Speaking of “manufacturing outrage without substantive evidence,” that’s exactly what Aarika Burden attempted to do in her March 25 letter to the editor titled “Protecting Children or …?”
It’s unclear from her letter what, specifically, she is opposed to, except people who have a differing political ideology or viewpoint.
Aarika asks the question, what tangible improvements has William S. Hart Union High School District board member Joe Messina delivered, and declares that his tenure is “marked not by educational advancement but by inflammatory statements designed to mobilize supporters.”
Here’s a sampling of the educational leadership that Joe, along with the other board members (he is only one of five and can do nothing without a majority vote), has provided to our local Hart district:
• Solidified and expanded career technical education to provide practical skills and diverse career pathways so that all students can have a career path after graduation.
• The Hart district has secured over $9 million in grant funding for CTE.
• Built community CTE partnerships with businesses for hands-on training, state-of-the-art classroom equipment, and real job opportunities upon graduation.
• Approximately 87% of Hart District seniors have taken a CTE course by the time they graduate.
• Helped the Hart district identify and secure $81 million in matching funds from the state.
• Provided fiscal oversite for the Castaic High School buildout and opening.
• The Hart district is ranked in the top 10% in the nation (Source: US News & World Report).
• The Hart district has a 95% graduation rate.
• Instrumental in establishing “Hart-to-Home,” a program that allows students to homeschool and graduate with a diploma from their local high school.
These accomplishments positively impact all of our students and should be able to be appreciated, and even celebrated, by people from any political persuasion.
The quality of our local school districts is one of the reasons so many people choose to relocate their families to Santa Clarita. Joe has been instrumental in helping maintain that standard, and even raise the bar.
Our public schools are a government entity, and it is incumbent upon each of us, as citizens, to keep a watchful eye and hold our public and school officials accountable. Joe consistently advocates for parental oversight and involvement, as well as district transparency at all levels.
At more than one local school district, resistance to parental involvement and notification (of various issues) has been a topic of discussion at board meetings.
I’m confused about why encouraging “more parental involvement in education” is seen as a negative. Isn’t it beneficial for parents to be actively engaged in their child’s education? Their safety at school? To weigh in on policies? Advocate for and amplify teachers’ voices?
It isn’t “divisive rhetoric” to speak during public comment at school board meetings or contact school administrators with concerns. That’s the very definition of “working constructively within existing frameworks” that Aarika mentions.
From what I’ve observed at our local school board meetings, the local Moms for Liberty group gives thoughtful comment to issues before the boards. Perhaps, Aarika, before maligning this group (and others you mentioned), you could try engaging in civil discourse. As citizens of our democratic republic, it’s both our responsibility and a privilege.
Tammy Messina
Saugus
