Wednesday, October 17, 2007

Supervisor Debate Tonight: Matoaca District

Please do not forget that the candidates running for Supervisor of the Matoaca District of Chesterfield will debate tonight at 6:30Pm at Cosby High School sponsored by the Chamber of Commerce.


Anonymous said...

Bermuda District Supervisor Debate Thursday Oct 18th at Thomas dale High School 7pm.

Anonymous said...

The Bermuda debate was a bust.

Maybe 60 showed up and they were all supporters of the candidates speaking. The moderator questions were for the most part numbingly boring, the sound system squealed alot, and the candidates sat on stage in dark shadows with the lights hitting somewhere behind them. The PTA and Chamber of Commerce put on a grade school show.

No one candidate made of fool of themselves.

Mrs. Hart seemed to have the edge in public speaking but her support of expensive and non-mission PRE-K, denial of high crime in the Jeff Davis Corridor, switching positions on the Meadowville/295 interchange, and the typical "we need to do something about our infrastructure problem AND lower taxes" was insulting to anyone with half a brain. I am fed up to here with people who won't take responsibility for their own problems and blame the state for not giving them enough of somebody else's money to spend.

Mr. Wallace, though not an accomplished orator, came across as sincere, hardworking,patriotic, concerned, and simple minded, which I'm sure he is not,but so much for public debates which when dumbed down to one minute responses are good only for fast food lines. It will be a long time before I forget his phrase, "if its good enough for them(school board), it's good enough for me."

Mrs. Jaeckle seemed to have the most mature and refreshing responses, even if she stumbled occasionally. I liked her guiding principle of governing during times of budgetary constraint with an eye to focusing on the "needs" of the county and not the "wants". I read that to mean trimming the fat from departmental budgets and using that savings for school and road construction/maintenance. It also meant no support for expanding the school system's mission to include day care(raising somebody else's children) for pre-kindergartners. A prime example of the School Board getting sidetracked with "wants" versus the "needs" of maintaining the high levels of quality education we demand from them. Supervisor Sowder and other board members were right in deleting funding for that misguided mission. Sore loser Schrader was not.

Later, Mr. Trammel of the School Board sat on stage by himself, unopposed. The school board needs as much shaking up as the supervisors. They all voted to expand school supervision over the acts of our children under Kevin Bacon rule that any two people who actually attended public schools, or knew anyone who attended public schools were subject to school judicial review for any act they deemed to be detrimental to the overall well-being of the school system at large(I am only slightly joking). The General Assembly was very clear when it said mutiple times and in multiple places that the schools were responsible for the actions of school children only on school property, on school buses, and during school activities both at home and away. The Chesterfield County School Board has now claimed the right to punish your child for any incident, anywhere at any time, if he insults another student or teacher while in your own home or on your own computer. And it has exercised this new right it has claimed for themselves with no objection from the community.

If they need a police state to control the mega schools, then make them smaller. Why is that so hard to understand?

Anonymous said...

Thank you for providing a summary in your eyes of the debate for everyone. I was unaware of the issue you raised regarding the schools expansion of supervison. I will get some more detail on that for a psot b/c thats disturbing.

The one thing I have issuee with in terms of Mrs. Jaeckle is the evry isseu you pointed to about her not supporting pre-k education. Now I am in favor of peoples rights to send their children to pre schools across the county, but fact remains those children not born to families who can afford such schooling, which in fact is performed mostly by churches in Chesterfield as a percentage, are left out during some very important years.
These years represent a great opportunity. Anyone opposed to this needs tospeak with kindergarten teachers about the differences of students starting day one with zero social skills in a class setting when they arrive for kindergarten versus those that have had the experience of pre-school.
I have seen these on both sides. My oldest is in kindergarten this year. Her class has lost students whose parents had to take them out of school in large part because they were unprepared and were disruptive to the learning environment. The issue I have with those who talk about the "raising of children" by schools need to wake up. 60% of people are dropping there kids off at a daycare facility or use a full time sitter during these ages of pre-k while both parents work.
I am sure that parents would rather have their taxes even if they rise go for this type of program which would prevent them from having to waste, yes waste, their money on a glorified day care facility that teaches very little. Jaeckle is simply wronfg on the issue.
The Board was wrong to line item veto the pre-k funding from the School Boards budget as well. Our Board as some sort of complex as it sees fit to do these kinds of things all the while ignoring planning recommendation from its Planning Commission as well.
I am glad the School Board stuck it to the Board and came up with funding anway.

Anonymous said...

I appreciate your comments regarding PRE-K and agree with much of what you said. I personally know about this program and know some of the teachers involved in it.

Mrs. Jaeckle can speak for herself but I have heard her express in public her support for helping this group of children who need it. (I also agree with that. We agree with you on that.)

Our difference lies not in government/taxpayer involvement, but with using the K-12 system which is already over burdened with its current mission and lacks space and teachers. Right now this targets 4 year olds. Next it will target 3 year olds. Then it will target 2 year olds. At what point do you say that some parents are incapable of instilling in their children the basics of civiliazation and they need to be raised by the state?

