Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

mikevago t1_ivg45nt wrote

> one is in bed with the Union and status quo

Translation, one side is "in bed with" teachers and have long been involved with JC public schools. I guess those things are bad somehow, so we should put a developer's lackeys in charge?

1

Jahooodie t1_ivgu6gx wrote

They have an invested interest to keep the status quo of the Union & Board. You realize only one of their slate up to vote is a current educator? The others according to their material a doctoral candidate & Democratic Committee member. They are putting forth arguments for the most part that they are also for change, and it's up to the voter to decide.

I fundamentally don't believe that the only folks who can have expertise in BOE control are necessarily teachers or teacher's union folks. Their voice carries weight of first hand experience, but so do those who've graduated from JC public schools & their parents. Or people who've studied sound budget administration at the scale of the school system here... their budget is more than some municipalities altogether.

I am concerned that CFC has strong ties to developers, but then again anyone involved with the Democratic party trying to get stuff done in town sorta is (ala Fullop). I'm not fully convinced on their ideas for change, but I think perhaps at least they would be a conflicting voice at the table to push reform. I think the main thing I've been concerned with our BOE for years has been the status quo has to change & modernize to the sunlight.

For the record I'm not voting a straight slate I don't think, but I've not read a compelling to me argument that CFC is the devil & Education Matters are saints

1