Tuesday, September 20, 2011

Q&A with school board candidate Kate Martin

Kate Martin is running for school board in District 2 against incumbent Sherry Carr. She asked if she could do a Q&A with APP parents here on this blog to learn more about the needs of APP students.

Please post your questions for Kate Martin in the comments. Kate said she will come by and try to answer as many as she can.

Update: Kate Martin is asking for any questions in the comments to be posted using your real full name, which seems quite reasonable. If you already asked a question without using your real name, please ask it again using your name, thanks.

Update: I did my best to moderate this, but it appears the Q&A is over before it started. This is now open for comments in general, no need to ask a question or use your real full name anymore.

Update: Kate later answered several of the questions asked by a few of the people in the thread.

46 comments :

Greg Linden said...

Kate asked me to start the Q&A with a statement she sent by e-mail.

-------------



Statement from Kate Martin, school board candidate in District 2

Challenging Every Single Student

As much as I have compassion for the least prepared students, I do not believe that it is fair or productive to put inequitable levels of our resources there. I’d go as far as to say the things we are doing for the lower end of the achievement spectrum are ineffective for the most part. The money that we do invest in children needs to meet them wherever they are and the earlier the better. I clearly believe we need to serve all students and that public education in Seattle should be attractive to all parents and kids wherever they’re at or coming from. Improvements in curriculum would also be a nice place to put some money, but we can talk about that more another time.

The achievement gap isn’t just the difference between the lowest and highest achieving students, it’s failing to challenge the “average students” who aren’t in advanced learning classes or programs, but instead are often languishing in general ed classrooms with ELL students, Special Ed students as well as students with basic behavioral problems or disassociation issues that cause various degrees of disruption in the classroom or who take the attention of the teacher leaving very little for the other kids, the “average students”. Having raised a couple of average students, I see that those gen ed classrooms are dumbed-down to accommodate the gigantic variations in students which is tragic. And beware the report card that says “a pleasure to have in class” because that teacher is grateful to have a well-behaved kid at that desk, but inevitably the teacher can’t address that kid’s needs. Average students are arguably the lowest hanging fruit in terms of potential for improving student outcomes, yet that strategy isn’t explored at all. It’s completely inaccurate to label these average students as slackers, which tends to be how they are labeled. They may not have a laser focus on purely academic pursuits, but they have their own gifts that remain unrecognized and uncultivated which is very unfortunate.

I don’t want the only opportunity for a challenge to be for kids that possess multiple talents / gifts. I’d like to address whichever gifts they have. Also, I don’t want them to need to have profound deficits in order to get attention to remediate them. In some cases a teacher could address varying levels of challenge with differentiated instruction, but that’s more theory than reality in the classrooms because teachers cannot deal with the burden they have in terms of student variations and they’re only human. I would like additional opportunities for advanced learning that are more fluid, organic, automatic channels that are inclusive of all kids who qualify and less based on the firewalls and gatekeepers of applications, deadlines, and multiple subject areas. Additionally, there’s some disassociation that is occurring with low achieving students creating “a solidarity of failure” which is super unfortunate. That fluidity of appropriate challenge levels is essential there. Is saw some of these techniques at Summit K-12 when my younger son was there, so I know it can work. To me, there is value in making it so that some of the advanced learning opportunities specifically doesn’t call attention to itself which I believe would help subdue the disassociation effect until such time as we can cultivate a city-wide (country-wide) education ethic that all groups can embrace and get some more kids from lower socio-economic classes better prepared for school and who want to go to the head of the class.

Greg Linden said...

[... statement from Kate Martin continued ...]

--------------

The AP classes issue is something I need to gain more knowledge about. I know it can be great depending on the school and the teacher, but I also know that some of the kids from AP math here in SPS have had to do remedial math in college. Everybody has heard of the McGill freshmen who, absent their calculators, sink to the bottom. There’s a disconnect between grades and skills in math and other subjects and I’d like cleared up. The rigor of AP needs to be real and held to the standards of authentic AP levels. There’s a PR aspect to the number of kids who enroll in AP classes that’s unfortunate. In order to be listed in national publications as a great school, a lot of stuff happens to make sure there’s high enrollment in those AP classes and sometimes that seems to be dumbing-down those classes. In some cases, I’d rather see the whiz kid go ahead and move onto college for their senior year (or earlier) into early admission programs as I myself did at 16 years old.

