For most races, Tuesday’s election is a primary. But for the third district of the Peoria Board of Education, Tuesday’s election is final. Current board member Dr. David Gorenz is not running for reelection, and will be replaced with one of three candidates: Ernestine Jackson, 69; Christopher Crawford, 37; and Jeff Lickiss, 49.

Ernestine Jackson is an Equal Opportunity Associate for the City of Bloomington. She hasn’t held public office, but has experience in politics. Her husband is attorney Don Jackson, president of the Peoria chapter of the NAACP. She supported the charter school initiative, “with the understanding that it will, in fact, be open to all students, not just select students,” she told the Chamber of Commerce. She believes the number of administrators needs to be reduced, based on declining enrollment. Her top three priorities are getting a balanced budget, closing the achievement gap, and reducing discipline problems. Her stated priorities are right, but her support for the charter school is counter to the first priority on her list. Also, this gave me pause:

What the District is presently producing is unacceptable and does not meet the needs of the business community. There needs to be drastic changes if this District is to produce a competent workforce that is ready to meet the challenges of a changing job market. The city needs to be able to attract new businesses in order to increase its tax base. This cannot be accomplished if the Board continues on the present path.

When I read this, I picture our schools as factories spitting out little workers for area businesses. In fairness, she was responding to a Chamber of Commerce survey, and was thus likely tailoring her answers to her audience. Nevertheless, I chafe when educational benefits are reduced to “meet[ing] the needs of the business community,” as if the only purpose for public schooling is economic utility. It’s hard to inspire kids when all you have to offer is a common cubicle in corporate America.

But I digress. Jackson also promises to “deliver honest and accurate information to parents and the public,” according to her interview with the Times-Observer, and that would certainly be a welcome change. She also pledges to review the district’s current contracts “with the intent to eliminate excessive spending. This includes doing away with the notion that we must hire a consultant to study every issue confronting the District.” She’s also the only candidate who put “discipline” in her top three priorities for the district. All in all, Jackson is a strong candidate, but will likely be discounted by many because of her continued support of former superintendent Kay Royster.

Christopher Crawford is a local attorney with no previous political experience. He has been endorsed by the Journal Star and the Peoria Area Chamber of Commerce. But on the positive side, he has gained favor with various parent-teacher organizations by being, in some cases, the only candidate to attend their meetings. He’s a strong supporter of the charter school initiative and retaining the Edison schools contract. He supported closing Woodruff High School. He’s in favor of an alternative high school, and might be in favor of returning schools to a K-8 configuration, but wants more information before making a decision. Frankly, his stances on the issues appear indistinguishable from those of Dr. Gorenz. Those who are looking for a good status-quo candidate will find one in Crawford.

Jeff Lickiss is a registered nurse and former Peoria County Board member. He is the only candidate who would not have voted for the charter school because of the district’s financial situation. He believes his County Board experience would be an asset on the School Board — especially his ability to “ask the tough questions and demand factual answers.” However, he also thinks the next administrator, by which I think he means superintendent, should be “a candidate with a MBA emphasis” rather than “a candidate with emphasis on Education PhD.” This looks to me like it betrays a less-than-full understanding of the roles of Superintendent and Comptroller, or alternatively, an ignorance of the educational requirements to be Superintendent. Or maybe it was just meant to be rhetorical. In any case, his point is that he’s concerned about the financial health of the district, which is fair. Like Jackson, he would also cut consultants. He would “spend the district’s money on education.” Lickiss says, “The district needs to focus on its core responsibilities, develop a long term strategic plan and stick to it.”

I think change is needed on the Board, so it comes down to either Jackson or Lickiss. They’re both good candidates, and residents of the third district would be well-served by either of them. Since you can only pick one, I’m giving the edge to Lickiss based on his stance on the charter school initiative. It takes guts to stand up to powerful local interests and insist on financial accountability above political expediency. We need more of that on the school board. Lickiss is endorsed.