Progressive school board candidates

I have read some coverage of the School Board race including last night's forum. The Herald had candidates arguing over who is accountable for the acheivement gap, while the DTH had them debating srategies for addressing it. Either way it's pretty much the same story.

We all want to close the gap, but School Board debates seem to be conducted in some code I don't understand to avoid touching the lightning rod of racism - which is really at the heart of the problem. So you tell me, readers: Who are the progressives in this race and why?



Ruby, it's hard to answer the question as you've phrased it. What does it mean to be a "progressive" in a school board election?

I thought the candidates did a good job last night and gave several progressive responses. When asked for ideas of what could be done differently to address the continuing achievement gap, most of the respondents said that good progress was being made with elementary and middle schools and that new efforts should be directed at high school students.
Pam Hemminger said she would talk to the kids themselves. While we might wonder why that wasn't done, oh say 15 years ago, it's a progressive idea for this particular school board.
Jeff Danner said he would explore programs that were having a positive impact in other districts (benchmarking), such as Bright Ideas (DPI/Duke collaboration to equip elementary teachers with the talents and tools necessary for the early identification of minority and/or other students for participation in academically intellectual (AIG) gifted programs. He also advocated for integrating more art into the standard curriculum, an approach that is being shown to have very positive results with elementary and middle school minority students.
Jean Hamilton gave the best response IMHO. She noted that there is data to show that students are starting to fail as early as 3rd grade and that by high school they are in serious trouble. That's the type of data driven decision making, also promoted by Jeff Danner, that I would like to see more of. While I didn't think much of her solution to the problem (teaching assistants for high school), her way of reframing the question gave me hope that she would bring a different perspective to the SB. Jean also gave a more direct response to the question about how to make school administrators more accountable for the continuing failure to make good progress on closing the gap (using bonus and contractors as leverage).

Thanks Terri, your summary was more illuminating and balanced than what I read in the papers.

Thanks, Terri. I guess I am still lacking my own analysis of the problems and solutions. They all sound reasonably good to me.

Eric, to the extent that readers here consider themselves progressive, I figure they can just talk about which candidates they like and why. As I said on an other thread, OP doesn't own "progressivism" any more than the Sierra Club owns environmentalism. There are probably as many definitions of it as there are readers.

Ruby, I wasn't saying anything about OP at all, let alone implying it owns progressivism. I was just trying to understand what you were asking so that I could figure out whether and how to answer.

In any event, I'm planning on voting for Jeff Danner and Jean Hamilton for sure. I may just leave it at that and not vote for 3. I'm still thinking about Pam Hemminger. I'm unlikely to support Lisa Stuckey, even though she has always struck me as a nice, hardworking person.

The current board's approaches to narrowing the minority achievement gap have met with mixed success (at very best), and have gone nowhere at the high school level, so I'm all for some fresh faces.

This is truly bizarre. In a recent twisted moment, I thought about voting exactly as you've described.
Now, tell me about Hamilton. What does she offer--- besides that thing I don't like?

BTW, I'm definitely voting for Danner. He has an excellent head and heart.


I'd encourage you to come to the OCDW forum next Wed. if you have the time. I've found Jean Hamilton to be very bright and will almost definitely vote her as well as Jeff Danner.

Mary, I've never met Jean Hamilton, so I can only go on what I'm reading and hearing about her. But here are some of the things I like about her candidacy: She's a trained economist, comfortable with the idea and mechanics of measuring things to see how they're working. She was a college professor and has personal experience with education. She's a strong supporter of Bright IDEA, which strikes me as a promising strategy for continuing to narrow the achievement gap. She's black, and not only will add to the diversity of the board but will have a more personal and intuitive understanding of the challenges facing minority children in our schools than all of the other candidates. She's interested in smaller class sizes and more teaching assistants. She's very clear about valuing the importance of clear communication between the district and parents. And, finally, as you know, she has voiced support for the LEAP program. I know the last one doesn't thrill you, but perhaps the other factors will.

