Covid-19 Testing on the Eastern Shore, as of June 8, 2020

Who is running for school board in your district? With schools in Maryland facing issues ranging from the Blueprint for Maryland's Future to classroom cellphone use, voters will go to the polls Nov. 5 to vote for their local Board of Education. For that reason, the Local News Network at the University of Maryland's Philip Merrill College of Journalism sent a questionnaire to all 109 school board candidates to get their views on important issues. The results are compiled below. Read the Local News Network's stories about the issues in Maryland's school board races.

There's a little-known conservative power player in the nation’s school board elections, and it has endorsed more candidates in Maryland than in any other state. The 1776 Project PAC, which says on its website that it supports “reform-minded conservatives who oppose political indoctrination and believe in parental rights,” has endorsed 19 Maryland school board candidates in nine of the state’s 24 school districts. The endorsements come as the state’s Democratic Party announces strategic targeting of 24 “extreme” conservative candidates. 

The present general decline in American education was underway well before the covid pandemic, and surely, the pandemic worsened school outcomes. The harm done to students will not fade for some time. Those circumstances, one might think, call for debate and discussion in the 2024 general election. In previous presidential elections, education has been an important question. Candidates have made public school support major planks in their platforms. George H.W. Bush wanted to be the “education president.” And to improve reading readiness, to increase high-school graduation rates, and to put the U.S. in first place in math and science. Bill Clinton also wanted to increase school readiness and to set high goals for American schools. President George W. Bush eventually introduced the concept of “no child left behind” and wanted accountability enforced by increased testing. Barack Obama’s education policy wanted schools to “race to the top” by offering money to schools for innovation and reform. All of these efforts produced few, if any, results. There’s more bad news: The 2024 presidential candidates have had little to say about education. Donald Trump has vowed to abolish the Department of Education, but not said much beyond that. The United States’ educational needs did not appear in the Harris-Trump debate. In the vice presidential debate, Walz and Vance spoke of school safety, but not much else. The Democratic Party platform does argue for universal pre-school and for reducing absenteeism. It argues against schemes that divert public school funds, such as vouchers and tuition-tax credits. Harris and her party do support increased funding for career and technology education, believing that a four-year college education is not the only path for young people to succeed and to contribute to the economy. Angela Alsobrooks, currently Prince George’s county executive and candidate for Maryland senator, may have, as a local government official, immediate connection with educational needs and problems. One of her efforts created a public-private partnership to build new and rebuild old schools. This first-in-the-nation program, according to one report , builds schools much faster and more inexpensively than in the ordinary way. She also allocated $15 million for a career and technical education center in Temple Hills, Md. However important buildings and facilities may be, most in the education industry know that research shows what is most important in education: teacher quality . Excellent teachers may well be drawn by high pay. According to the Alsobrooks campaign website , she “funded the largest salary increase in a generation for all Prince Georges County school system employees.” Common Sense readers will not be surprised to read that the two major teacher unions (National Education Association and American Federation of Teachers) have endorsed Harris and Alsobrooks. But teachers who follow education in the national press may be surprised and perhaps disappointed that the media has not much looked into an important national issue, let alone an educational one: outside efforts to control curriculum content. A September National Public Radio report tells of school book bans and bans on divisive concepts: “Between July and December 2023, PEN America recorded more than 4,300 instances of school book bans, a big uptick from the previous year.” The book banners tried to replace those people in the schools, the teachers and administrators, who have the training and experience to choose reading and other curricular material. Assuming that one of the major purposes of schools is to prepare students for citizenship in a democracy, then what is taught and how it is taught counts for a great deal. However one might sympathize with parents’ desire to oversee their children’s education, censorship, or perhaps less powerful control over curriculum content, amounts to government censorship of free speech. When that constitutional right is violated in schools, children, more knowledgeable than many adults will grant, will face a contradiction. On one hand, they know that they and the press have freedom of speech. On the other, their schools prohibit the freedom of speech and the press. In her speech to the AFT, Harris said, “While you teach students about our nation’s past,” she told the crowd of teachers , “these extremists attack the freedom to learn and acknowledge our nation’s true and full history, including book bans.” As one might expect of two Democrats, their positions on education are similar. The public schools may not be as prominent a campaign issue as the economy, employment, or immigration, but surely the education of young citizens plays a great role in the nation’s economy, employment, and democratic government. Jim Block taught English at Northfield Mount Hermon, a boarding school in Western Mass. He coached cross-country and advised the newspaper and the debate society there. He taught at Marlborough College in England and Robert College in Istanbul. He and his wife retired to Chestertown, Md., in 2014. 

