All data and information provided is for informational purposes only. The opinions expressed by Bloggers are theirs alone.
NBEA makes no representations as to accuracy of the posts. You agree to indemnify and hold NBEA harmless from any claim made by any party due to or arising from your use of or posting upon this blog.
We reserve the right to edit or remove any post at any time for any reason.
If you disagree with these conditions, please do not read our blog or post to it.
Have a suggestion. Any and all NB education stakeholders need to read the SC candidates response to the NBEA questionnaire. It is a primer for everyone who is voting, or those who can shed some light to those that can vote based on written words, tone, and ability to see the full scope of the issues.
This is not a time to just check the box without knowing a baseline of each candidate's position.
It is our right to vote, but voting for the sake of voting is doing an injustice to putting the best person in a SC seat. Meaning, one who is committed to due diligence, meticulous oversight, and a common sense realistic approach to problem solving. A person who does not mind getting his or her finger nails dirty.
Voters,when X'ing, have a conviction that you have selected based on each candidates view of the situation and some level of specifics of remedies, or ideas that are credible.
Reading the bios are easy. Going right to any comment, as all candidates agreed with NBEA question of yes and no. All said that they supported the NBEA.
To read the bios, the whole process will take roughly a half hour.
If you are unable to take that time please allow me to my opinion on what I read. Right or wrong, you can decide. I have no affiliation with any of the candidates.
So here are the Cliffs Notes to what I thought I understood.
My vote is for Josh Amaral first, and if possible, Christopher Cotter second.
Mr. Amaral's responses were clear and articulate, and gave me the feeling that he has a better understanding of the issues. He has at least acknowledged that NB's socioeconomics play a role in the problems. That alone is refreshing.
He appears genuine about his voting future, and his tone was reflective, thoughtful, and upbeat.
Mr. Amaral states that he has substituted, and I hope that he can continue, whenever he can, if not anything other then "dipsticking."
Mr. Cotter I think is willing to cut his teeth in a positive way, and stated that he has no political ties is in his favor.
I think he needs to be more specific on his ideas. As for the charter school argument, the SC needs to enact best practices into the public schools so that the charter school discussions are moot.
I thought Ms. Mojica-Mosquea is missing the big picture, and a fresh approach.
I thought Mr. Pastori is relying to much on the state, although I think they can help. Our problems have been home-grown. Let try to correct them here first.
Lowering the suspension rate, unless there is a real proven program in place, is just adding to classroom chaos, and less time on learning and educating the students who do want to learn.
Mr. Finnerty has had his chance as an educator, administrator, and SC member. I just think he is flying to high and his focus needs to be at the ground level. Instead of "I will" responses should have been more of the, "this is what I've done, and will continue to do." How his actions have made a positive impact on learning and MCAS scores.
Mr. Janson just did not elaborate enough. To be taken more seriously, I think he needs to articulate better and be more specific given his experiences and exposure to our education process.
After Mr. Oliveira wrote, "the only thing I can do," I stopped reading. As stakeholders this is not in the spirit of fixing any issue, education or not.
Olivera was being honest. When SC members get inflated egos and make grand promises, it ends in more work or expense for schools so a politician can look good.
7 comments:
Why didn't the union release Nobrega's survey?
Mr. Nobrega did not respond to the questionnaire.
Have a suggestion. Any and all NB education stakeholders need to read the SC candidates response to the NBEA questionnaire. It is a primer for everyone who is voting, or those who can shed some light to those that can vote based on written words, tone, and ability to see the full scope of the issues.
This is not a time to just check the box without knowing a baseline of each candidate's position.
It is our right to vote, but voting for the sake of voting is doing an injustice to putting the best person in a SC seat. Meaning, one who is committed to due diligence, meticulous oversight, and a common sense realistic approach to problem solving. A person who does not mind getting his or her finger nails dirty.
Voters,when X'ing, have a conviction that you have selected based on each candidates view of the situation and some level of specifics of remedies, or ideas that are credible.
Reading the bios are easy. Going right to any comment, as all candidates agreed with NBEA question of yes and no. All said that they supported the NBEA.
To read the bios, the whole process will take roughly a half hour.
If you are unable to take that time please allow me to my opinion on what I read. Right or wrong, you can decide. I have no affiliation with any of the candidates.
So here are the Cliffs Notes to what I thought I understood.
My vote is for Josh Amaral first, and if possible, Christopher Cotter second.
Mr. Amaral's responses were clear and articulate, and gave me the feeling that he has a better understanding of the issues. He has at least acknowledged that NB's socioeconomics play a role in the problems. That alone is refreshing.
He appears genuine about his voting future, and his tone was reflective, thoughtful, and upbeat.
Mr. Amaral states that he has substituted, and I hope that he can continue, whenever he can, if not anything other then "dipsticking."
Mr. Cotter I think is willing to cut his teeth in a positive way, and stated that he has no political ties is in his favor.
I think he needs to be more specific on his ideas. As for the charter school argument, the SC needs to enact best practices into the public schools so that the charter school discussions are moot.
I thought Ms. Mojica-Mosquea is missing the big picture, and a fresh approach.
I thought Mr. Pastori is relying to much on the state, although I think they can help. Our problems have been home-grown. Let try to correct them here first.
Lowering the suspension rate, unless there is a real proven program in place, is just adding to classroom chaos, and less time on learning and educating the students who do want to learn.
Mr. Finnerty has had his chance as an educator, administrator, and SC member. I just think he is flying to high and his focus needs to be at the ground level. Instead of "I will" responses should have been more of the, "this is what I've done, and will continue to do." How his actions have made a positive impact on learning and MCAS scores.
Mr. Janson just did not elaborate enough. To be taken more seriously, I think he needs to articulate better and be more specific given his experiences and exposure to our education process.
After Mr. Oliveira wrote, "the only thing I can do," I stopped reading. As stakeholders this is not in the spirit of fixing any issue, education or not.
Hope this helps, if not, disregard.
Olivera was being honest. When SC members get inflated egos and make grand promises, it ends in more work or expense for schools so a politician can look good.
He can be honest...he is running unopposed. (Completing term of Clark)
OF COURSE J. Nobrega did not return the questionnaire... he probably fell asleep trying to complete it.
Josh---get to the Senior Centers...the darn old folks keep voting for the INCUMBENTS---go sweet talk the grannies.
Post a Comment