I always have said anyone who runs for office should be commended. However, some people need to be better informed and involved before they do so. Kelly Kent, a candidate in Tuesday’s School Board election, is in that category.
In Culver City, you have to earn things. Candidate Kelly Kent has not earned a place as an elected official. She is attempting to gain office through exaggeration and misinformation. It’s important that everyone understands this fact.
I serve on the city’s Parks Commission with Kelly. Within months of being appointed — her first ever involvement in city matters — she decided to run for City Council. In early August, however, she switched to running for School Board. This was odd considering that other than volunteering at her children’s school, she had not been involved in School District affairs. She never even had attended a School Board meeting before changing which political office she wanted.
Kelly’s reliance on exaggeration can be seen throughout the story she has constructed of herself. She continually focuses on her experience on the city Commission as being one of her primary qualifications for School Board. Yet she has not told a single audience that she has been on only one city commission, and that she has been on it for less than one year.
Ms. Kent is not employed by any educational institution. She never has been employed as a professor. She was adjunct faculty — i.e., a temporary lecturer — at a community college where she taught a couple of classes such as Intro to Psychology. She is not on that school’s faculty list: http://goo.gl/lPIf1N. She was employed similarly by an online school, where she again is not on the faculty list: http://goo.gl/yGfEpO .
Calls to both schools confirmed that she was not a professor. Nor is she currently teaching. Yet, in every candidate forum, she holds herself out as an expert in education. She has many voters thinking she has had a long-established career as a “professor of neuroscience.” She is misleading voters.
She also is misleading voters when she compares us to LAUSD (“we are not dissimilar to LAUSD”) and claims parts of our schools are “getting worse” (her words at the Raintree candidate forum). She misinforms like this so that she can then claim that as a “neuroscience professor” she somehow has the answers to fix this. The problem is, this is misinformation on both parts. Our schools are in no way similar to LAUSD, they are not getting worse and she is not a professor of anything. Indeed, she never once has given a concrete example of what the District is doing wrong and how she would do it differently. She just wants you to trust her. Well, she has not earned our trust.
Kelly also displays an elitist attitude towards students who may not follow the sort of life path she is fixated on. She apparently — at least according to her rhetoric – opposes fellow candidates Anne Burke’s and Scott McVarish’s proposal to create additional Career Path Academies at our high school. At the Culver Crest Neighborhood Assn. debate and previously, she stated, “I get very nervous when we talk about academies because I wouldn’t want to ask any grown-up or child for that matter to make a choice in ninth, 10th, 11th or 12th grade.”
Perhaps she is confused about the concept of academies, which is troubling enough in and of itself. It is a concept gaining a great deal of support in the real-world educational community. Educators recognize that high school students can get a head start on careers in everything from industrial trades to science, technology and engineering while fulfilling all existing high school requirements.
Indeed, our District’s incredibly successful Academy of Visual and Performing Arts is precisely the sort of model Ms. Burke and Mr. McVarish want to expand upon. Our community embraces this program, which offers young people who are inspired by the arts to devote extra time to their passion.
I believe most in our community would want to support any young person who knows the life path he or she wishes to walk on in the same way. Kelly’s attitude seems to be either judgmental, uninformed, or highly political. Whatever the case, it again suggests she has not spent enough time truly earning a spot on the School Board.
Ms. Stuart, longtime community activist, may be contacted at stuartlauraj@gmail.com
“In Culver City, you have to earn things. Candidate Kelly Kent has not earned a place as an elected official.”
In Culver City (as elsewhere) you earn a place as an elected official by garnering more votes than your opponent. That’s it. There is no elite gatekeeper– not even a “longtime community activist”– who gets to unilaterally proclaim otherwise. So what *has* Kelly Kent earned? Well, speaking as someone who works closely with Kelly Kent at our little neighborhood Title I school, and who knows the passion and organizing skills that she brings to the table there and elsewhere, and whose own two school-age children are tangibly benefitting from Kelly’s gifts most every day on campus, I can personally attest that Kelly Kent has earned my vote and has earned my support. She’s earned it in spades.
The only thing Ms. Stuart’s ugly hit-piece has earned is my pity and revulsion. We’re better than this.
Kelly’s family shouldn’t be brought into this, either.
This is absolutely a new low for the B and McV campaign which is becoming more and more vicious. How do you expect people to vote for your candidates when your campaign appears to be based on abusing your fellow candidates with smears and half-truths? Plus taking this picture of Kelly’s amazing kids from her campaign Facebook page is awful (a page which has tonnes more followers than the rather dull B and McV page BTW). This just shows how much you actually care about children doesn’t it? This is scummy politics. Really scummy.