For what it's worth, I'm voting ONLY for Jean Hamilton and Jeff Danner. Can folks give me a reasoned argument for voting for either Stuckey or Hemminger?

I don't know Lisa Stuckey. In meetings she seems smart and fair. I have the sense that Lisa is a thoroughly committed school board member. Many people I know have high regard for Lisa.

I do know Pam Hemminger. She coached one of my sons in soccer for years. She is an excellent coach and a good person. She is very approachable and responsive. She is down to earth and all common sense. She understands who she is. She's smart, organized, and no nonsense. Pam has a very child-centered life and Pam really cares about all children.

I don't know Jean Hamilton. I would like to meet Jean. One of my best friends really likes Jean and has much respect for her.

Jeff, I do know. He's a great listener, very smart, very approachable, and very committed to education. Jeff is someone you can disagree with without feeling defensive. Jeff and I are on the Seawell SGC together and Jeff always has something important to add to discussions. Jeff thinks about things deeply. He articulates problems well. He is very skilled at identifying and defining possible solutions. He cares about all students. Jeff is a win for everybody.

It occurs to me that the 4 people running for school board are among the 4 most grounded, most transparent, most impeccable candidates running for any office this season.

Make that:
It occurs to me that the 4 people running for school board are among the most grounded, most transparent, most impeccable candidates running for any office this season.

Just a little plug for Lisa---Worked w/ her as the rep. to the Homestead/High School Task force to fix the pedestrian problems in the area. Very even and thoughtful problem solver (and manages to be quite cheerful about it all. How refreshing.)


I've been impressed with Lisa's demeanor and her knowledge. The problem is that I really believe we need an administrative shakeup. Board/staff relationships are tricky; the School Board is a bit too deferential to staff for my tastes. For the life of me, I can't imagine why the Board has been so patient with the 20+ failing record on serving minority children.

This thread has been very constructive and everyone's contributions have helped me in my own decision process. As I know the least about Jeff Danner, I especially appreciate Mary's insights from Seawell SGC.

Overall, I think we are fortunate that these four are willing to run and serve. All four have clearly grasped the key challenges facing the district and are sincerely interested in addressing them. Importantly, each candidate, as Mary would say, has "an excellent head and heart."

Some might be tempted to decide that it does not matter who wins since no candidate sets off alarms. But, the question "who are the progressives in this race and why" was posed and I would like to try to answer it. To me, the most PROGRESSive candidates are the ones who have the best chance of effecting the PROGRESS that we desperately need.

There are three areas where I see appreciable differences among the candidates that may have an impact on progress.


Jean Hamilton has expressed interest in Bright IDEA as a possibility for addressing this problem. I know she is also up to speed on KIPP although I don't know what she thinks about it or its potential relevance for CHCCS.

Jeff Danner, while not citing specific programs or approaches, has been explicit about the need to look at other communities for ideas that work.

The incumbents, understandably, are more inclined to be patient with current efforts. The district has invested heavily -- financially, time wise, emotionally -- in "closing the gap" but results have been disappointing.

I hope that the district's current efforts pan out but, seeing no light at the end of the tunnel, I want to know that BOE members have invested some thinking in a "Plan B."


My understanding is that the voters elect the BOE, and the Board hires and manages the Superintendent. In other words, the Board, acting for the community, is supposedly in charge.

As Terri suggested above, the Board often appears to be too deferential to the Superintendent and his staff. Many people have expressed confusion about the respective responsibilities and powers of the BOE and Lincoln Center. Such a cozy (and confusing) relationship is not conducive to "shaking things up" and generating change. Furthermore, it weakens the link between the larger community and the district administration.

As I get to vote for the school board members, but cannot vote for Superintendent, I prefer that the BOE members be the ones who are clearly in charge.

I don't know how much the candidates differ in this area but, from what I have seen and heard so far, Jean Hamilton and Jeff Danner sound like they would be more independent. My gut feel is that they will be more likely to assert the Board's authority, especially with regard to its role as the Superintendent's employer. This will be essential to truly ensure "accountability" for addressing the achievement gap and other crucial issues.