How can we truly challenge every single student, especially the “average students” left in gen ed classrooms?
How do we recognize and cultivate talents like creativity?
What happens to the kids who don’t qualify for APP or who don’t want to follow a self-contained cohort?
How can we geographically distribute APP opportunities?
APP isn’t perfect, but it’s the best we have right now. How do we protect it from being a “tent city” that the district moves around by calling it a program @ someplace that then becomes a program @ someplace else?
I’m planning oriented as opposed to crisis oriented. The management of capacity in our schools is of extreme interest to me. Making sure that we have relevant and constantly improving programs, including those for advanced learners and gifted students, is essential. What is the best way to achieve that?
How can we recognize the needs of all students so we don’t leave one group behind while attending to the needs of another?

Please join this conversation.

-Kate Martin

Anonymous said...

Kate - thank you for the opportunity to ask questions. Here are mine:

1) Do you think that all kids who qualify for Spectrum should be guaranteed a spot (similar to APP)?

2) What is your long-term vision for APP? I'm asking this in the context of APP being removed from Lowell due to lack of space and wondering how long the same thing happens at Hamilton.

3) Do you think language immersion schools like John Stanford should continue to be neighborhood attendance schools or should they be option schools that everyone has an equal chance (via lottery) to attend?

Jane

Anonymous said...

Kate-

Sherry Carr's past votes shows some of her thinking about APP. What do you see she has done that has helped/hurt the APP program?

What would you like the district keep the same/change in regards to how it deals with APP?

L@L parent

Anonymous said...

Kate, you don't seem to understand that ell and sped students have every right to the gened classroom, it isn't reserved for your ” average” learner. I'm totally disheartened to see you blame ell and sped as if they are taking the
family silver. Don't you even know the law?

Disheartened

dj said...

What would it mean to you for advanced learning to be a "successul" program? How would you measure "success"?

Kate Martin said...

Hi.

I didn't think about this ahead of time, but would you kindly identify yourselves with your real full names accompanying your questions? I always identify myself with my full name on blogs and I ask others to as well. I want to talk to you and know you, not an anonymous poster.

Thank you for your help.

-Kate Martin

dj said...

Kate, I appreciate the request, but while I have for years used the same handle on blogs so that I am identifiable by that handle, I do not use my full name on publicly searchable internet pages for a variety of privacy reasons, including the privacy of my kids. If that means you would rather not answer my question, I will accept that.

APP Mom said...

And you SHOULD be using your real full name, Kate, as you are running for office. We are just interested parents with questions and this blog does not require that we use our real names. When you are out campaigning, people in the audiance are not generally required to identify themselves before speaking to you, are they?

In any case, should you be willing to answer questions here, I'm interested in what you think of the advanced learning model that Federal Way seems to use. From what I can see, they are placed in Pre-AP classes entering high school and must opt OUT rather than opt IN. There are also several different middle school level advanced programs such as Pre-IB and Cambridge.

This very different from the way SPS offers advanced learning and seems to open it up to far more students, from highly advanced to those who want a challenge-your "languising" average kids, maybe? Would you advocate for this model in SPS? If not, what, if anything, would you change about what we have now?

Kate Martin said...

I respect all opinions about anonymity, but for this effort, I'm going to ask for names. I welcome all questions from people willing to use their full names.

Thank you.

Anonymous said...

Kate-

Sherry Carr's past votes shows some of her thinking about APP. What do you see she has done that has helped/hurt the APP program?

What would you like the district keep the same/change in regards to how it deals with APP?

Jane Hudson

Anonymous said...

Does anyone remember Harium's blog? Anyone could post a question and he would do his best to answer it, without requiring a full name.

Anonymity served to open the discussion.

-no name

Anonymous said...

As if writing on a blog does this: "I want to talk to you and know you, not an anonymous poster." As much as I read this blog and Melissa's blog, I don't "know" anyone. Silly.