Surely there are other ways of raising other people's children who are not capable of doing it themselves without dumping them on the school system. I don't have all the answers, but perhaps a public /private partnership using existing as well as expanded private daycare facilities with the aid of "scholarships" would help with this situtaion. The "schloarships" would entail obligations to instill the same day care values being taught in the pre-k program. You tell me a solution that doesn't burden the K-12 program.

AlterofFreedom said...

This is an interesting debate regarding pre-k education.
I have three children under the age of 6, my oldest just entered elementary school and my twins are 3.
I have a vested interest in this debate as should every parent. I had a big issue with the BOS and the reduction of budget regarding this issue. I find that this BOS feels they are both the best determiners of Education and Planning since they basically like to ignore the roles of the mechanisms in place to support them. I believe the School Board's budget should be the responsibility of the School Board with some oversight but not the line item veto power used against this funding. For Supervisors to vote against it solely because their district may not have a head start program or may not have children in large numbers be eligible is absurd to me.
They represent a district for sure but they also represent the COUNTY. These are the children of our community regardless where in the County they reside.
The School Board elections are every bit as important as the Supervisor races.
I take issue with one aspect of the people against pre-k and with all do respect the previous comment aluded to the same idea and that is the fcat that our educators DO NOT RAISE our children, they EDUCATE them. There is a difference. Pre-k has nothing to do with "raising" it is about preparing them to be educated.
As Parents WE are responsible for raising our children.


Anonymous said...

As parents, we are also responsible for educating them too, assuming your distinction between educating and raising.

I'm glad to see you at least agree its the parent's responsibility to "raise" their children good manners.

I thought that was the main issue with children not ready for K. They are either too immature in their development(through no fault of theirs or their parents) or they haven't been taught the fundamental lessons of how to behave in a group and respect for their teachers.

I get this from teachers currently involved in the PRE-K program.

I have to ask this. A core conservative belief is holding the individual accountable for their actions. Where in this debate are the parents being held accountable? And don't give me this song and dance about poverty. For those who've traveled here and abroad, poverty doesn't have a dang thing to do with kindness and good manners. It's all about the parents setting good examples at home.

Anonymous said...

One last comment and I'll leave this alone for minds brighter than mine to contemplate.

See if you still have the same opinion about the school board using approximately a half million dollars to expand into pre-k when you find your child in a science class with 35 other children or with a spanish teacher who isnt capable of preparing their children for the next level of instruction or find that your favorite teacher is basically supporting your child's school club activities on their own dime and their own time.

Anonymous said...

I cannot speak to other conservatives nor can I speak to those conservatives of either Party, but I can tell you that for this conservative thinks it has absolutely NOTHING to do with poverty.
I believe that pre-k initiatives should move forward. I do think that it should start no earlier than 3 however I prefer four. I know people will speak to the old standby "what differences does one year make" but I am hear to tell you it makes all the difference in the world.
I have spoken with many early childhood educators and all believe in the importance of getting children social and motor skills at this age.
The one "poverty" issue is not poverty per say but some families cannot afford to send the children to private pre-school programs or as a matter of fact most church related pre-k are on huge wait lists for openings. The children that get the benefit of these programs are leaps and bounds ahead of those who do not upon arriving to elementary school.
I would prefer a program in the conservative tradition of vouchers for pre-k where parents would get the opportunity to send their children with the help of support from tax breaks or vouchers.
I think if we can set up a system like SCHIP for healthcare for children at certain levels of income than why can't we do the same with something as important as education.
I know that sounds like another program that has to be funded by tax payers but I think we are seeing the results of a broken educational system in some parts of the country and State.
I have always found it remarkable how people will support increased funding at the high school level and not at early childhood levels using the "raising" talking points. So are we no longer raising our children at the secondary level?
I had one parent tell me how amazing it is for us to have so much spent on all of our athletic fields and high school sports in such a disportionate manner compared to early childhood education. I had never thought of it that way but maybe she has a point.
I can recall when all our middle schools had sports in Chesterfield. Now very few a played at all formally by middle schools compared to thirty years ago. I guess another "funding" issue or liability issue for the County.

Anonymous said...

As far as Matoaca goes: Ms. Durfee did not answer a single question in either of the two debates at Cosby high school. She dodged most of them totally. She goes around telling half truths about development, scaring the crap out of people so she can manipulate them. She sells her self-serving message by saying that Mr. Hastings is incompetent, which couldn’t be farther from the truth and that Mr. Tubbs is in bed with developers because he has taken donations from them. WELL, SO HAS MS. DURFEE. SHE HAS HER FACE PLASTERED ALL OVER THE FUTURE WAL-MART SITE ON HULL STREET. Considering the fact that no one who lives in the corridor is interested in another Wal-Mart, and the owner of the property (EWN Investments) has also given her 2500.00, I would say MARLEEN DURFEE IS A HYPOCRITE! Wal-Mart does not represent economic development either; they encourage new employees to seek welfare to supplement the lack of decent wages. This costs us more in taxes. Her face is plastered on several properties owned by developers, so who is in the developer’s pocket?
Marleen Durfee is attempting to deflect the issues of this campaign so she isn’t forced to state her position on anything.

I hope the average voter looks at many points of view, asks candidates what their plan of action is to address the issues we face, and worries less about finance money. If citizens demand answers to specific questions, they have the ability to hold their officials accountable. But don’t take my word for it, ask her about her solutions to our issues and see what you get.