Our district's programs and policies directly affect 11,000 children and how tens of millions of dollars are applied to education. At all times, the programs that we employ or consider should be subjected to rigorous analysis and constructive skepticism. Decisions based on faith and philosophies should at least be backed up by evidence of success and cost-effectiveness.

Both Hamilton and Danner appear to be most prepared to take this approach based on their educational backgrounds (she has a doctorate in economics and he has one in chemical engineering, I believe) and their current job responsibilities. More importantly, from listening to them, this passion for research and assessment seems to be part of their personalities and will extend into their BOE work.

Again, we have four great candidates with similar goals. Regardless of the outcome, the Board will not move sharply in one direction or the other. There will be no revolution, so to speak, and that is probably a good thing. But, we absolutely need some evolution because that is the route to PROGRESS. Jean Hamilton and Jeff Danner are most likely to make that happen.

Excellent summary Frank. The only point I would add is that a vote for Jean ANDJeff makes it slightly more possible that change might occur. It's very difficult for a single board member to make any significant difference; two though might have a chance.

Hello. This is a message from Jeff Danner. I am happy to see a School Board related thread on the OP. I thought I would address a couple of issues on this post. Some background on me, my "progressive" credentials, the achievement gap, the board-administration relationship, and my approach to problems and issues. I'll close with why I am running for School Board and why I believe I am qualified. My apologies in advance for a lengthy post.

I have lived in CH for 5.5 years now and have two children at Seawell Elementary. My wife and I have been very pleased with the school. Until the spring of this year I had a job which, due to travel, precluded me getting involved in community activities. I was responsible for engineering activites in 23 facilities located in 12 different countries. This spring I changed jobs and industries and now come home every night. Due to this change, I have had a chance to get in involved, and now serve on the Seawell SGC, coach my kids soccer teams, and am running for the BOE.

So am I a progressive? I have been a democrat all of my life, I have been a member of the Sierra Club and the Chesapeake Bay Fondation. But fundamentally I consider myself to be a progressive, because I believe that the major failing of government at all levels is that decisions are often made based on what people believe to be true, rather than what actually is true. Now, I understand that this may be the boring, engineer version (Frank is correct I have a Ph.D in Chemical Engineer) of "progressive", but never-the-less I think that setting policy, allocating resource, and making decisions based on the best available data is truly progressive.

Discussing the minory achievement gap as a BOE candidate is an interesting challenge. The gap in achievement is occuring in the schools but the root causes are occurring in society at large. Therefore, while the school district must do whatever it can to address this problem, it must be recognized that the whole community must get involved in the solution. To address our minority student achievement gap, I have been advocating greater community-school district cooperation as well as being open to learning from other districts who are achieving greater success. We also need to refocus our efforts in getting the parents of non-proficient students engaged in the schools. Study after study demonstrates that parental involvement is key in improving student performance.

With regard to the relationship between the board and the adminstration, my background in corporate life serves me well. I have a clear understanding of the governance and policy setting role of the board. Its function is nearly identical to the role of a board of directors in a corporation, an environment I know well. I take the School Board's role in runnning the district very seriously and would not take a deferential position to the adminstration.

I touched on my approach to problem solving earlier. When resources are allocated to any program performance criteria need to be set and and agreed upon up front. Otherwise no rational decision can be reached as to whether the program was a sucess or a failure. This is the only way I know to properly allocate resources in a complex system like a school district.

Finally, I am running for school board because I recognize that having a great public school education got me off to a great start in life. I want to help ensure that the children of our community have he same advantages that I did. Furthermore, I live in the competative, global econmony which they are about to enter every day. I think that they need a perspective like mine on the school board to ensure that the correct programs are put in place to prepare them for their futures.