Oh and one more teeny tiny detail, the picture you have ripped from Kelly’s page is a picture taken from the Introduction to Behavioral Neuroscience class that Kelly taught at Moorpark College. So maybe just maybe you have helped to publicize Kelly’s impeccable experience as an Educator.
It’s rough when facts get in the way of a good ‘story’.
The picture was put there by The Front Page Online. As was the headline.
Picture of Kelly Kent teaching when you claim she’s not a teacher.
Nice dramatic juxtaposition.
But you wrote the letter and did the weird stalking.
Well done you!
As someone who, like Ms. Stuart, is currently serving our community as a member of a city commission, I am gravely disappointed to read an article such as this. Not only because of the many factual errors, but its tone marks a new low in civic discourse. When gossip and innuendo take the place of reasoned debate and civility, we are in grave trouble as a city. Worse still, to see a piece like this written by the chairperson of a city commission — let alone the same commission as the person they are attacking — makes me question the capability of that individual to lead. Whatever our opinions on the school board election, there is no reason to engage in personal attacks, or use one’s supposed standing in the community to bully. What I have witnessed over these past weeks has given me great reason to worry about the future of our city’s electoral process, as there has not only been a horrific shift in tone, but a stunning lack of oversight when it comes to fairness, accuracy and integrity. When it is time for that conversation, this article will surely be one of the most egregious examples of where we went wrong as a community.
Per PBeal’s comment about Candidate Kelly’s “impeccable experience at Moorpark College,” I decided to check with Google…Rate My Professor, Moorpark College, Kelly Kent. Thirteen of her students rated her. She was rated fourth worst instructor of all those teachers rated at Moorpark College. She no longer teaches there or anywhere else.
Great idea! I looked at the Rate My Professor site, too, and Kelly’s aggregate score is an A, with positive feedback outweighing the bad by a wide margin, and solid improvement over time. Thanks very much for pointing this out.
Just to be clear, we are voting for School Board members, whose job it is to define the goals and vision for our School District. Let’s keep our eyes on the prize.
As voters we must look at the positions that the Board members support, if they are committed to making sure ALL students are prepared for college and career.
I know Kelly Kent is committed to this important goal, and that is why I am voting ONLY for her.
My first comment on this sight, though I have followed it closely. Seems like there is a lot of anger, on both sides. Most of these comments are distasteful in my opinion. I don’t know anyone involved but Laura Stuart has raised some, possibly, important questions. I remember another candidate was questioned over his job from a decade ago and “PBeale” said he was “arrogant” for not responding. While any candidate gets to determine what arguments they get pulled into, I would hope that PBeale encourages what I imagine is her friend. Kelly Kent, to respond to these points. I would also hope that everyone begins to conduct themselves with less anger, less attacks, and more answers. I think school board is a volunteer position so keep this election in perspective.
PBeal completely misunderstood RateNyProfessor.com. The A- rating is the average grade the raters RECEIVED, not the grading of the instructor. This is the definition from the website: AVERAGE GRADE “Raters can share the grades they received in a professor’s class when rating the professor. The Average Grade a professor gives is calculated from the grades indicated by raters. N/A means a grade hasn’t been provided.” Kelly Kent actually
an overall rating of 3.0 out of 5.0.
Actually Kelly was recently asked to apply for tenure track because her students and the faculty love her.
Mr Ehrlich – two things:
A) Did you not read Len Dickter’s post about gossip and innuendo take the place of reasoned debate and civility
B) I don’t think you want to encourage anyone to ‘google’ of one of the candidates that you so rabidly support
When we’re trolling for dirt in a candidate’s RateMyProfessor profile, it officially means that we’ve struck bottom, civically and politically.
I can’t wait to vote for Kelly. But even more, I can NOT wait for this election campaign to be over. Yucko to this.
Mr Williams the issue isn’t that the ‘candidate was questioned over his JOB from a decade ago’.
It’s that when you Google the candidate in question (something that Mr Ehrlich appears to be encouraging us to do) there appears to be a detailed history of financial mismanagement and litigious behavior. I said in a post from a few weeks back, that as a voter I had grave concerns about this, and that the candidate in question should take the chance to address this issue to the voting public – people that he wants to represent and people that he’s asking to trust him with millions of dollars worth of civic debt. I think that refusing to address this is arrogant when you’re expecting people to vote for you and entrust you with involvement with this much money.