Here’s a brief comparison of the positions of Vice President Kamala Harris, Democratic nominee for president, and former president Donald Trump, the Republican nominee, to help voters decide which candidate most reflects their own ideas. Summaries are based on information from guides.vote and NBC news — visit their websites for more details and additional policy comparisons. Abortion, reproductive rights Harris: Would sign national abortion rights legislation if president. Trump: Takes credit for ending Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court precedent that decriminalized abortion; has said states should decide whether abortion is legal. Climate change, global warming Harris: “We must do more” to address climate change. Voted to commit $369 billion to combat climate change and support clean energy. Trump: “Climate change is a hoax.” Will expand domestic coal and oil production. Economy Harris: Supports expanded tax credits for childcare. Wants to lower costs of groceries and prescription drugs, and subsidize first-time home buyers. Trump: Promises increase tariffs on imported goods. Says he will free up housing market through mass deportations of immigrants. Promises to deregulate businesses. Education Harris: Supports universal pre-K, debt-free college education, increased teacher pay. Trump: Would abolish Education Department, eliminate teacher tenure. Supports “parental rights” regarding course content. 2020 Election results Harris: 2020 election results were certified, confirmed by numerous court cases — Joe Biden won. Trump: Election was “rigged,” Jan. 6 protesters were “patriots.” Foreign policy Harris: Calls for cease-fire and two-state solution in Israel, but Israel has a right to self-defense. Supports Ukraine’s war against Russian aggression. Would continue strong support for NATO and other alliances. Trump: Unreserved support for Israeli actions in Gaza. Would deport pro-Palestinian protestors. Will “end the war” in Ukraine by pushing Ukraine to cede territory already occupied by Russia. Has threatened to pull out of NATO unless other countries “pay their fair share.” Healthcare Harris: Would expand Affordable Care Act, link drug costs to those in comparable nations. Trump: Says he will end Obamacare, replace with unspecified new program. Immigration Harris: Supports comprehensive immigration reform, pathways to citizenship for DACA participants. Trump: Would deport 15 to 20 million immigrants; told supporters in Congress to kill a Senate bipartisan immigration reform bill in early 2024. Labor, Unions Harris: Supports “the sacred right to organize” workers. Walked a picket line with auto workers. Trump: Praised employers who fire striking workers. As president, restricted collective bargaining rights for federal employees. Minimum Wage Harris: Supports raising federal minimum wage to $15/hour. Trump: Questions need for federal minimum wage, claiming it “would eliminate jobs.” Social Security Harris: Would eliminate $168,000 income cap for Social Security payments, making wealthier Americans pay at same rate on all income. This would help ensure the continuing solvency of the program. Trump: Proposed $35 billion cut in Social Security disability programs. Taxes Harris: Supports higher corporate tax rates, voted against Trump tax cuts. Trump: Enacted largest tax cut in history for corporations and the wealthy. Voting rights Harris: Supports legislation to make registration and voting easier. Trump: Wants stronger voter ID requirements, sued to eliminate voter drop boxes. Peter Heck is a Chestertown-based writer and editor, who spent 10 years at the Kent County News and three more with the Chestertown Spy. He is the author of 10 novels and co-author of four plays, a book reviewer for Asimov’s and Kirkus Reviews, and an incorrigible guitarist. 

Election experts are concerned that partisanship and a lack of faith in elections could be a problem this November, mainly due to the public’s susceptibility to misinformation. Some are particularly wary that information warfare could happen in the final days before the election, when people can take in false information but there’s not enough time left to set the record straight. “Elections tend to be a tinderbox,” said Dan Avondoglio, an expert from the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency of the federal government, also known as CISA. There are, he said, “opportunities to influence at the last minute.” With less than a month to go to national elections, experts gathered recently near the University of Maryland campus to talk about those worries, along with the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism, a university-based research and education center. The shared consensus was one of concern. It’s getting harder to run elections, officials said, and the costs are rising. It’s easier than ever to spread false information and more difficult to counter it. Complicating all of it is the new and unpredictable role that artificial intelligence will play. Driving the costs are the expenses of training polling workers, the cost of auditing and the cost of protecting databases from cyberattacks, said Ben Hovland, who serves on the U.S. Election Assistance Commission. “We are looking at an all-hands approach when it comes to this election,” Hovland said. And when it comes to polling locations, “those are even softer targets.” In the areas where the election is particularly tight, states and counties are under a microscope, and could be an active target for bad actors, Hovland explained. Cody Buntain, an assistant professor who studies misinformation and disinformation, said artificial intelligence should be a top concern. It’s the nature of social media to create filter bubbles and echo chambers, he said, limiting people’s exposure to content they disagree with. Because of that, he said, artificial intelligence has the power to “rapidly generate content that pushes on people’s existing beliefs.” Professor Doug Lombardi said the attack strategy of the 2016 presidential cycle has evolved and become more effective. Similar to the Russian propaganda of that era, he said, today’s actors are involved in “efforts to push on social ills and social fractures.” The solution is helping people think critically, Lombardi said, which means making decisions that help increase people’s agency and help fight confirmation biases. Amy Pate, director of the START program, argues that in today’s environment, misinformation has become not only cheap and effective but also difficult to correct. Pate said most people used to vote without consideration of how the vote gets counted. Now, she said, people need to know how it works in order to feel confident in the outcome of the election. Still, the consortium’s message is not all gloom and doom. The more skeptical and aware people become about election misinformation, officials said, the more capacity they’ll have to resist it. With more people aware of the election certification process, Pate said, “heightened awareness helps build some resilience.” Capital News Service is a student-powered news organization run by the University of Maryland Philip Merrill College of Journalism. For 26 years, they have provided deeply reported, award-winning coverage of issues of import to Marylanders.