I guess this won't amount to anything after all.

Anonymous and proud

Kate Martin said...

Jane Hudson - thank you. Can you lay it out as far as your concerns, how Sherry voted, what the implications are and give your opinions so I can dial in and comment. I very much appreciate your question and now as when I'm a director I ask you to brief me and frame your argument - even consider connecting it to policy - and I will gladly respond. Thank you.

Greg Linden said...

Please stay on topic and use this thread to post questions for school board candidate Kate Martin.

Kate's request for real names may limit discussion, but it seems reasonable. If you want to participate in this thread, please ask questions of Kate using your real name.

Jane Doe said...

The thing you don't seem to grasp, Kate, is that we could call ourselves any name we like, and you would have no idea that they are "real" or not, unless you're planning to google them before you answer questions. And even there it's no guarantee because you wouldn't know if you have the RIGHT name.

I've heard that you are a "my way or the highway" person and don't get along well with people who differ from you in their opinions. You're proving that to be true right here. All that does is deepen my concerns about your ability to be anything but a polarizing force on the board.

Greg Linden said...

From the moderator: I would really like this thread to stay on topic. Please limit your posts to questions for Kate and please use your full real name.

Syd said...

Is the idea about making names required to insure that the conversation remains civil? I understand that need, and I think careful moderation can help there. That is what I do for a living.

People will often say things they would never say when they have a face to face meeting. This can be good or bad. Bad - in that one can feel free to be mean and say untruthful things. Good - because one feels one can be honest, with no repercussions.

Please reconsider this requirement for "real" names.

Anonymous said...

Any school board member who is going to get my vote already has opinions and beliefs about APP. I know what Sherry's are, and I want to know what yours are. I am not a "single issue" voter, but my kids are in APP, and this is an APP blog, so I want to know your thoughts about APP. Sherry Carr has made recent votes that had a huge impact on APP. Do you think she voted correctly? I want to know how you think APP has been handled in the recent past, and what should happen in the future. Should there be APP sites in every part of the city (something I have heard Enfield say)?

I am not going to tell you my opinion - I am not running for school board. I know my opinion, I want to know yours.

Jane Hudson

Anonymous said...

Kate - thank you for the opportunity to ask questions. Here are mine:

1) Do you think that all kids who qualify for Spectrum should be guaranteed a spot (similar to APP)?

2) What is your long-term vision for APP? I'm asking this in the context of APP being removed from Lowell due to lack of space and wondering how long the same thing happens at Hamilton.

3) Do you think language immersion schools like John Stanford should continue to be neighborhood attendance schools or should they be option schools that everyone has an equal chance (via lottery) to attend?

Jane Baker

Anonymous said...

Ms. Martin, What do you think APP needs in terms of 1)Managing capacity, especially in the northend? 2)What would you avocate for in terms of a long term home for Lowell and Hamilton APP?

Jane Delongterm

Anonymous said...

Ms. Martin,

I was speaking with an immigrant parent recently, who was given misinformation on several occassions when she sought advanced learning options for her child. I've heard of this happening before and we all know there's a dearth of immigrant, low-income and minority students in advanced programs.

My question is: do you feel it's necessary to increase their numbers, and how would you go about doing so? In fact, you say in your statement that ELL students are causing "average" students to be short-changed, so how would you address THAT problem as well?

Jane Parker

Anonymous said...

First I agree with Jane Doe that real names is an unrealistic request and as such i believe it is on topic to ask that she rescind it Greg.

Second Kate coming forward in this forum shows a heck of a lot of support for your constituents concerns and i wholeheartedly applaud you for doing it.

Q: what size by grade do you think is the ideal cohort for APP?

Q: would you support a 1-8 APP if it were an option suggested by capacity management sub com?

Mr. Alias Aliason

Lori said...

