From what I've heard of them, they both were fine students, had a good report with the faculty, and are both receiving a quality upper education. To me, they are as if not more qualified to judge who should be teaching my kids and how my taxes should be used to benefit my children's education.
That's all well and good, but that alone is not a substitute for EXPERIENCE.
The School Board may make decisions on WHO TEACHES.
But what about experiences with finances, buildings and grounds, educational laws, educational maxims, curriculum preparation, special education, accessibility laws...etc?
I mean that's why I don't run for these things because I don't know enough about it.
I would like to see someone with either experience as an educator, or someone with skills gained in another sector of society that would contribute to the school district.
The two twenty somes need to convince me how they can be an asset to the school district. Citing High School accomplishments is not enough. This is a multi-million dollar school district here, and thousands of kids depend on its infrastructure. Being a member of the National Honor society and having good rapport with the teachers does not cut it.
Real world knowledge of the education system, finance, building and ground maintenance, and even a person with legal experience would bring the necessary background in my humble opinion.
I am all for 'fresh blood' and I am all for bringing in someone who would be a little more even-handed in the hiring selections.
But....they can't just come in with that one agenda. They have to be ready to help operate a districted with many concerns and challenges. They have to be ready to deal with buildings that are approaching 50 years and older.
They have to be ready to deal with test scores that are not where they ought to be.
Youth has its advantages...but this is not a place for people to cut their teeth. Whoever is elected will be asked to solve some real issues and maybe even deal with some issues that are unsolvable.