I hope that this thread and other similar threads continue on the OP over the next few weeks to provide a full discussion of key School Board issues.

i think everyone on the board is talking about the wrong thing. it's not an achievement gap, it's an instruction gap. our kids aren't failing -- our teacher training system is. the training most teachers get (at schools of education and through in-service professional development) isn't based on current brain research or known best-practice. it's the same old same old, with a mod on powerpoint tossed in. if we want to improve our kids' academic performance, then let's improve the performance of the people who teach them by giving them better tools and strategies.

additionally, there is evidence that kids are marked (at least tacitly) for future academic performance by the end of 3rd grade. this is why early childhood education and solid training for early years teachers is so critical.

let's stop laying blame and start actually taking steps to help teachers become better instructors and help kids become better prepared for life after graduation.

Mark Peters, Do you understand why the online PTA candidate survey is still not readable?

Mary--I didn't have any trouble--though the print IS rather small. I got it as a PDF file...Which I CAN'T copy and paste, or I'd offer to e-mail it to you.


Thanks, Melanie,
I'm having computer problems.

Jeff D.,

Thanks for posting.

Mary R.,

I have the PTA stuff as a Word file that can be emailed.

In this morning's Herald-Sun, I see that PAGE (Partners for the Advancement of Gifted Education) parent and school board member, Mike Kelley, was the lone dissenter in voting to approve renewal of Neil Pedersen's contract at this time.

Clearly, the PAGE group is on the attack or at least they are on a serious mission. On September, 20th, another PAGE parent wrote this in the CHN:

“It is incorrect, however, to conclude that the lack of focus on minority learners is due to actions of parents of academically gifted students; they are not the reason that the board has failed to significantly raise minority achievement. Parents of AG students write e-mails and speak at board meetings to fight the consistent elimination of services to their children by the Board of Education. Yet somehow they are being blamed for a problem that lies in the hands of the superintendent and the board, especially the chair and vice chair…………………Clearly, we need some new faces on the board”.

Now, Frank McBride's post above is reasoned and worthy of serious consideration, but I still need some convincing that PAGE is planning on offering friendly and constructive direction to our schools; I want to make sure that this is not a hostile and self-serving takeover.

BTW, is PAGE generating the copious letters to the editor for Jean?

Yes, Mary, they are which is why I will NOT be voting for Jean in November. PAGE already has an advocate on the board with Mike Kelley. We need board members who have publically advocated for all the children, not just the gifted ones. I will vote for Pam Hemminger and Lisa Stuckey.

Thanks for the perspective Laura. I agree, we have enough PAGE advocates on the board. Hamilton's answer to the first question in the PTA Council Survey concerns me. Clearly, LEAP is a huge concern of hers.

This may be of interest to candidates for all offices:

The 4th Annual Equity and Excellence for All Students Educational Summit on Minority Achievement is on Tuesday, October 25th, from 5:30 to 7:30 p.m. at Smith Middle School. There will be general sessions on:
-Community Resources
-Overcoming the Digital Divide
-How Can the Community Support the MSA (Minority Student Achievement) Plan?


Will you allow Jean's enthusiasm for LEAP blind you to the incredible talents she brings to the board? I'm surprised if you do.

I'm voting for Jean. Obviously not because of her advocacy of gifted programs (I am sure you have seen me challenge Eric and others here on OP on whether a gifted program that admits such a large number of students is good for other students. I strongly believe that academically strong children in the classroom "bootstrap" less talented ones. I also believe that academically strong children lose something essential--perhaps an immunity to elitism or an exposure to differing values and priorities--in being removed from the general student population.)

Jean strikes me as someone who can walk and chew gum at the same time. It's unlikely that LEAP would take a lot of her time and energy--it's already there, up and running--what's there for her to do? PAGE can advocate for her, and I can appreciate their active support for her candidacy. My enthusiasm is berthed in another harbor: the hope for a new beginning, a fresh, new, and expert effort at a complex and daunting problem: closing the SES and race achievement gaps.

I'm pretty normal person, capable of not seeing clearly.

