we have just seen a person that is close to the board of our children that has a hidden agenda. Look at the site America's Mrs Right, it trashes our public school system, praises huge budget cuts. How could we have a person that agrees to large cuts to our schools and is against growth. The future is our children!!!!!

It would appear that the voters are not pleased with the performance of the current members of the Hudson Board of Education. Superintendent Mary B-E should take special notice of the fact that her "joined-at-the-hip" President finished dead last.

SOOO Glad SANDY did so well! She will bring some good common sense to the board. It's time for change!

I have yet to see Sandy Gehrke comment on or stress the importance of providing our children with a quality education as a potential board member. She's the most anti-school candidate I've ever seen. Her one goal is preventing our community from building a school to fix our space issues. Her top solutions consist of virtual classes, staggered class times, year round school, adding onto existing buildings, and portable classrooms. We need people on the board who actually have kids currently in the district and "live in it" daily. In my opinion, the top 2 vote getters tonight are the only two running that don't want to accept that we have real space issues.

The people have spoken about how they feel about the school board not looking out for the tax payer. In addition, sends a loud statement about how they feel about the dog track purchase.

So glad Liz Bruch & Sandy came out on top. Maybe now we'll have some good-old-common sense on the school board. Someone who thinks about the kids instead of what the Superintendant wants all the time. Mary B. E. needs to realize she reports to the school board and doesn't run it. Hopefully she'll get the message she won't have the control she has had up till now. Mary Loritz

It may be just a primary, but I assure you that it was important for Barb vanLoenen. Perhaps the school board needs someone who doesn't have kids enrolled in the school system to provide a different perspective without fear of their own kids getting a bad name. Looking at different ideas in our age of technology does not make one a "hater of children" as much as maybe one who wants to provide MORE options for them to succeed. Why is it that the only way to help our kids is to throw more money at them? There is more to high test scores than simply higher per-pupil expenditures.

I love how, whenever someone stands up for fiscal conservatism, people accuse them of being anti-something, in this case, anti-children or anti-schools. One commenter above stated, "How could we have a person that agrees to large cuts to our schools and is against growth. The future is our children!" With big government spenders, it's always "for the children" isn't it? Personally, I am sick of my tax dollars being spent "for the children". How much of that money do those "children" actually see? Another commenter said, "She's the most anti-school candidate I've ever seen." Accusing someone of being anti-children or anti-schools because they won't spend money unnecessarily is one of the most common straw man arguments out there today. It is not based on fact and I challenge you to prove otherwise. Another poor argument made above is the idea that someone who does not have children in school could not possibly understand the problem.This is not logical in any way, since even people with no children in school are paying taxes and therefore have a vested interest in district issues.
I have known Sandy for almost 20 years, and I can personally vouch for her integrity. I have no doubt that, if given the opportunity, she will serve the needs of the District to the best of her ability. She is only calling for some clear-headed planning. The taxpayers are not a never-ending spigot of cash for the school board to keep turning on. It's time someone stood up for the taxpayers.

How many of the surviving candidates support the agenda of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC)?
The Capital Times, Madison, "Campus Connection: UW profs shed light on ALEC's threat to public education" had this on Feb. 20, 2012:
ALEC seeks to "influence teacher certification, teacher evaluation, collective bargaining, curriculum, funding, special education, student assessment, and numerous other education and education-related issues. Common throughout the bills are proposals to decrease local control of schools by democratically elected school boards while increasing access to all facets of education by private entities and corporations."
So, who among the candidates has positions consistent with ALEC, among them a weaker and passive school board?

More importantly, how many of the candidates support the Center for American Progress agenda? This George Soros funded organization pays people to complain about ALEC on internet forums and support ever escalating, unquestioned funding of public employee unions because "all else being equal, higher levels of spending lead to improved outcomes."

Who among the candidates understands that the lesson of education funding over the last 30 years is financial inputs do not equal cognitive outputs? Who is willing to address the lack of effectiveness and efficiency in our monopoly, union run schools?