Lexington District 1 School Board Candidates Answer Questions at Chamber/Chronicle Forum

By Natalie Szrajer
Posted 10/24/22

Nine of the 11 candidates running for three seats on the Lexington County School District 1 board attended a forum organized by the Lexington Chamber and Visitors Center and the Chronicle Oct. 20.

This item is available in full to subscribers.

Subscribe to continue reading. Already a subscriber? Sign in

Get 50% of all subscriptions for a limited time. Subscribe today.

You can cancel anytime.
 

Please log in to continue

Log in

Lexington District 1 School Board Candidates Answer Questions at Chamber/Chronicle Forum

Posted

Nine of the 11 candidates running for three seats on the Lexington County School District 1 board attended a forum organized by the Lexington Chamber and Visitors Center and the Chronicle Oct. 20.

The candidates, all vying for seats on the Nov. 8 ballot being relinquished by current board members, answered 10 questions before offering closing statements, often seeming largely in agreement, especially when it came to the hot topic of transparency and opening the lines of communication.

Chronicle managing editor Jordan Lawrence moderated the forum at the North Lake Community Learning Center. Candidates Mary Price and Katie McCown did not attend.

The candidates in attendance discussed learning deficiencies in the wake of COVID-19 and supporting different avenues post-high school, among other issues.

When it came to transparency and communicating with the public, all candidates said improvement is needed. Some of the candidates said open forums or town halls would help allow parents and citizens voice their concerns and have a back-and-forth dialogue with board members. 

Nicholas Pizzuti said there isn’t enough time for the public to speak up at board meetings and oftentimes teachers are scared to speak up for fear of repercussions.

Dana Homesley mentioned the extreme lack of communication and financial transparency, and while she has, with difficulty, been able to get documents through Freedom of Information Act requests, not all are able or can afford to do this.

Beth Shealy said she considers herself a finance expert due to her job at a Lexington Medical Center and believes that the financial information that comes out needs to be made understandable to the community as she believes it is currently incomprehensible for the general public. 

With new superintendent Gerrita Postlewait hired this month, the candidates were asked about the relationship between the superintendent and board. All commended Postelwait for the job she has done while interim superintendent and what she has done in her first weeks as the district’s permanent leader.

Andrea Nazarenko compared the relationship to that of a contractor and blueprint. She explained that the superintendent is the contractor, while the board sets the blueprint by making policies, budgeting and working together.

Chris Rice used the analogy of a coach and player, explaining that the board is like the coach and the superintendent is like the player — there needs to be empowerment and not micromanagement in order to carry out the vision of the board, he said.

Mutual respect and understanding between the board and superintendent were pointed out by several candidates. Rhys Sage also suggested the board should probably be more critical of the superintendent.

With state report cards recently issued for the most recent school year, candidates were asked if they saw the report assessing the district’s performance and what their thoughts were. Richard Gehling was one of the few who read the report and pointed out that COVID only expedited growing deficiencies in the district, noting a downturn before the pandemic and also pointing out that more kids are graduating but with lower expectations.

Another candidate who read the report was Andrea Nazarenko, who pointed out that student safety or how safe they felt was below 50 percent and that “students can’t learn in a state of fear.”

Homesley pointed out that there needs to be a plan to make up for the learning loss from before COVID.

In discussing how the district helps prepare students for different avenues post high school, the candidates seemed to agree that college is not for everyone and different avenues should be offered. The Lexington Technology Center was brought up by several candidates, including Harriet Coker and Rice, as offering non-college tracks for those who want to work immediately after graduating high school.

Aaron Granade mentioned he would like to see more of a focus on what happens when greater educational success doesn’t happen, referring to the lives these students will lead after high school.

Shealy mentioned that she would like to see more alternatives that aren’t college-focused introduced in middle school.

Gehling said that in talking with people, he hears that kids don’t always have non-college tracks offered to them.

In discussing challenges in the district, social emotional learning (or SEL) was brought up by several candidates. Granade said he doesn’t agree with it and then later said the special needs students benefit from it.

Homesley brought up the special needs community as well, mentioning that parents often are alone when in individual education plan (IEP) meetings and are often going through the motions.

Shealy and Coker both said teachers and staff need more focus and support from the board. Nazarenko mentioned that students need more support, and they are afraid to voice their opinions.

lexington county school district 1, school board candidates, nov. 8 election

Comments

No comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here