Early in yesterday’s final candidates’ forum of the School Board campaign at the Raintree condo complex, Scott McVarish returned to one of his favorite talking points.
He stepped directly into the fire, again, raising the banner of a parent group that has been a magnet for criticism from the backers of Prof. Kelly Kent.
“When we started United Parents of Culver City (three years ago),” said Mr. McVarish, “we created an agenda of issues for parents that we felt were not being addressed.
In a moment, the cymbals boldly clanged.
He credited UPCC for the $106 million school improvements bond approved last year by 75 percent of Culver City voters.
“The bond really came from United Parents of Culver City pushing to make that happen,” he said.
Will there be a response in the next eight days from those who are seeking to avenge Karlo Silbiger’s upset loss in the last election by rejecting UPCC-supported Mr. McVarish and teammate Anne Burke?
Unlike recent forums when candidates spoke to audiences once of students, another time of young parents of young children, this time Mr. McVarish was arrowing his observations at adults of a more mature age who appeared receptive to his view.
Since two of the three candidates will be elected to the revised School Board a week from tomorrow, voters will be confronted by a conundrum:
The differences between and among them are subtle.
Parrying an hour and a half’s worth of questions from Raintree moderator Art Kassan, Ms. Burke, Dr. Kent and Mr. McVarish – all hyper active parents of elementary school students – hardly disagreed over any subject.
Ms. Burke said she attracted more endorsements than any other contender, and Dr. Kent said if solar panels were installed at all schools instead of a select few, hundreds of thousands of dollars would be saved and could be invested in expanding an undersized District-wide faculty.
Otherwise, they pretty much sang in the same choir.
They were slightly separated by style, personalities.
All agreed that classes of 30 of more students is unacceptable, that none is bringing a new tax proposal into office, that all three of them have enviable relations with a wide cast of teachers, that language immersion at all District schools would not only be welcome but is barely short of mandatory, that STEAM programs rightfully should surpass their STEM predecessor, and the three were unanimous in welcoming a new state law that would combine local City Council and School Board elections into a single campaign if voter turnout remains low this time, a mortal cinch.
You are utterly wrong in the assumption in this article that supporters of Kelly Kent are ‘seeking to avenge Karlo Silbiger’s ‘upset loss’ (sic) in the last election by rejecting UPCC-supported Mr. McVarish and teammate Anne Burke’.
Why on earth would Kelly have stepped forward for any reason other than her own integrity and the desire for all schools and all children to have a voice on CCSB. Without her stepping forward, the entire School Board would be entirely taken over by UPCC. That’s simply not democratic.
What is this weird obsession with Silbiger that McV seems to have?
Kelly Kent’s supporters are convinced that Kelly is the right candidate because she’s a Professional Educator, a passionate and beloved Parent Volunteer (who introduced the Spanish language program at Lin Howe) and a Community Leader representing the City on Parks and Rec.
This election should not be about a small and vocal but frankly unrepresentative group pushing their own candidates into a position of power. It should be about as many different and diverse groups having a voice in the education of our children. That’s our right as parents and citizens and tax payers.