I comment fairly regularly here and on Melissa’s blog; many people know who I am and that I have a child at Lowell@Lincoln. I don’t think I have a reputation for being uncivil, inflammatory, or insulting. And because I don’t want to mix my professional life with my personal family life, I won’t post with my last name. As such, I won’t be asking a direct question. If Greg wants to delete my post, I won’t be insulted. But for what it’s worth:

I think the elephant in the room that needs to be addressed is what Kate Martin wrote in a letter to the editor a few years ago, which was, let’s just say, off-putting to many parents of gifted kids. She essentially said that she would take money away from advanced learning programs because those kids (with the “stay-at-home/’hovercraft’-parents/Laurelhurst-privilege”) will do just fine anyway. This attitude reflects a lack of knowledge about gifted children and their needs, which range from academic to social and emotional. Many of them don’t turn out “just fine” without access to appropriate educational opportunities.

For kids like my daughter, APP provides an opportunity to finally be “normal” and make friends who share your interests. It’s the first place where there is enough challenge that you need to learn critical-thinking and study skills, and it may be the first place where a child gets an answer wrong, which is exactly the learning opportunity that these kids need. Learning to fail, and how to recover from failure, is a critical life skill that many gifted children do not get to practice until college or beyond, when it’s much, much harder to recover from such setbacks. I could go on, but I’m trying to be brief.

The heart and soul of APP, at least in elementary school, is the cohort. So this question about “how do we geographically distribute APP opportunities” again suggests a basic lack of understanding about what APP is. It’s not something “better” than what’s offered elsewhere; it’s not a privilege to be in the group, nor is it supposed to be a reward or an escape route from suboptimal programs. No, for many kids, it’s truly a special needs program, a place where they can thrive for perhaps the first time in their lives. So it is not something to be divvied up into smaller and smaller pieces and sprinkled around the city. To function well, the cohort must be sufficiently large. We have the numbers in this city to provide these kids with a large, robust program. Why would we tear that apart by splintering the program into one, maybe two, classrooms per grade level all around the city?

Finally, I won’t deny that there aren’t problems in general education. I want the same things that Kate describes in her opening missive: for all children to be challenged, for skills beyond academics to be cultivated, for no child to languish day after day in an inappropriate environment. But, perhaps where we differ in opinion is that I think that APP should be held up as a model of the district trying to serve a population well. Tearing APP down doesn’t help the “average child” that Kate writes about in any way, shape, or form. It only harms kids whose needs are mostly being met at the current time. Progress in any large organization comes slowly, and much needs to be done to improve general ed and special ed in SPS. But we need to be improving APP while also trying to fix these other problems, not acting like APP is somehow the cause of problems in those other settings. And most certainly, we should not do the very thing we decry: deny opportunities and send our gifted kids back into settings where we know they will languish. Let’s help as many kids as possible thrive.

Anonymous said...

Kate, Jane Baker posed 3 questions I don't see responses to so will re-ask:



1) Do you think that all kids who qualify for Spectrum should be guaranteed a spot (similar to APP)?

2) What is your long-term vision for APP? I'm asking this in the context of APP being removed from Lowell due to lack of space and wondering how long the same thing happens at Hamilton.

3) Do you think language immersion schools like John Stanford should continue to be neighborhood attendance schools or should they be option schools that everyone has an equal chance (via lottery) to attend?


Thanks,

Anna Greene

Bird said...

So this question about “how do we geographically distribute APP opportunities” again suggests a basic lack of understanding about what APP is. It’s not something “better” than what’s offered elsewhere; .... it is not something to be divvied up into smaller and smaller pieces and sprinkled around the city.

I'll chime in on this point.

I don't read in distributing "APP opportunities" as distributing APP students. Kate will have to correct me if I am wrong.

I know that APP is a life-saver for a lot of kids and that the cohort is, in many cases, the essential component. I'm in favor of preserving APP as a large cohort of kids.

That said, there are kids around the district, including my own, who are APP qualified but are not in APP.

We don't want to move our elementary student to a new school and our child is doing well socially, but we do need adequate academic opportunities for our child in their local school, a school that currently does not offer ALO.

I'm, in favor, of distributing APP opportunities, if that means supporting advanced kids academically in their local school, if that is where they want to stay. The fact that the district doesn't offer ALO everywhere indicates to me that they don't value this and are pursing it.

