Rachelle A. Johnson

When we talk about improving academic achievement, I keep coming back to the same place: the early years matter. One of my biggest priorities is foundational reading and math, particularly in the early grades. A child who struggles to read doesn't only struggle in reading class. As students get older, they increasingly need reading to learn science, social studies, math, and almost everything else we ask them to do in school. That's why I support evidence-based reading instruction, identifying struggling readers early, and providing intervention before a small gap becomes a much bigger one. But there is another piece of this that matters to me. We have to know whether what we're doing is working. It's not enough to purchase a curriculum, introduce a program, or announce an initiative. The Board should understand the results. Are students reading on grade level? Are students who receive interventions making progress? Where are we seeing improvement? Where aren't we? And if something isn't producing the results we expected, what are we going to do differently? This is also one reason I continue to talk about class size, particularly in the earliest grades. I understand the financial reality. Reducing class sizes across HCPS would be enormously expensive, and I don't think it is responsible to promise something without explaining how we would pay for it. But I do believe we should look seriously at whether a targeted approach in the earliest grades could make a difference, particularly where students need the most support. If we have limited resources, then we need to be thoughtful about where those resources can have the greatest impact. Helping a child become a strong reader early is an investment that follows that student for the rest of their education.

This is one of those issues that seems like it should be pretty simple. Students should have reliable access to safe, drinkable water at school. PFAS has been found at levels of concern in wells serving multiple HCPS schools. Ten schools have been identified during this process: Churchville Elementary, Dublin Elementary, Fallston High, Fallston Middle, Forest Hill Elementary, Harford Academy, Harford Technical High, Jarrettsville Elementary, Norrisville Elementary, and Prospect Mill Elementary. Today, HCPS is moving forward with engineering work for five schools whose results exceed the enforceable federal limits: Dublin Elementary, Fallston High, Harford Technical High, Norrisville Elementary, and Prospect Mill Elementary. Two of those schools, Dublin and Norrisville, are here in District D. HCPS has provided bottled water where needed, which addresses the immediate problem. But bottled water shouldn't become the permanent solution. What has bothered me throughout this issue is how little information most families have received about the bigger picture. What needs to be done at each school? What will it cost? Is funding available? What is the timeline? And when should families expect a permanent solution? There may be very reasonable answers to those questions. I want us to understand them and communicate them. This is what transparency looks like to me. It isn't just making information available somewhere. It is making sure the public understands the problem, the plan to address it, and whether we are making progress. If elected, this is something I intend to keep asking about until we have permanent solutions. Safe drinking water at school should be a basic expectation.

There has been a lot of discussion lately about HCPS spending, particularly administrative costs, salaries, conferences, and whether more money should be getting into our classrooms. I think those are fair questions, and I think the Board should be asking them. But I also think it is too simple to suggest that HCPS's financial challenges can be solved by cutting a few central office positions or eliminating conference expenses. The financial pressures facing our school system are much bigger than that. Special education costs, employee compensation and benefits, insurance, facilities, state mandates, and other required expenses all affect the budget. That doesn't mean administrative spending gets a pass. One question I've been interested in is not simply whether today's administrative salaries are competitive with other school systems, but how did we get here? How has administrative compensation grown over time compared with teacher compensation? Compared with enrollment? Compared with overall HCPS spending? And how does that growth compare with similar school systems? Those are the kinds of questions I believe the Board should be asking. I've spent much of my career working with budgets. One thing I've learned is that good financial oversight rarely comes from finding one expense and declaring it the problem. You have to understand the entire picture, ask questions when something doesn't make sense, and make decisions based on priorities. HCPS has real financial challenges ahead. We need Board members willing to acknowledge those realities while still asking difficult questions about how every dollar is being spent. Our students, educators, and taxpayers deserve both.