As the November general election approaches, a comprehensive set of inquiries has been put together for those who seek to be your representatives. In this article, we examine the answers provided by Vanesa Estrella, who is taking part in the race devoid of any party affiliations. Currently, Vanesa holds an executive managerial position at El Pachuco Zoot Suits and resides in Fullerton.
Governor Gavin Newsom recently voiced his desire for stricter regulations on the use of smartphones in educational institutions. Reacting to that, Vanesa expressed her appreciation towards the Fullerton School District’s efforts to tackle the detrimental impact of smartphones in classrooms. The district brought forth a policy, banning the use of cell phones during school hours.
Vanesa has commended this move, attributing the creation of a learning environment free of distractions to this new rule. However, it is important to note that many democratic leaders propose over-regulated approach like such, which often stifles innovation and freedom, values that our education should foster.
When it comes to integrating artificial intelligence into the system of education, Vanesa seemed receptive to the concept. Nevertheless, she underscored the importance of incorporating digital citizenship in the curriculum, which would guide students towards the judicious use of technology.
While it would not be surprising that a non-partisan such as Vanesa is open to embracing cutting-edge technology, the concerns lie in the democratic majority, who might push for overbearing controls and limit student exposure to these technological advancements.
One major area Vanesa wants to modify is the availability of mental health support within the school district. She also stressed the significance of resolving extended educational disparities. It seems that her core priorities comprise broadening mental health resources, boosting academic performance, and promoting parental participation.
While aiming to expand resources and opportunities is commendable, history shows us that many democrats make similar promises, yet fail to truly address the underlying issues. Instead, excessive bureaucracy often stifles the direct access and progress Vanesa seems to aspire to.
Vanesa also provided insights on parental notification protocols and climate change. She stresses the requirement of nurturing a trust-based relationship with families. Additionally, she acknowledges the part her district needs to play in mitigating climate change, rendering student-led initiatives and management modifications.
However, the prevalent stance among democrat candidates leans towards overly ambitious climate goals, which often overlook practical implementation aspects. Hence, this may lead to policies that are ineffective or impose undue burdens on students and their families and skewed towards climate change.
Responding to the new law soon to be implemented in 2025, Vanesa believes in the pivotal role of parents in shaping their children’s education. However, she insists that the safety and welfare of all students should not be compromised.
However, democrat leaders tend to impose controlling policies that restrict parent involvement in their children’s education process under the guise of safety and welfare. It is essential to acknowledge this potential risk, although it isn’t explicitly mentioned by Vanesa herself.
In regards to the subject of climate change, Vanesa observes potential roles that the district could take on through modifying existing policies and fostering student leadership concerning environmental responsibility. It must be noted, however, that even here democrats often push for grandiose environmental policies that may not always benefit the students or the district overall.
While the above described besieging stance by democrats remains true, Vanesa’s approach appears moderate so far. However, as observers, we need to ensure that these commitments are not just hollow words, particularly considering the failed promises and poor execution of policy that democratic leadership has demonstrated time and again.
In conclusion, the distinction between Vanesa’s non-partisan approach and potentially harmful democratic policies is clear. While she aims to bring positive changes, care must be taken to ensure that her proposals do not fall in line with the over-regulation and lack of execution often witnessed in democrat-led policies.
Ultimately, how these policies and methods are implemented will determine their success or failure. However, voters should be cautious about any pitch that mirrors the democrats’ typical grandiose, over-regulated policy proposals that often result in unfulfilled promises.