Please no. This is the last thing we need as far as education in our state is
The biggest problem with the American education system today is that it is an
inbred group of "career educators" who suffer from "group think"
(as well as a liberal view which is a different problem altogether). They fail
to see "customers" for their product, or understand they are but one
part of a larger process, and that their funding and personnel needs and wants
must be balanced against the taxpayers' ability to pay and other competing
demands.The former superintendent's lament "...it's
just a matter of time before the post goes to a politician rather than an
educator." is not worry about a "politician" it is fear that their
union monopoly will be broken by new ideas.His argument
"Traditionally, elected school board members count on the superintendent to
understand the ins and outs of the education system" ignores the reality
that the education system needs to change and those inside are the least
prepared to ask the tough questions, make bold proposals and challenge obsolete
or failed assumptions.We need a bold, visionary, but balanced leader
like Lockhart who can build coalitions for change, improvement and progress.Do it "for The Children!"
She should not be chosen for either position.
I can only hope that the board chooses another candidate. Her plan to put a
tablet into the hands of every student smells fishy. Just follow the money or
where it could go. Who stands the most to gain? As an educator of 30 years I
honestly do not believe it will be students. Just please. Follow the money.
Making Becky Lockhart the state superintendent would be a big step backward for
This would be a huge mistake to select her as state superintendent. Her poorly
thought out last minute technology bill without sufficient educator input is the
best reason NOT to consider her to lead the education needs of our state. I
attended a teacher workshop a year ago where she presented with Representative
Rhonda Menlove (wife of current state superintendent who must have put this
suggestion in Lockart's ear). She did not come across as understanding
education's needs nor does she respect the education community. This is a
poor fit when you consider her non education qualifications or experience.
And when I hear politicians say "we gotta do it for the children" all I
can think of is "are we doing it to line their pockets so that their kids
have a better lifestyle?" I tend to run the other way when I hear this. As to career educators not being able to think outside the box? We do
all the time. It's only when people who have absolutely no experience
teaching in the classroom, with 35-40 kids 6-7 periods a day, thinking they know
better what would work to improve education, that we career educators laugh.
Every year I offer all posters the opportunity to come teach for a week. I have
yet to have someone take me up on it. Oh, and it would never tell a doctor,
lawyer, police officer or subscribers to the Desnews how to do their jobs
better. So why is it that people with no experience think they can do our jobs
She is qualified and can and should run for Governor. She is ,however, not
qualified for Education Superintendent .
Unfortunately, the only interest Ms. Lockhart appears to have in this position
is as a steppingstone for a run at becoming governor.It seems more
than a bit odd that someone who's not running for elective office still has
a campaign manager/communications officer on her payroll.If someone
with no apparent relevant experience, like Ms. Lockhart, wants to generate some
public support for their application for the position, you'd think
they'd take advantage of frequent and easy access to the press to outline
how they plan to be an effective superintendent.Either she's
failed to do so, or has such a blueprint but her campaign manager/communications
director has done a poor job getting it in front of the public.She
allows the narrative to focus on her political ambition, not her competence and
ideas. Perhaps her ambition is all she has to offer. If she believes she has
more, the onus is on her to demonstrate that fact. If she makes the attempt,
I'll keep an open mind.
She might be serious but the public sure isn't. Totally
We already have enough politics in education in Utah. Becky Lockhart would make
that even worse.
After following Lockhart's actions in the Legislature and her public
statements, and despite an initial inclination to support her, I have come to
the conclusion that Lockhart's main goal in her public efforts seems to be
the promotion of Becky Lockhart. I could not support her for any elected
position and do not feel she is qualified by either expertise and experience or
temperament for the Superintendent position. I think the state would be far
better served with an individual possessing more real educator experience and
less political agenda as superintendent.
This sounds like she is treating this as a stepping stone in a race for Governor
rather than a "serious" attempt at improving public education.
I think it's time for the GOP of Utah to kill public education just once
and for all. Do it quickly. This brick by brick or bleeding it to death by
leach is too hard to handle. Maybe Lockhart is the woman for the job to
complete this task, all I ask is for to do it quickly, for the sake of the
children as the DNSubscriber laments.
Hoping someone on the forum can answer a question! Who makes the selection for
Sup. on Education, and what is the time frame for making it?
Speaker Lockhart is very good at listening, building consensus, budgeting, and
breaking new ground. I could easily see her in the state school superintendent
job. I was impressed that she persisted with the investigation on John Swallow
when at first it was an unpopular idea. I liked that.
