It’s All About the Kids?
By Lynn Kalinauskas
GPHC Education Chair
Families make several decisions – where to live, the choice of a school, and even career decisions – with the little ones in mind. It’s often about the kids.
The aphorism “it’s all about the children,” however, has been used and overused throughout this school board election to the point of having lost its meaning. On October 10, during the Greater Park Hill Community/Northeast Park Hill Coalition School Board Candidate Forum, District 4 Representative Landri Taylor turned down the opportunity to ask his district runningmate, Roger Kilgore, a direct question. Instead, he opined that the candidate forum was not about Taylor versus Kilgore, but that it was about the children.
The pretense that “it” is about the children and not politics is ludicrous. When there are elections, when the governance of millions of taxpayer dollars is at stake, when federal funding is involved, when political endorsements are vaunted, and when corporate magnates pour tens of thousands of dollars into the campaigns, it’s also about politics. As for the children, they are used as pawns for a larger political agenda.
As of October 15th filings (and more monies will come), the campaigns for DPS school board have amassed $727,720. Of that amount, $175,150 comes from only nine donors and has been given to 4 candidates (O’Brien, Johnson, Taylor and Rodriguez). Comparatively, the four other candidates (Kiley, Schomp, Kilgore and C. de Baca) have received a total of $50,772 from the Denver Classroom Teachers Association. Many decry the power of the union, but the reality is DCTA gives too little too late to really compete with corporate donors. DCTA gives non-monetary contributions but all candidates receive those from various groups.
The only true unadulterated candidate is Joan Poston seeking the at-large seat. She has received no contributions whatsoever and says she is not seeking any. The downside is that without a website, a campaign manager, multiple flyers, robo-calls, yard signs, it is difficult for her to get her message out citywide.
A big campaign budget enables one to “hit” the voter repeatedly with targeted messaging.
For example, in the first of four glossy brochures recently received from the O’Brien campaign, we can read the following:
“I have never heard children say they want to be great test takers when they grow up. Education should be about more than just testing. It should be about helping our kids’ dreams come true.”
The statement seems simple enough but it hides the fact that Mrs. O’Brien is a proponent of high-stakes testing that will only increase with the implementation of the Common Core. Indeed, none of her brochures discusses or even mentions testing beyond the statement quoted above.
Another case in point is a flyer from the Taylor campaign that states:
“Landri is a community activist who fought for quality options for the Montbello and Green Valley Ranch community, which lead to gains in academic success.”
Mr. Taylor has indeed often lauded his participation in the Far Northeast turnaround, including in this newspaper. However, when asked on October 14th at a community meeting in the Far Northeast to give his assessment of the turnaround, Mr. Taylor responded, “We have some really good schools and we have some bad ones.” Given the amount of money and energy that has gone into reforming Montbello and Green Valley Ranch schools; given the community turmoil that the turnaround engendered; and given that Mr. Taylor currently sits on the Board as a representative of those neighborhoods, his answer was insufficient. But it did reveal something the flyers and the endorsements are not saying: the Far Northeast turnaround was not the success it is made out to be.
Corporate money used as leverage enables the waters to become muddied by snappy slogans and glitz. All campaigns do it, but more money brings more opportunities to repeatedly reach the voter with a message that may or may not be truthful.
The soon-to-be elected board members will be responsible for our tax dollars and for the education of future generations. They should represent our disparate voices, many needs, and contesting opinions, but will they? What will carry more weight, the vote or the money? Who will be heard? The teacher, the parent, the student or the investor? The dissonant voices do make a board member’s (unpaid) job a difficult one.
Let’s hope that they remember what’s at stake, because it IS all about the children. Except when it’s not.