Unfortunately, I haven't met Jean, and I haven't been to any school board forums yet. I will attend or watch the Board of Education Candidate Forum (Wednesday, October 26, 2005, 7:00 pm - 9:00 pm, Carrboro Town Hall or Channel 18). I haven't decided how to cast my 3 votes.

What is Jean's area of expertise in economics?

Quick confession--- I had lunch today with a very good friend of mine. She showed up wearing a Jean Hamilton sticker.

make that, "I'm a...

I spoke with Jean after the candidates forum on Wednesday and feel that her support for LEAP is not being fairly represented. Her position is that we shouldn't be making choices about which children receive challenging, motivating instruction.

We have a structural problem in our school system and at this point, I think LEAP is just a distraction from the fact that classroom sizes are too large for teachers to become competent with the oft-maligned differentiation. We have teachers who are completely overworked, who need help. Instead, we have classrooms that are composed of kids who are grade levels ahead of themselves as well as kids who are not where they should be. And we have parents complaining about teachers who work harder for less emotional or financial reward than most of us would tolerate.

As long as the problems with our schools are attributed to a deficiency theory (kids need remediation, teachers need professional development), we're doing everything possible. What I want is to get a school board composed of people who will not continue to reward an administration that has not made any significant progress on solving the same old problems after 20 years of effort. How can anyone find it acceptable that children who have gone through this system need remediation? If kids who have been in this system throughout elementary and middle school are getting to high school and failing their EOGs, then why isn't there a huge administrative push to identify the problems with the elementary and middle school programs? Where is the research on our student population that helps us understand the nature of the problems? All I ever see is an endless menu of solutions of the day.

I want school board members who will step back and look at the entire system (administration included) with a critical eye and not accept the status quo. Jean's background convinces me that she will demand data before jumping into the next new solution to closing the achievement gap or new programs forced onto teachers. That's why Jean (as well as Jeff Danner) will be getting my vote.
(Hope this is coherent, had a long day at the state fair. If anyone is going this weekend, be sure and check out the pumpkin carving by the horticultural exhibits!)

Well, Terri, if I were running for school board I would advocate a revolution (and be soundly defeated).

I think too much bureaucracy and policy and research and testing are the problem. These things drain classroom resources and prevent teachers from engaging in the natural teaching process much of the time.

Right now, I think public education absolutely depends on teachers who can excavate the natural teaching process and cast off the layers of obstacles we have placed in their way.

I see the locus of control for educators drifting further and further away from the classroom. School site-based management is dying. Teaching to the test is destroying love of learning and creativity. Schools are becoming more impersonal.

Ultimately, I think most people like our safe, conservative, bland, school system. I don't feel the revolution coming. I personally think that we need a more heart-centered, community-focused approach to education. Unfortunately, I don't think most people are ready to believe that the heart can coexist with the head in public education. Alienating head-centered education is acceptable to most.

In your post, you ask where the research is that helps us to understand the nature of the problem of low achievement amongst minority children.

It's pretty clear to me that separation in the community, unequal economic opportunity and a myriad of other obstacles to social mobility and subsequent inclusion are the nature of the problem.

I personally do not think that Pedersen and Stuckey are unaware of the nature of the problem or of the solutions out there. I do think that there are limitations as to how much the superintendent and the school board chair can do to fix the profound structural problems in our economic system that create at-risk children in the first place.

I have much respect for Neil Pedersen and Lisa Stuckey. I have no doubt that they are committed to every child, and I have respect for their good faith efforts to distribute limited resources fairly. If our school system commits more resources to students who are most at risk for becoming nonproductive citizens, I applaud that. I don't begrudge giving more help to those who need it most. I am extremely pleased with the strong focus on community involvement that Pedersen and Stuckey promote.


I too am very impressed by Lisa Stuckey and by Pam Hemminger. Both are clearly dedicated to the children of the community and to the school system. In my case votes for Danner and Hamilton are NOT votes against Pam or Lisa.