@ DN Subscriber DN Subscriber has it right except I'm not sure
Lockhart is the right person for the job.
She's bright, she's patient, she's visionary, she's
collaborative. She has balanced the budget for decades. She found funding for
the 1-15 expansion through Utah County. She changed the House of Representatives
with her leadership. So what are we afraid of...allowing people to consider her
application? That she might take Utah forward into a 21st Century education
model. I'm sick of the dismissive, quick to accuse commentary that the only
thing she is capable of is political ambition. Just what if it is something
different and we can figure out how to fund a world class education in Utah for
@ EJMI agree! Let's follow the money! If we did that we would
soon discover the motivation behind her iPad bill... Her husband's company
would have provided all the iPad technology to the schools. Why the media
ignores her ties to her husbands technology lobbying is beyond me. @
Howard BealI think the proper terminology is "starve the
beast." The GOP in Utah wants to shrink public education so they can drown
it in bathwater. Then, all students can go to privatized for profit schools!
Teachers won't be able to unionize or have benefits and those in our
legislature with ties to private schools will be enriched.@ clear
and reasoned and DN subscribOnly anti-public education partisan blow
hards would think that a career politician with zero management or education
experience would make a better superintendent than a qualified educator who has
spent a lifetime in the trenches and has years of managing schools.
The problem with public education is the politicians. Politicizing the state
school board even more will be catastrophic. Thank goodness the politicians
haven't taken over the medical profession......yet.
Name her state superintendent of public schools or she'll run for Governor?
Wasn't she a supporter of school vouchers? That and the fact that her
husband works in the computer industry (give each student an ipad?) should
remove her from consideration. L.A. schools did it, (ipad) and most
were left home or sold.
She put the cart before the horse with her iPads for every student initiative.
It was not well thought out, but it was put out like it would be this great
thing and how she was so forward thinking. She should be disqualified on the
basis of that alone for any statewide education position or for governor.
I don't know how Mrs. Lockhart would do as head of education. But I do
know we need to try something different. People with higher education degrees
running our education system have lost their way. Too often the arithmetic they
teach is more complex than it needs to be, preventing students from getting a
firm grasp on the subject. In higher math algebra and beyond math has been
@ cjbYou should contact your local school board and voice your
concerns. That's a local issue, not a state superintendent issue. Or
perhaps maybe your kids should come before and after school to get help? Math
sometimes can't be taught in an hour long lesson at school. Sometimes, it
takes actual work.
Huh? Becky Lockhart would be great at anything she decides to do. She's a
wonderful and talented person, and I don't understand the cynicism
surrounding her.Her proposal to bring Utah Education into the 21st
Century by helping students learn the practical, everyday uses of technology is
the right thing to do, even if not politically popular. There is nothing
"fishy" about Lockhart's proposal. The only thing "fishy"
is the suspicions of those who are always 5 years behind the adoption of new and
As a teacher, her application is a slap in the face--she lists her profession as
a nurse/homemaker. Becky has no experience in the classroom--get some schooling
in education, spend a few years in the classroom, then apply--it would be like
me applying for the head nurse job at the IHC Hospital--you think I'd get
If Lockhart is serious about becoming school superintendent, then sensible Utah
citizens need to be serious about seeing that it doesn't happen!
Are students better educated since computers have replaced books? Will tablets
equal greater progress?Are students of the 1950's &
60's, less educated then those of today?
Re. Real MavericI have contacted my district math supervisor and
local school board. They we we useless. I have also spoken before the state
schoolbboard, likewise. Have tutored some my kids, that worked, but a bigger
solution is needed.
@The Real MaverickWhen has the GOP ever shrunk public education?For as long I have been alive they increased the educational budget
every year.I much rather try out the box ideas to improve
education. than just keep doing the same ol' same ol'."Government" standards have been tried for decades lie SATs,
NCLB, now the extreme leftist common core.SATs were all about
standardizing achievement across the land. Exactly how is the left's and
democrats plan of more government imposed standards an d control the
answer?The leftist plans of more government and more money has
NEVER worked.Our education system was the best in the world until
the left encourage more federal government involvement, and less local and
religious.While I do not think Lockhart has ever thought out her
ideas very well,I see no real solutions from the left at all, just
more of the same, more taxes more government control and involvement and tear
down and attack any alternative ideas.
How is it that a Politician all of the sudden becomes qualified to be the super
of education? Sitting in the speakers seat doesn't do it. Running a good
campaign won't help the school kids, expensive ideas won't make
everything work better. She, like many others, are simply career politicians,
interested in getting free stuff from the citizens.
No no no!!!!