I don't think mine is a controversial position, nor do I think it is a position that undercuts APP as it is now designed.

I know that APP families get jerked around a lot, and are often disparaged which may make folks especially sensitive to not only what is said, but how it is said, but I'd be careful about over-reading too much into Kate's posts.

Kate Martin said...

Hello.

I didn't have time to read all the comments. I get the feed once a day because as you can imagine there is not time for me to do otherwise.

I'm sorry that I didn't realize the nature of this blog before I entered into this Q&A. I'd love to answer questions about APP and ALOs, because I truly want every single student challenged, so here's how I imagine this can work best.

Please organize. Take whatever your discussions precipitate here and distill it as a group and then please describe your issue and what you want me to do to help you on one side of one piece of paper.

Please select a messenger who agrees to not be anonymous.

Bring me your top 3 concerns so I can focus on what's most important to all of you.

Your ability to organize and distill will mean all the difference in moving your concerns forward because capacity does not exist and probably should not exist to respond to each and every person's concerns.

Thank you for your help.

Kate

Greg Linden said...

From the moderator: It appears the Q&A is over before it started. I will no longer be removing comments on this thread that are not questions with a real name. Sorry that this did not work out better for all.

anonymous said...

I am utterly shocked that Kate Martin has still not answered a single question.

Odd.

Rebecca Perch

NLM said...

Wow, if a candidate can't handle a civil online Q&A where you get plenty of time to research and formulate a cogent written response, how the heck are they going to respond on the fly to questions at regular community events like, say, a board meeting? Sounds like this candidate wouldn't be any different than the incumbents in that respect. Blech.

Anonymous said...

Well, at least we know it's our fault. We didn't "organize" properly. We are such morons that we didn't know that we were supposed to all meet somewhere and write one question on a piece of paper for an internet Q&A. I guess she takes Q&A literally. One Q and one A as long as you follow the directions.

Welcome to 4 more years, Sherry. I wish we had a better option. I still haven't forgiven her vote to split elementary APP without a concrete plan for APP.

Jane Hudson (not my real name - surprise)

Just Jane said...

Greg,

It didn't work out because you had a candidate who wanted to control everything about the format of the Q & A. And despite this being a blog which has always allowed anonimity, you acted like her lap dog and suddenly required names.

Kate's made it clear that 1)she is a control freak, 2)she doessn't play well with others and most importantly, 3)has no itention of replying to all contacts from her possible future constituants.

This was a real eye-opener and I hope you explain to her just how many on the fence voters she lost today. This debacle is being discussed over on SOS blog, which has a much wider readership. She should be worried.

anonymous said...

Just FYI, Kate was so nasty when she commented on the CPPS blog several years ago that the CPPS blog moderator banned her from posting.

Margaret Boyle

anonymous said...

And, for those who haven't seen it yet, here is Kate's letter to the editor that appeared in the Seattle Times a couple of years ago.

"Bootstrap's on the other foot

The problem [of racial disparity] continues after APP into AP (Advanced Placement) high-school classes, another club for white, affluent families.

At least 55 percent of Roosevelt students need a level playing field that children in AP with stay-at-home/"hovercraft"-parents/Laurelhurst-privilege don't think a freaking minute about. And that's one of the Seattle Public Schools' poster-child schools, Roosevelt. I'm at a boiling point.
I am not anti-APP or anti-AP. I am for opportunities for all and if we have only enough dough to fund one program, I want it to be for the kids falling through the cracks, as I believe the others will do fine in general with their notably larger variety of options. Ideally, I want individual learning plans and high levels of achievement for each in their own way but, like I said, given that apparently everyone cannot be served, I'll help the most vulnerable first and leave the affluent kids "behind." We all know they'll do just fine."
— Kate Martin

Maybe this sheds some light on why she isn't answering any questions about APP.

anonymous said...

"Hello. I didn't have time to read all the comments. I get the feed once a day because as you can imagine there is not time for me to do otherwise. "

So Kate doesn't have time? Really? She agreed to do a Q&A and doesn't have time to keep her word. Her commitment? This is a huge red flag for me. She wasted a lot of peoples time - they took the time out of their busy days to ask her questions, only to hear, I don't have time to answer. Not good. Not good at all.