Mr. Williams,
Whether the questions relating to the candidate’s past were about a job that was held 10 years ago or not, they are still valid questions. In fact, a candidate running for any political office should know that what has happened in their past is likely to come up during their campaign and be prepared to answer those questions instead of framing them as personal attacks. Maybe candidates do get to determine what arguments they get pulled into, but considering that the candidate promotes his 10 years working for CTA in his campaign literature, it shouldn’t surprise him (or you) that he is asked about his tenure there and the unfortunate events that evolved under his leadership.
And, yes, ignoring those questions, or pretending the issue is a “non-issue” that needn’t be addressed, appears arrogant. I find it concerning that you would urge Dr. Kent to respond to Ms. Stuart’s comments, but appear to hold the other candidate to an entirely different standard. Perhaps, you could urge your friend to be more forthcoming?
Candidates that run for office in our town should be model citizens with exemplary backgrounds that will serve our community without bias, set a good example for our children and represent us honorably to those outside of our community.
Is a candidate with a past mired in controversy the best choice or even a good choice for school board? Shouldn’t we, as residents and voters in Culver City, be discussing THAT? And, shouldn’t we be at least a bit concerned that there are leaders in our community that are willing to entirely ignore or make excuses for the controversy surrounding this or any candidate’s past?
In the last two elections, we have allowed ourselves to become victims of monumental “redirection” campaigns. We have allowed others to frame what the important issues are for us instead of drawing our own conclusions. And because we have stood by and allowed this to happen, our school board campaigns have been reduced to ridiculous pettiness and nasty personal attacks….some of it out in the open, but much more of it behind the scenes. Shame on us.
In this year’s campaign we are being treated to letters that question how long the Lin Howe Spanish classes have been in session, whether Dr. Kent is a “real” professor, whether she has “earned” a place on the board, whether she was a proponent of the bond, etc., etc. Of course, if you attended the Ask2Know kids forum, you also learned that Ms. Burke is a proponent of co-ed bathrooms, can sing and crack jokes, and that Mr. McVarish can relate to the boys’ concerns for privacy in the boys’ bathrooms because he is the only one (of the candidates on the dais at that forum) that uses a urinal and understands that you have to be concerned about “splash back.” It’s no wonder that they were endorsed by the kids, but really??????
Are we THAT determined to make a mockery out of every campaign and seriously, don’t we have much more important things to talk about?
John Williams, there is some compensation for being on the school board. It certainly feels like a volunteer job considering the amount of work in relation to the stipend. Since you’ve asked for information, here’s the link to the annual report from the Oct 13th meeting.
http://www.boarddocs.com/ca/ccusd/Board.nsf/Public
Clearly, Ms Hamme is a Kelly Kent supporter and I agree with her whole-heartedly when she writes:
“Candidates that run for office in our town should be model citizens with exemplary backgrounds that will serve our community without bias, set a good example for our children and represent us honorably to those outside of our community.”
Electing candidates that reflect a local community’s core values is important. Ms Kent has the right, as we all do, as private citizens not to say the Pledge of Allegiance”to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic, for which it (the flag) stands…”
But, now Ms Kent is running to represent our community. What kind of example will this community send if we elect this non-pledging representative? Would this be a good example for our children and those outside our community?
Ms Kent has yet to personally address this issue. She has relied on supporters to speak for her; to try and dissuade potential voters from thinking that this is an important issue.
Yet, before taking office, Ms Kent will have to be sworn in to uphold the US Constitution–something which our flag also stands for. If elected, will she take the oath of office, but remain publicly defiant in reaffirming her allegiance, by not saying the pledge?
Sounds hypocritical to me.
So it’s rumored that Dr. Kent is rumored does not to say the pledge of allegiance. Rumored. IF“Candidates that run for office in our town should be model citizens with exemplary backgrounds that will serve our community …” and IF she has tried to “…dissuade potential voters from thinking that this is an important issue” — where does that leave voters in judging Mr. McVarish, who has not addressed his past “egregious financial mismanagement” as the Executive Director of the Teacher’s Association of Long Beach, and yet is now touting himself as an expert on how to spend the bond money?
I am so embarrassed for my community. The petty back and forth by all three candidates’ supporters is unbelievable.
If you truly care about Culver City, and the children, I encourage everyone to focus on the talents your candidate brings to the table.
The children of our community deserve better!
Laurin– It is not a rumor! I brought this up early on in the campaign and Ms Kent’s supporters hoped that it would fade away before the election. Here are various links to meetings of the PRCS that clearly show Ms Kent not saying the pledge:
http://www.culvercity.org/Government/Misc/Webcast.aspx?id=010615
http://www.culvercity.org/Government/Misc/Webcast.aspx?id=031815
http://culver-city.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?publish_id=ad8c5820-58ae-11e5-ab53-00219ba2f017
So, it is not a question of it being a rumor or “if” she does or doesn’t say it–clearly she doesn’t. This brings up the question of why she doesn’t. This should not be answered by her supporters, but, only by Ms Kent herself.
