarten in our district is that it was put into place throughout the district. I have done a lot of research about all day Kindergarten and studies show there are certain demographics that even initially, there is no change and by 4th grade, the change is negligible. Secondly, with half-day Kindergarten there was only fifteen students in the class four out of five days as opposed to twenty-five every day. Therefore, if it is revenue neutral it is only because there is more money given by the state and local governments when all day kindergarten is implemented which brings me to the Republican Assembly endorsement.
The Republican Assembly endorsed me because I believe parents and local communities make better educational decisions than bureaucracies do. The teachers association did not endorse me in part due to my stance on taxes. Individually I have a lot of support from teachers because they know me and know my support I have for teachers, apparently not associations. The Republican Assembly also endorsed me because they believe in democracy. Although this did not concern you, however it concerned me it when one of the incumbents said it is not always a bad thing to not have elections. As an American and a taxpayer, I am concerned with our elected officials not held accountable, or thinking elections and discourse are somehow disruptive to the process.
Lastly, I would like to discuss you calling me incompetent when you know nothing about my background or me. I have been an active member of the PTA and an active volunteer at my kids’ school for the last four years. I have not been on the site council but I was unaware this was a prerequisite for being a board member. I have run for a position on the PTA, I am the Parliamentarian. If during the Candidates’ Night you had not had blinders on due to some agenda, you may have heard me discuss my background. I have been a stay at home for over nine years and have been very active in the community. I was President of our local MOMS club chapter prior to my children starting school and was very involved in donating to local charities and helping support local families. The fact that you degradingly said I was only against full-day Kindergarten so there was more “mommy time,” shows you must have disdain for stay at home parents. I have been lucky enough to have this opportunity of being a stay at home Mom, which has now allowed to me to be active in my children’s school. I believe in placing the students first and this includes looking at what is best for all the school sites individually.
If your only basis for calling me incompetent is that, I disagreed with the implementation of full day Kindergarten throughout the District then I am disappointed in you as a concerned parent.
I would love to see more people at the Candidates’ Night as to get my message out. I believe in my message and I believe those without a bias or agenda will vote for me.
Ms. Lofton……
You really should hire a speech writer or someone else to pen any written responses such as the above. It reads like a ninth grader wrote it. For someone running (re-running?) for the school board, it is concerning. I am not in the Sulphur Springs area, just thought I would let you know though.
Concerned parent, if you were there you were not listening… Mrs. Lofton did state she held a position on her PTA & has been involved in local groups (MOMS Club) & local sports groups and stated schools should not be forced into a plan that may not work for that particular school. I came in late & heard that. Also, since it was such a small gathering, I have an idea who you. You both were rude, negative, and seemed to have a personal negative vindictive agenda against Mrs. Lofton. You both embarrassed yourselves and showed no credibility to you verbal attacks.
It is my opinion one should have a discussion instead of using insults and personal attacks, it shows you have no argument. By insulting someone’s writing disguising it as constructive criticism for no other reason than to put that person down is not helpful either. Bringing others down brings you down further.
My wife and I were there on Sept. 27 and it is interested that “concerned parent” would make the above comments about “using insults and personal attacks, it shows you have no argument”. If you really feel that way, then you are a hypocrite because you both were using insults and personal attacks and I have to agree with the comments of B. Alexander. We also feel that you are the couple that was attacking Mrs. Lofton during the session and it is unfortunate that you may not recognize how you both sounded negative, bitter (as if there is a personal issue between you and the challenger), and overall gave a very poor impression of yourselves. While it was very hard to hear Mrs. Lofton speak over the microphone given she seemed to be suffering from a severe case of laryngitis; she radiated passion, genuine concern for what is best for the schools by putting the students and teachers first, and wants to make sure that the decisions the board makes is what is best for those students and teachers (not just for the board itself).