Just sayin'

Joe Mulliganey

Anonymous said...

Wow. Just... wow. I knew nothing about Kate Martin before today. But from her behavior here, not only has she lost my vote, she has motivated me to send a link to this blog to every SPS parent I know.

This person does not have the temperament to hold any public office, anywhere.

-- An APP Dad named Bill

p.s. you don't get to know our names when we vote. Sorry about that.

Shannon said...

Startling. Very startling.

A little case study in Web 2.0 for those new to politics.

apparent said...

So where does each of the other seven candidates really stand on the future location, design and capacity of North Seattle elementary APP? And Spectrum and Advanced Learning Opportunities programs across the city?

Greg Linden said...

I don't think I'm in a position to be able to summarize the concerns of all APP parents, but, if I were to try anyway, I'd say the top concern is stability, as I detail below. What do you all think? Is this roughly correct?

---------------

APP parents primarily want stability. That is, they mostly want the district to leave them alone. When a change to expand or move is necessary due to popularity of the program or other issues, parents would like to be involved in the solution instead of the district forcing a change on them at the last minute in a crisis. They want to know what school their children will be going to next year and that the school will still be there the following year. I don't think that is any different than any other alternative program or any general education school.

In fact, ignoring the minor issues around the edges, I don't think APP wants anything different than any other alternative program or general education school, they want the same resources and support others schools get, the same desire of parents to be involved in the future of their children, friends, and schools.

I think the general perception is that, despite the popularity and success of these programs, the district has been hostile to APP and other alternative programs for the last five years. I think the community has a feeling of being under constant threat, not knowing which school they would be at next year, not knowing if the program would exist at all in a few years. Stability is what APP parents are seeking.

Kate Martin said...

That's really helpful, Greg. Thank you.

I apologize for not understanding what I was getting into, as far as the time and diversity of questions, but I would like to try to answer your questions now, and I welcome further questions -- but please be patient, as I have an extremely full plate right now and would like to be able to devote time to research and then write back to you. Unlike others on the school board, I don't want to just accept the school district's position and not look at differing opinions within the community, or ignore parent input outright. But this takes time and some back-and-forth discussions. It's fine if you can't leave your full name.

The theme that Greg identified - the need for more stability - is essential. Less drama would be great as well which would mean no unexpected changes or surprizes. I believe that the community needs to be able to have an expectation that the APP program will be protected and nurtured by the district.

Your continued help identifying other common concerns would be great. Meanwhile, here’s some answers to previous questions.

1) Do you think that all kids who qualify for Spectrum should be guaranteed a spot (similar to APP)?

Yes, I think all kids who qualify for Spectrum should be guaranteed a spot. I’ve also heard about Spectrum being dismantled at some schools, and I’d like to hear more about that from families who were affected by the upheaval. It sounds like the district is redesigning the program, and I'd like to find out who that redesign serves best, and if there's any evidence to support the redesign.


2) What is your long-term vision for APP? I'm asking this in the context of APP being removed from Lowell due to lack of space and wondering how long the same thing happens at Hamilton.

I’d like to see APP in a stable location, a “home” as it were. Moving families and children from place to place is incredibly disruptive to families and a child's learning experience. Where is that location?
I’d like to hear suggestions from families and the district.

continued on next post....

Kate Martin said...

continued from previous post...

3) Do you think language immersion schools like John Stanford should continue to be neighborhood attendance schools or should they be option schools that everyone has an equal chance (via lottery) to attend?

I think it’s good to replicate success. The popularity of the language immersion programs is undeniable, and can offer a challenge to all children. I’d like to consider the possibility of making them option schools, and perhaps ask other schools if they’d like to transform into language immersion programs, so we have more options throughout the city. I think the immersion programs are a great way to challenge all children, which is important to me, along with boosting international understanding and foreign-language competencies.


4) Sherry Carr's past votes shows some of her thinking about APP. What do you see she has done that has helped/hurt the APP program? What would you like the district keep the same/change in regards to how it deals with APP?

