It’s a bit rich to imply that other board candidates are taking a “heavy negativism” point of view. That might be true for the mayoral race, but I’ve heard optimism from almost all prospective board members. What I’m not hearing from Andrew is a sense of optimism backed by innovative, pragmatic, data-backed ideas and a growth mindset. A …
It’s a bit rich to imply that other board candidates are taking a “heavy negativism” point of view. That might be true for the mayoral race, but I’ve heard optimism from almost all prospective board members. What I’m not hearing from Andrew is a sense of optimism backed by innovative, pragmatic, data-backed ideas and a growth mindset. A strategic plan and a North Star are really quite basic concepts. We need way more than that, and fast.
I have appreciated that this particular campaign (D65 school board) has stayed positive. Our forums and questionnaires have been civil and issues-focused even while there are significant contrasts between candidates.
Yes, these are basic concepts, so why have they been so neglected? I have raised this issue at every campaign event and on every questionnaire since early January, and the vast majority of folk I have talked to did not know we had a strategic plan or that it had gotten to this point.
From my standpoint, it is fundamentally pragmatic to argue that we need to go back to the basics, and a strategic plan is really the only long-term formal way to operationalize "innovation, pragmatism, data-backed ideas, and a growth mindset" in ways that further our mission and ensure taxpayers have transparent and accountable governance. Otherwise, we will remain stuck in a reactive cycle where the board continues to get pressured to adopt the shiny new thing often under the pressure of urgency (or "fast," as you say).
I'm one of the few candidates that has hands on experience working on strategic planning in educational institutions, and if I am elected, we will get this fundamental issue right.
Yikes! What a wholly uncharitable take on my comment. I wasn't attacking candidates, I was simply commenting that
everyone's running to fix problems, and problems, by their very nature, are negative. The race is heavy, because we're about an inch away from a state takeover. It's also rather uncharitable to dismiss this entire post as basic, when he spent like 2,000 words laying out a pragmatic, detailed plan for how the board can move forward. He also said he read five years' worth of Board books, which, I'm gonna take a wild guess and say probably no one else has done that. I also didn't see you apply your critique to any of the other candidates.
Hi Shawna, I didn’t accuse you of attacking anyone but also I’m not trying to be charitable. I’m asking specific questions to Andrew because I don’t agree with his specific approach, but I want to know more and make sure I have a fully formed opinion.
To me, reading five years of board books does not make you a qualified candidate for this particular election - but again, that’s just my opinion! We feel differently and will probably vote differently and that’s all good.
It’s a bit rich to imply that other board candidates are taking a “heavy negativism” point of view. That might be true for the mayoral race, but I’ve heard optimism from almost all prospective board members. What I’m not hearing from Andrew is a sense of optimism backed by innovative, pragmatic, data-backed ideas and a growth mindset. A strategic plan and a North Star are really quite basic concepts. We need way more than that, and fast.
Thanks Megan for sticking with this conversation!
I have appreciated that this particular campaign (D65 school board) has stayed positive. Our forums and questionnaires have been civil and issues-focused even while there are significant contrasts between candidates.
Yes, these are basic concepts, so why have they been so neglected? I have raised this issue at every campaign event and on every questionnaire since early January, and the vast majority of folk I have talked to did not know we had a strategic plan or that it had gotten to this point.
From my standpoint, it is fundamentally pragmatic to argue that we need to go back to the basics, and a strategic plan is really the only long-term formal way to operationalize "innovation, pragmatism, data-backed ideas, and a growth mindset" in ways that further our mission and ensure taxpayers have transparent and accountable governance. Otherwise, we will remain stuck in a reactive cycle where the board continues to get pressured to adopt the shiny new thing often under the pressure of urgency (or "fast," as you say).
I'm one of the few candidates that has hands on experience working on strategic planning in educational institutions, and if I am elected, we will get this fundamental issue right.
Yikes! What a wholly uncharitable take on my comment. I wasn't attacking candidates, I was simply commenting that
everyone's running to fix problems, and problems, by their very nature, are negative. The race is heavy, because we're about an inch away from a state takeover. It's also rather uncharitable to dismiss this entire post as basic, when he spent like 2,000 words laying out a pragmatic, detailed plan for how the board can move forward. He also said he read five years' worth of Board books, which, I'm gonna take a wild guess and say probably no one else has done that. I also didn't see you apply your critique to any of the other candidates.
Hi Shawna, I didn’t accuse you of attacking anyone but also I’m not trying to be charitable. I’m asking specific questions to Andrew because I don’t agree with his specific approach, but I want to know more and make sure I have a fully formed opinion.
To me, reading five years of board books does not make you a qualified candidate for this particular election - but again, that’s just my opinion! We feel differently and will probably vote differently and that’s all good.