Share this candidate profile:

Candace Anderson

Running for Board of Education

2 CTNewsJunkie Reader Endorsements

Party: Democrat

CEP Status:


Age: 47

Marital Status: Married

Current Residence: Stonington

Current Job: School Psychologist, Woodstock Public Schools

Previous Job: Adjunct Professor, Boston College

Previous Job: Research Psychologist, University of Maryland

Education: Ph.D. School Psychology, UCONN; Ph.D. Applied Developmental & Educational Psychology, Boston College; M.S. Early Childhood Specialist, Boston College; B.S. Early Childhood & Human Development, University of Vermont

What's one thing most people don't know about you?
I am an insanely crazy animal lover.
Why are you running for this office?
Serving on the board of education is the best way I know how to marry my professional experience in and around public education with community service. From the day I heard one of my college professor's speak about his service on a BOE I knew it was something I would one day be interested in doing. I grew up in an area where boards are appointed. It was exciting to me to move to Stonington and realize that I could make a difference in my own town.
What is the most pressing local issue facing your community and how would you solve it (within the capacity of the office for which you are running)?
There are two pressing issues facing all of CT: declining enrollment and decreasing funding from the state. Both of these issues make it imperative to maximize resources, think outside the box, and work collaboratively with other groups and towns to develop sustainable solutions. Stonington is poised to become a high profile district, but that will only occur if we are able to enhance the initiatives that have been underway over the last several years. The educational leadership needs to continue working with other boards and organizations to offer a high quality education for ALL students. If we can build upon the local resources we have in our unique location, industry and residents, we can create opportunities for students that have a synergistic effect. We need to start thinking of education in more sustainable terms.
With the state's ongoing budget crisis looming over the election, what are your plans for your community's budget? Is there anything you can do make your town less dependent on revenue from the state?
The legislature has been debating various ideas to allow towns to raise revenue locally through something other than property taxes. If you could ease your residents' property tax burden by adding another method of taxation, is there anything you might consider for your town?
Are you in favor of regionalizing more services in conjunction with other nearby communities? If so, which ones?
I am in favor of regionalizibg educational resources whenever it will be the best way to meet the needs of our students. I think local consolidation is necessary to consider prior to regionalization to reduce redundancy. We should also understand the significant benefits that might be realized through regionalization. Residents within and across town borders tend to have an "us" against "them" mentality and to feel that just because we've done something a certain way doesn't mean it's the only or best way to do it. Change is difficult but it is adaptive and we need to be modeling effective problem-solving for our children.
Should your school district get the same amount of education funding from the state if your district's enrollment is dropping?
I feel that the per pupil expenditure should be the same for every child. All children are entitled to a public education. Towns that have been able to accrue some savings should not be penalized by the state for their diligence. Education is an expensive endeavor, however, research does not support the idea that putting more money into poor districts will increase educational outcomes. Poverty creates systemic problems that leads to lower educational attainment. Unless we address root causes of poverty or reasons that schools fail an unequal distribution of funds will not substantially alter educational outcomes in a positive direction for those in need, but it will have a negative impact for those who are not.