I don’t want to put too much emphasis on the incumbent. But I do want to do a better job of listening to students and parents, communicating with students and parents and slowing the rate of “churn” for APP families in regards to location and leadership. I know that splitting the program into north and south was a very contentious decision, and family perspectives and the program’s solid history should’ve been taken into greater account.

I would also like to see the district streamline the process and make it easier for families to learn about the Advanced Learning options.


5) What would it mean to you for advanced learning to be a "successful" program? How would you measure "success"?

I would measure success by watching it thrive and grow, with a high rate of satisfaction by teachers, children and parents alike.

I would also like to consider making some high-challenge programs more available to families who would like to opt-in, without testing, as APP Mom suggests. We would have to negotiate the rules around how to opt in, maintaining standards and how to determine if kids could keep up. This might help alleviate some of the frustrations that parents of capable – but unchallenged – children feel.


6) You wrote an editorial letter a few years ago – do you still have the same feelings as then?

I wrote that letter without a full understanding of the situation.
I’ve tried since then to meet and get to know several families involved in Advanced Learning, and I wish I had more carefully thought through at the time what I was trying to communicate, which was my concern for at-risk communities. AL families often feel under attack by the school district and other parents, and I’d like to help our entire community move past that (both attacking and feeling attacked), in whatever way I can.

Lori said...

Kate, thank you for coming back and answering questions. Perhaps we all learned that a blog isn't the best way to get to know a candidate. I hope I can make it to the debates Wednesday night to learn more.

dw said...

Perhaps we all learned that a blog isn't the best way to get to know a candidate. I hope I can make it to the debates Wednesday night to learn more.

A blog can be a great way to get to know a candidate. Kate may have stumbled here at first, but to her credit she did come back and answer some questions. Thank you Kate, perhaps we'll hear more from you in the coming weeks?

Lori, I hope you made it to the debate, I thought it was both educational and entertaining. Interestingly, according to the real-time text message voting at the event, Kate made the best showing of all the candidates, including both incumbents and challengers.

It makes me feel like a separate thread for us to talk about the upcoming election in general might be worthwhile. Without support for APP (and Spectrum) on the Board our program seems constantly threatened. What kind of support for advanced learning programs do the various candidates have?

Greg, what do you think?

dw said...

Perhaps we all learned that a blog isn't the best way to get to know a candidate. I hope I can make it to the debates Wednesday night to learn more.



A blog can be a great way to get to know a candidate. Kate may have stumbled here at first, but to her credit she did come back and answer some questions. Thank you Kate, perhaps we'll hear more from you in the coming weeks?



Lori, I hope you made it to the debate, I thought it was both educational and entertaining. Interestingly, according to the real-time text message voting at the event, Kate made the best showing of all the candidates, including both incumbents and challengers.



It makes me feel like a separate thread for us to talk about the upcoming election in general might be worthwhile. Without support for APP (and Spectrum) on the Board our program seems constantly threatened. What kind of support for advanced learning programs do the various candidates have? 



Greg, what do you think?

dw said...

Perhaps we all learned that a blog isn't the best way to get to know a candidate. I hope I can make it to the debates Wednesday night to learn more.


A blog can be a great way to get to know a candidate. Kate may have stumbled here at first, but to her credit she did come back and answer some questions. Thank you Kate, perhaps we'll hear more from you in the coming weeks?


Lori, I hope you made it to the debate, I thought it was both educational and entertaining. Interestingly, according to the real-time text message voting at the event, Kate made the best showing of all the candidates, including both incumbents and challengers.


It makes me feel like a separate thread for us to talk about the upcoming election in general might be worthwhile. Without support for APP (and Spectrum) on the Board our program seems constantly threatened. What kind of support for advanced learning programs do the various candidates have?



Greg, what do you think?

Anonymous said...

"Kate may have stumbled here at first, but to her credit she did come back and answer some questions."

But, several people have asked her to explain (actually, to defend) her comments about the rights of children with disabilities to be included in general education classrooms. These are very detrimental comments and leave this candidate giving the impression that she is willing to throw some members of our children's educational community under the bus to get a few votes.

Very unimpressed with this candidate