I also agree that the superintendent and the school board can do little to impact the structural problems in our economic system. However, I do think school administrators could be more proactive in working with other elected officials to devise a systemic approach to dealing with what are community issues rather than just educational issues. Besides the obvious issues of poverty that have a direct impact on student performance, there are other issues such as the impact of higher density zoning within built neighborhoods and the impact on school buildings/populations that I feel warrant closer communications between the schools and local governments.

I also agree with you that there are too many bureaucratic requirements on the schools in terms of testing and reporting. Where we differ is that I don't see research and evaluation as bureaucratic. Schools of education frequently encourage teachers to do their own classroom research. In fact, it's a necessary element of successful differentiation or meeting the unique needs of individual children. Institutional research, on the other hand, provides the feedback necessary for improving practice within classrooms and schools as well as within administrative functions. The testing and reporting functions mandated by federal and state do not provide the same level of feedback or data needed for instructional improvement.

And finally, I too want a "heart-centered, community-focused approach to education." Can't imagine anyone wanting anything different. We may just all see different paths to reaching that goal.

Terry wrote "Besides the obvious issues of poverty that have a direct impact on student performance, there are other issues such as the impact of higher density zoning within built neighborhoods and the impact on school buildings/populations that I feel warrant closer communications between the schools and local governments."

I couldn't agree with you more! That is one of many reasons I support Pam Hemminger. When she ran for County Commissioner last year, she gained valuable knowledge of the BOCC and it's impact on the schools, both financially, and in terms of managing growth. She has also maintained close ties with several commissioners. Having a good working relationship between the BOE and BOCC is crucial and Pam is an important like between the two bodies.

How much power do the schools have in the residential permiting process?

Has a residential project ever been denied soley because the school system would not issue a CAPS (Certificate of Adequacy of Public School Facilities)?

Are the problems we are having with school crowding right now due to things that happened before CAPS was instituted--- or is the feedback system not working?

Has a residential project ever been denied soley because the school system would not issue a CAPS (Certificate of Adequacy of Public School Facilities)?

Permits would only be "delayed" under the Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance (SAPFO). SAPFO is still untested, so it remains to be seen if it would actually delay any permits or speed up any new school capacity.

Are the problems we are having with school crowding right now due to things that happened before CAPS was instituted— or is the feedback system not working?

SAPFO is still new and is supposed to alleviate overcrowding starting after city HS3, which was explicitly excluded from SAPFO.

The first test of SAPFO will be with city ES10, particularly with significant non-school capital projects on the horizon which will compete with the 15% limit of operating budget spent on debt service. That is, if these projects get underway that put us at our max allowed debt service when ES10 is needed, then it remains to be seen how it will be handled. How well will it be handled administratively (ie - like recent problems in Hillsborough)? How will the BOCC respond (they likely would not want to be viewed as developer-unfriendly)? Will SAPFO withstand a lawsuit from a developer? Could citizens sue to have SAPFO enforced if the county mis-steps (probably not, because they could not take on the potential personal liability if the developer enjoins the lawsuit, as seen in a recent Carrboro(?) challenge).


Thanks Mark. Sounds like it's mostly a good faith effort.

I didn't really answer your first question, which is relevant given that this is a thread about school board candidates. As I understand it, the schools have no direct power in the permitting process. The county and possibly the municipalities enforce SAPFO. The schools report population trends to the county as input to SAPFO, which is recertified annually by all signatories (OC, CH, C'boro, H'boro). Note that Mebane is a glaring omission in the signatory list.


If we consider schools to be part of the community infrastructure, as basic as roads, parks, and utilities, then shouldn't school officials play an active role in growth discussions? I'm not advocating for them to serve as quasi town council members, but the communications process between school and town leaders needs to be more public and interactive. At minimum, school officials should be protecting the quality of our schools by asking the tough questions about the impact growth decisions are having on our ability to provide quality educational services for all children.


School officials do play an active role in communicating their capital needs and the communication process is as public as the status quo BOCC agenda and meeting process. The BOEs and BOCC meet occasionally and discuss these topics.

