Candidate has not yet responded.
Candidate has not yet responded.
Candidate has not yet responded.
Candidate has not yet responded.
Candidate has not yet responded.
Candidate has not yet responded.
My priorities are academic excellence, responsible stewardship of taxpayer dollars, and ensuring that every student is known, supported, and appropriately challenged.
As a former classroom teacher, education product leader, and Cranbury parent, I believe decisions about curriculum and student services should be grounded in evidence, measurable outcomes, and the experiences of students and teachers. I would support clear district goals, regular review of student achievement and growth data, and thoughtful evaluation of whether our curriculum and instructional resources are producing the intended results.
I would also work to protect the qualities that make Cranbury School special while helping the district plan responsibly for changing enrollment, facilities needs, and the transition to Princeton High School. Implementation begins with good governance: setting clear priorities, asking rigorous questions, listening to educators and families, holding the superintendent accountable for results, and communicating decisions transparently. Individual Board members do not run the schools, but they can help establish the conditions in which excellent teaching, sound management, and continuous improvement are expected.
Cranbury should continuously evaluate whether its academic programs are aligned with current research, state standards, and the needs of its students. In literacy, I would prioritize a coherent, evidence-based curriculum grounded in the science of reading, with strong instruction in foundational skills, knowledge-building, vocabulary, writing, and comprehension. More broadly, the district should use assessment data to identify both students who need additional support and those ready for greater challenge.
Because Cranbury is a K–8 district, students should also have meaningful opportunities to discover interests beyond traditional academic subjects. I would protect strong music, visual arts, theater, technology, and hands-on learning experiences while exploring additional exposure to engineering, design, computer science, skilled trades, financial literacy, and career pathways.
I would not begin with a predetermined list of programs to add or remove. I would first examine student outcomes, participation, scheduling, teacher feedback, and the transition to Princeton High School. Changes should address a demonstrated need, have clear goals, and be evaluated after implementation rather than adopted simply because they are fashionable.
The budget should protect the people and programs that most directly affect students: excellent teachers, manageable class sizes, special education and intervention services, mental-health support, high-quality curriculum, arts and enrichment, and safe, well-maintained facilities. When evidence shows that students are not receiving needed academic or behavioral support, targeted investments may be necessary.
At the same time, every expenditure should have a clear purpose. I would scrutinize administrative growth, duplicative software and subscriptions, underused programs, consulting contracts, and initiatives that have continued without evidence of effectiveness. Technology is particularly important to review because districts can accumulate overlapping products that add cost and complexity without improving learning.
My approach would be to connect spending to the district’s strategic goals, establish measurable expectations for significant investments, and review results before renewing them. Multi-year planning, competitive purchasing, shared services, and preventive facilities maintenance can also reduce long-term costs. Fiscal responsibility should not mean indiscriminate cuts; it should mean directing limited resources toward the work that produces the greatest benefit for students.
Even in a high-performing community, some students face barriers that may be easy to overlook. These can include students with disabilities, students experiencing anxiety or other mental-health challenges, multilingual learners, students affected by financial or housing instability, students who experience bullying or exclusion, and students who need academic intervention. A small district must be especially careful that students with less visible needs do not fall through the cracks.
The Board should ensure that the district has effective systems for identifying needs early, delivering timely academic and mental-health support, and measuring whether those interventions are working. Families should receive clear information about available services and a straightforward path for requesting help. Policies should support inclusive school environments, accessibility, attendance, anti-bullying protections, and strong coordination among teachers, specialists, administrators, and families.
Support should be based on student need rather than assumptions about particular groups. The goal is not simply to offer services, but to determine whether students can access them promptly and whether those services lead to meaningful improvement.
I would not propose a new policy without first reviewing Cranbury’s current curriculum, its alignment with New Jersey learning standards, and the feedback of educators and families.
The district’s health and sex education curriculum should be medically accurate, age-appropriate, inclusive, and taught by qualified educators. It should help students understand health, personal safety, consent, respectful relationships, and responsible decision-making without replacing the role of parents and caregivers.
Transparency is essential. Families should be able to review curriculum materials in advance, understand what will be taught at each grade level, ask questions, and exercise the rights provided to them under state law. At the same time, curriculum decisions should not be driven by misinformation or partisan pressure. The Board’s responsibility is to ensure that instruction meets legal requirements, reflects sound educational and health guidance, and is delivered in a way that respects both students and families.
Schools should not serve as immigration-enforcement agencies. Their responsibility is to educate children, protect student privacy, and maintain a safe learning environment.
Regardless of immigration status, children should be able to attend school without fear that seeking an education or school-based assistance will expose their families to unnecessary risk. The district should have clear protocols for responding to requests from immigration authorities, protecting confidential student information, and ensuring that staff refer any enforcement matter to the superintendent and legal counsel rather than making individual judgments.
The district should also make sure families understand their rights, know how to access school services, and have reliable emergency-contact plans. Counselors and other appropriate staff should be prepared to support students experiencing fear, family disruption, or trauma related to immigration enforcement.