So I ask you, Ms Kent: Why don’t you reaffirm your allegiance to our country by repeating our Pledge of Allegiance?
In my many communications with Culver City voters over the past month regarding the CCUSD Board election and Kelly Kent’s candidacy for it, many, many topics have come up. Language immersion, the bond, academies, equity, GATE., etc. Not one voter– not one real actual live human being– has asked which of the candidates do and do personally recite the pledge of allegiance. For that, and for so much else, Culver City voters have a lot to be proud of. George Laase? Not nearly so much.
But hey, you be you, George.
I don’t think we should be embarrassed to want to understand what happened here:
http://www.presstelegram.com/technology/20080214/talbs-mcvarish-resigns-as-leader
Everybody else can write their last minute rumors and misleading information about all three candidates, but, I’m still waiting for Ms Kent’s own explanation in this publication.
George, since you appear to be literally the only person in the entire city who is aching for Kelly Kent to personally and specifically address that “issue”, why don’t you go ahead and email her yourself and ask? Her campaign email address is: info@kellyforculvercityschools.com.
Let’s not forget, elected officials are for the people. And while Laura starts out her little piece talking about earning the right to be elected, like Patrick states in his comment, being elected is what earns you. I’m fully aware of the sad statistic that only 20% of CC will vote, but that 20% still matters. I’d love to see that number increase. For this election and others. This is OUR community, OUR schools. We elect those officials on the board, they work for us. Do not let anyone dictate who those people on the board should be. Have your opinions and share them so that people can make an informed decision but then step aside and let people decide.
And Laura, in the words of one of the greatest poets of our time, Bye Felicia.
George,
You might be interested to know that there are a few religions that actually prohibit their worshippers from pledging allegiance to the flag or any other entity. Jehovah’s Witnesses and Seventh Day Adventists are two of them. I have no personal knowledge of Dr. Kent’s religion, nor is it my business (or yours), but this could be the reason she doesn’t recite the pledge. And as you stated, it is her right under the First Amendment of the constitution NOT to do so. Not saying the pledge doesn’t automatically make you ineligible to represent your community, nor does it mean that you couldn’t do it well.
So, what exactly is your gripe?
Please feel free to vote for whomever you choose to in this election and make sure you base your vote on whatever petty considerations you feel are important. It is clear that you feel that someone with a questionable background is far more deserving of office than someone who doesn’t say the Pledge of Allegiance. Good to see that you will be focusing on what’s important when you enter the voting booth on November 3rd.
Oh, wait….didn’t you share with me a long time ago that you are not a registered voter and have never voted in any election? I remember urging you to register and do your “civic duty” years ago when we used to meet with Karlo for his Education Advisory Committee meetings. Congratulations if you have finally gotten around to doing it, George…good for you!
Best,
Debbie
I can confirm, the name George Laase is not in the registered voter file.
Whether or not George Laase or anyone else is not a registered voter does not remove their ability to exercise free speech. Whether a resident is registered or not (and some can’t be), all residents end up being represented by those we elect to our School Board (or City Council.)
I learned this long ago, when I was a teenager and was pissed because the neighbor next door, who lived on a major street, had a sign for the opposing candidate from who I was working for and, yup, not a registered voter in the house.
My mother gently told me that I should have known better from my civics classes, and of course, Mother always knows best. I subsequently learned that they neighbors were just renters and the owner of the home was a registered voter and approved the sign placement. His tenants didn’t care a whit. Lessons learned for me in future campaigns.
Ms. Alexander,
You have missed the entire point of my comment.
Of course, George is entitled to the right of free speech….that was never in question. When he demanded an explanation from Dr. Kent about her exercising the very same right and accused her of hypocrisy, he had failed to consider a side to the issue that I felt should be considered.
I have known George for years and have known him to engage in community politics from time to time, but never this vociferously. It has always been surprising to me that he never wanted to exercise his right to fully participate in the election process. I was hoping that his very vocal participation in this campaign may have signaled his willingness to “fully engage.”
With that being said, I notice that the campaign for which you work had a lot to say about how Dr. Kent allegedly didn’t vote for the bond. May I ask how would you know that? I assume there is a way to investigate people’s voting records (isn’t ANYTHING private these days?) as a way to possibly find something that will help get your candidates elected. That apparently is OK with you, but then you turn around and voice indignation over my comment to George?
To use George’s phrase, that “sounds hypocritical to me.”
Best,
Debbie