A district should allow schools to have some freedom with their curriculum’s and not force them into a “cookie cutter” scenario that doesn’t fit each school due to their specific population of students and the current boundaries should be revisited again because right now there appears to be residential profiling for it’s schools or the district should switch to open enrollment and you can go where you want as long as there is an opening without a “boundary” dictating which school in the district you have to attend. In regards to Kindergarten, why not let one or two schools have half day Kindergarten for those who feel full day is not right for their child. Out of all of our children, two of the four would not have done well in full day kindergarten and we are glad that our kids are of the age where we didn’t have to worry about that issue. We also remember attending a board meeting a few years back when full day was being talked about and it was mentioned in a discussion that a big factor for wanting to implement full day kindergarten in our district was that the state gave more money for full day vs half day and that the SSSD has such a large ESL population it was negatively impacting our test scores. Unfortunately, at the school are three youngest still attend, most of the Kindergarten parents we have talked to at school events view full day as “free extended day care”.
We hope more people show up to Mitchell, we know our friends from that school (as well as other schools) will be there and so far Mrs. Lofton and Mrs. Weinstein seem to be the two candidates who actually want what is best for the students and teachers (it’s not just another thing to list on a resume for them) and we think they will do a great job working together with the rest of the current SSSD Board if elected.
It is very sad that some people seem to be able to express themselves in a negative/bitter fashion because others have a different philosophy on issues rather than have a constructive open conversation while showing respect. It is okay to have a different point of view and sometimes change is needed to make improvements and move forward for the overall health and greater good of a system. To my knowledge, this is the first time since 2002 someone has challenged a seat on the SSSD board and this is a exciting and good thing. There is an appearance that the current board has been a bit stagnant and there does seem to be a need for some fresh blood in the mix to move the district forward into a better place for our kids. It is a general feeling amoung many parents that there should be a current parent serving on the school board who does see on a daily basis the way decisions affect the students, their families, and our teachers.
Parents and teachers should feel comfortable approaching board members so they can share their true feelings on issues without feeling their input may be held against them later on down the road (right now in my opinion only Mrs Weinstein is that such person currently on the board). Board members should make an effort to attend PTA and School Site Council meetings regularly throughout their terms to hear what the concerns are at each site and make themselves more accessable to parents who are not comfortable attending a formal board meeting. While each school has a web page, they do not seem to be updated often. It would be wonderful if each school site had a web system similar to the Hart District where parents can monitor how their student is doing, communicate with teachers more often, see assignments given/missed/completed by their student(s) and see their student(s) progress/grades online in between reports cards.
As far as attacks on Mrs. Lofton, I think they are unfortunate, misplaced, and undeserving; she should not be treated in such a disrespectful manner. All of the candidates running deserve to be treated with respect! I have had the fortunate opportunity to have been aquanted with Mrs. Lofton for some time. In the early 2000′s, I was very active in the MOMS club (as well as a President) and Mrs. Lofton was once a President of our sister MOMS club in Canyon Country. Our groups did a lot of charity work for the community (as do all of our MOMS chapters) that has helped support many families in this area. Also, I know of her from my years of current service to my own PTA unit (and I am also a past PTA President). Along with the rest of her wonderful PTA board, she has served that site very well. Over the past two years, I have known her on a more personal level through various youth sports in the SCV. She has a very positive and passionate outlook on our school district and wants to contribute to make sure our students and teachers have the best to achieve the success we all want for our kids attending schools in this district. Mrs. Lofton is very approachable and many (parents and teachers) have talked with her about issues concerning our district (whether it’s while volunteering at the school, a PTA meeting, on the sideline of a football game, behind the dugout at baseball, or on the track) she has heard many various opinions and issues facing different families and teachers at all the SSSD sites. Mrs. Lofton’s political science background, diverse community service over the years, and has children current in the system in the SSSD (which I feel is a very positive thing for all of us). Mrs. Lofton would make a great addition to the SSSD board and there would be another approachable person on the board (along with Mrs. Weinstein) that we would all benefit from.
There is another candidate session for the SSSD at Mitchell on Oct. 18 at 7pm. Please go, listen to all the candidates, ask your questions (respectfully), don’t attack someone because they may have a different opinion or a new idea you may not like, keep emotions in check (nothing is personal), remember we all want what is best for our schools (it is not about you, it’s about our kids), and try to keep an open mind so you can decide on your own who would be best for ALL of our kids when you go to the polls on Nov. 8 to vote.