All candidates have had opportunities to contribute to voter guides and surveys, here are the most prominent resources: 

• Dakota County Tribune: Five candidates seek three seats on Farmington School Board

• League of Women Voters of Dakota County: 

  • Video: Candidate Forum held September 11, 2024

  • Voter Guide: Custom ballot information

• Minnesota Public Radio: Build your ballot: 2024 General Election | MPR News 

• Minnesota Parents Alliance Voter Guide 

As parents and taxpayers, we all want quality, well run schools. I don't complain about problems, I help solve them. That includes digging into the data, seek input from other and helping build consensus. I bring over 25 years of marketing and business communications leadership to my work on the School Board. Throughout my career, I’ve demonstrated the ability to connect ideas and people to create new opportunities, while also analyzing data and diverse perspectives to solve complex problems. 

During my first term, I helped guide the School Board through the challenges of the pandemic, focusing on collaboration, respect, transparency, and academic opportunity. In my next term, I will continue advancing academic achievement, transparency, and fiscal responsibility, while ensuring that our students, families, and teachers feel heard, supported, and connected.

In general, yes, I am satisfied with the district’s approach to creating opportunities for all students. Beyond the general curriculum, our students have a wide range of opportunities—from college, career, and technical skills preparation for life after high school to coursework on topics they wish to explore further.

While I may be generally satisfied, that doesn’t mean there aren’t areas for improvement. Over the past year, we have focused on literacy rates and participation in advanced placement and college/career preparation opportunities, particularly among minority and economically disadvantaged students. Specifically, when we learned that ISD 192 qualified, I advocated for the acceptance of Achievement & Integration grants. This additional funding is now being used to help close achievement and participation gaps and to hire staff with more racially and ethnically diverse backgrounds. 

Absolutely. The operating levy authorization approved by voters in 2015 is set to expire, and the district is facing a $4 million to $5 million deficit next year. If this referendum fails, the budget cuts required to balance the shortfall will negatively affect everyone served by our schools. The district anticipates increased class sizes, and cuts to administrative and non-classroom support, placing additional burdens on teachers. We’ll also see reductions to athletics and activities and fewer academic programs. Further, the district will have to raise fees and restrict access to grounds and facilities, which will impact youth sports and community groups that depend on district properties for their programs.

A successful referendum will prevent these negative impacts while enabling new investments in literacy, math, and science support in our elementary schools—exactly the investments needed to address concerns about district performance on state-administered standardized tests.

This isn’t hypothetical. Our district has reduced spending, cutting nearly $5 million over the past 4 years. If our operating levy is not approved in November, the district will need to cut $5 million more next year. I will continue to work to mitigate the impact on classroom and instructional resources. And I will continue to help lead our legislative advocacy for relief from costly, un- and under-funded mandates. 

Academic performance was one reason why I ran for the School Board in 2020. For the first two years, it was a battle against the State’s Covid-19 policies just to keep kids in classrooms. Nonetheless, our concern over academic (and other) results predates the pandemic, even though the situation has worsened as a result.

A few thoughts on this: First, the Minnesota Report Card reflects results from the Minnesota Comprehensive Assessment (MCA) exam, a test that over 50% of FHS students don’t take. Parents opt their kids out because they’re given at about the same time as the ACTs, ASVAB, College Board, and other more consequential tests. MCA scores have no impact on grades, advancement, or graduation. State law doesn’t require students to take it, so they focus on the other exams instead.

There are other issues with the MCAs, including a disconnect between the MCA test design and the actual curriculum, and flaws with the way it is administered and how data from the results is analyzed. For example, the Science MCA is given in the year a high school student takes a science course. I know of students who have taken AP-level Biology in 10th grade, received good grades and some college credit from the College Board Exam. However, were reported “not proficient” by the MCA. It's one example, but illustrates the point that it is difficult to MCA proficiency ratings for FHS at face value. 

If you look to scores at ISD 192 elementary and middle schools, where far fewer (if any) students opt out of the MCAs, you’ll see the reading proficiency more favorable to state averages, although we have some work to do in math and particularly science. But the fact is, there are other performance assessments that are more meaningful measures of school system performance. We look at results from the NWEA standardized tests in grades 2-8, which are given throughout the year and assess learning growth. And the ACTs, which are more about college and career readiness. In these, you see Farmington’s results more in line with state and national norms. Here’s a link: https://www.farmington.k12.mn.us/learning/world_s_best_workforce/student_progress/data_results

I know we’ve made progress, but there’s more to be made. In my first term, we worked to more closely align School Board governance practices with the Administration’s operations plan. The Board is now reviewing academic and financial performance on a regular cadence, and we implemented an outcomes- or goals-based process and “district report card.” You can’t manage what you don’t measure, and you don’t make progress without defining an objective. Our new processes include Board and Operational goals set and agreed upon by the Board and the Superintendent. See this link: https://www.farmington.k12.mn.us/about_us/strategic_plan/measuring_progress. 

In a second term, I will continue this work, as well as drive toward more transparency and accountability for results.

First, this isn't really a recent issue. When I was a kid, I remember an effort by some in my community to ban a book called The Chocolate War. A coming-of-age story that takes place at a private, religious high school, the book has some adult themes, particularly as the protagonist pushes back against authorities as he discovers his own sense of right and wrong. 

"Book bans" aren't a partisan issue either, as much as some recent news reports seem to portrait it as such. A few years ago, there was a push to ban books like The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn and To Kill A Mockingbird over modern sensitivities about race. Similarly, have even misguidedly supported removing Dr. Seuss from schools. 

For decades, school boards, administrators and communities have successfully navigated these issues. I support local conversations that are transparent in their outcomes and include all stakeholders. 

In Minnesota last year, Governor Walz enacted what is often referred to as "a ban on book bans." That's a misnomer. In reality, the law puts more structure around selection and reconsideration of titles in school libraries. Most districts already had policies around this. In ISD 192, Policy 606 offers guidance. 

To date, that policy has been adequate. If at some point it is determined there are opportunities to improve upon it, then the school board will work with the administration, educators and other key stakeholders to solicit input for consideration, just as it has done on many other occasions.