If you are suggesting that the BOEs take positions on growth policy, then I disagree. That is in the purview of the BOCC and munis. The BOE has enough to focus on without treading into this area. The BOEs/staff are responsible for communicating what the facility needs would be for the community growth outlined by the planning boards/staff.



Communicating capital needs is not what I was talking about. Nor am I advocating "take positions on growth policy." I am advocating interaction between school officials and planning administrators. Weren't you one of the critics of the siting on Twin Lakes school? As I recall critics were advocating for reversing its site with that of the park so that children living to the south of the site could walk safely. Then there was the huge outcry over redistricting a couple of years ago, much of which was driven by the large student population in Lake Hogan Farms. There's also budget issues (which do we cut: teacher assistants or gifted ed?) related to the large in-migration to our school system. These aren't just school issues. The local governments have quarterly(?) Assembly of Government meetings. Why shouldn't those meetings include school officials, utility officials, etc. so that planning decisions more fully represents the infrastructure realities? Call me a community gestaltist!

I am advocating interaction between school officials and planning administrators.

I completely agree with this statement. I was shocked at the lack of this interaction at Twin Creeks, as you point out.

The commissioners have had periodic BOCC/BOE joint meetings, and they have been more civil than in recent years. Also, reps from both BOEs, the BOCC, and the county mgr have participated in "collaboration" meetings the last year or so. I agree that this needs to continue to get better. I am not sure that it would be worthwhile to include the towns and utility officials in these since the BOE officials already have enough meetings, but perhaps you can help me out with who you think should meet and what their goals should be. (If you are making reference to the recent OCS MS utility debacle, I am not sure that this is the right fix for that)

The phrasing of your earlier post led me to believe that you wanted school officials to weigh in on growth itself. Now I think I am clear on your intent.


Board of Education Candidate Forum @ 7pm Wednesday

Questions can be submitted in advance to

I think it is supposed to be televised on the local access channel.

Board of Education Candidate Forum
October 26th, 2005
7:00 pm until 9:00 pm

Sponsored by the League of Women Voters and the CHCCS PTA Council

Details at

The Local Access channel--is that channel 18 on Time Warner? The web site doesn't say--and it sounds like something we should ALL watch...



It was my understanding that the location was chosen to facilitate televising, but am not sure what the actual arrangements are (live vs. replay vs. not at all). I will ask and post here.


Thanks, Mark. I need to be home this evening, but WILL be in a position to WATCH.


From the League of Women Voters

The candidates's forum will be broadcast live by Time Warner tonight from 7:30-9:00. It will be rebroadcast on Wed. Nov. 2nd at 8pm. and Thurs. Nov. 3rd. at 8 am. and 2pm.

Reporting from the School Board forum at Carrboro Town Hall right now... I don't expect to have many insights, but I'll post them if I do.

Meanwhile, I can report that there only appears to be only one African-American here (not counting candidates) out of about 40 people attending.

More people have come in including School Board member Elizabeth Carter and County Commissioner Valerie Foushee, both African American.

The reason I'm calling attention to this is that race is such a big political issue in the schools right now. I always have this fear that white parents are generally more able to advocate for programs and so white kids get better served in the schools. So I would really like to see more black parent-advocates here.

Pictures from the forum are now linked off of

OK, I tried to watch the forum but my kids were a little distracting. I can't say much right now, but two quick thoughts:

1)Where the hell was Dan? Can't he moderate in a dress?

2) Pam Hemminger was AWESOME!! Unbelievably articulate, poised, and right-on!!!! You've got my vote Pam!

Ruby, race is such a big issue--any takes on who can do a good job addressing this on the school board?



Community Guidelines

By using this site, you agree to our community guidelines. Inappropriate or disruptive behavior will result in moderation or eviction.


Content license

By contributing to OrangePolitics, you agree to license your contributions under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 United States License.

Creative Commons License

Zircon - This is a contributing Drupal Theme
Design by WeebPal.