APS - Who is running for School Board?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
LOL.

But if that had been in effect the last time The superintendent's contract was voted on, it wouldn't have been renewed. We'd already have a replacement. But who could see the future and plan for this...

Eh, I kind of feel like certain votes are all about the optics. If they'd needed a supermajority to renew Coach Murphy's contract, they'd have gotten one, plus a token vote against, just to demonstrate that They Hear Out Concerns.

Ditto to the person who doesn't take endorsements from current SB members (or other elected Arlington officials) as particularly valuable.

That's probably true re Murphy. All optics.

[Anonymous]

Have people been receiving their ballots yet?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Have people been receiving their ballots yet?

Got mine last week and sent back same day. But I've been hearing of delays.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think I’m going with Dave and Sandy (on the fence with Cristina).

Similarly, I'm going with Cristina and David (on the fence with Sandy). I appreciate that Sandy has lived and worked in Arlington for a long time but I don't know that she is the best person for APS right now. I might be biased. I am 30 years younger than she is (I don't know her exact age). I only ever hear her talking about reading. Literacy should be more a priority in APS than it is. Poor reading skills means years of struggle for students and people generally. And I want every student to read as well as my kids. But I'm concerned this is all she has to say and that she doesn't understand how complicated and technical the world has become.

I might choose Steven as my third choice. I don't like all of his ideas (or how he emails them to me) but at least he has new ideas.

You have learn to sit up before you can crawl. Without that fundamental building block, kids have no real options. Coding is great and another necessary skill, one that isn’t being taught that competently across the system either, but if you can’t read or write at a proficient level, you’re far more likely to end up in jail rather than becoming a wildly successful techie.

Anyone know, did Sandy come up before this misguided turn toward “balanced literacy?” If yes, she has my vote.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Another day, another unsolicited Krieger email. This time on the super important topic of essentially moving from a majority to supermajority vote of the SB to renew the Superintendent's contract. In the middle of a global pandemic, facing still unknown budget shortfalls, I definitely have been kept awake at night by worrying whether it should be 3 of 5 or 4 of 5 SB members that approve the (an as not yet named) Superintendent's contract.

You certainly have your finger on the pulse, Steven.

Yeah, I don't think I've ever heard that as an issue or as a question in any campaign debate. A supermajority would make more sense if it were a larger board. Increasing the size of the board would be much more worthwhile.

I like this idea. How could we adapt higher-ed like system where some voters are elected and others are appointed and skills-based?

Any change in the board structure has to come through Richmond.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think I’m going with Dave and Sandy (on the fence with Cristina).

Similarly, I'm going with Cristina and David (on the fence with Sandy). I appreciate that Sandy has lived and worked in Arlington for a long time but I don't know that she is the best person for APS right now. I might be biased. I am 30 years younger than she is (I don't know her exact age). I only ever hear her talking about reading. Literacy should be more a priority in APS than it is. Poor reading skills means years of struggle for students and people generally. And I want every student to read as well as my kids. But I'm concerned this is all she has to say and that she doesn't understand how complicated and technical the world has become.

I might choose Steven as my third choice. I don't like all of his ideas (or how he emails them to me) but at least he has new ideas.

You have learn to sit up before you can crawl. Without that fundamental building block, kids have no real options. Coding is great and another necessary skill, one that isn’t being taught that competently across the system either, but if you can’t read or write at a proficient level, you’re far more likely to end up in jail rather than becoming a wildly successful techie.

Anyone know, did Sandy come up before this misguided turn toward “balanced literacy?” If yes, she has my vote.

I'm sure everyone agrees with you. I'm glad Sandy emphasizes literacy. It's not a controversial topic. All of the candidates support expanding or improving literacy in APS, especially for the demographics of students that are routinely falling behind. I worry that she doesn't have much more to say.

I haven't received my ballot yet. I might reach out to her campaign to ask about her other priorities. I've visited her website and have heard her say on multiple occasions that all of the candidates are running on the same platform, but she doesn't talk much about those other priorities. David has a four-point plan for equity. Cristina has a framework for addressing inequity. Both candidates describe specific plans for leading APS.

They seem the most prepared to me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think I’m going with Dave and Sandy (on the fence with Cristina).

Similarly, I'm going with Cristina and David (on the fence with Sandy). I appreciate that Sandy has lived and worked in Arlington for a long time but I don't know that she is the best person for APS right now. I might be biased. I am 30 years younger than she is (I don't know her exact age). I only ever hear her talking about reading. Literacy should be more a priority in APS than it is. Poor reading skills means years of struggle for students and people generally. And I want every student to read as well as my kids. But I'm concerned this is all she has to say and that she doesn't understand how complicated and technical the world has become.

I might choose Steven as my third choice. I don't like all of his ideas (or how he emails them to me) but at least he has new ideas.

You have learn to sit up before you can crawl. Without that fundamental building block, kids have no real options. Coding is great and another necessary skill, one that isn’t being taught that competently across the system either, but if you can’t read or write at a proficient level, you’re far more likely to end up in jail rather than becoming a wildly successful techie.

Anyone know, did Sandy come up before this misguided turn toward “balanced literacy?” If yes, she has my vote.

I'm sure everyone agrees with you. I'm glad Sandy emphasizes literacy. It's not a controversial topic. All of the candidates support expanding or improving literacy in APS, especially for the demographics of students that are routinely falling behind. I worry that she doesn't have much more to say.

I haven't received my ballot yet. I might reach out to her campaign to ask about her other priorities. I've visited her website and have heard her say on multiple occasions that all of the candidates are running on the same platform, but she doesn't talk much about those other priorities. David has a four-point plan for equity. Cristina has a framework for addressing inequity. Both candidates describe specific plans for leading APS.

They seem the most prepared to me.

David has been running longer than any of the candidates. He should be more knowledgable by now. Sandy's old-school. Some people might like that. Others don't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think I’m going with Dave and Sandy (on the fence with Cristina).

Similarly, I'm going with Cristina and David (on the fence with Sandy). I appreciate that Sandy has lived and worked in Arlington for a long time but I don't know that she is the best person for APS right now. I might be biased. I am 30 years younger than she is (I don't know her exact age). I only ever hear her talking about reading. Literacy should be more a priority in APS than it is. Poor reading skills means years of struggle for students and people generally. And I want every student to read as well as my kids. But I'm concerned this is all she has to say and that she doesn't understand how complicated and technical the world has become.

I might choose Steven as my third choice. I don't like all of his ideas (or how he emails them to me) but at least he has new ideas.

You have learn to sit up before you can crawl. Without that fundamental building block, kids have no real options. Coding is great and another necessary skill, one that isn’t being taught that competently across the system either, but if you can’t read or write at a proficient level, you’re far more likely to end up in jail rather than becoming a wildly successful techie.

Anyone know, did Sandy come up before this misguided turn toward “balanced literacy?” If yes, she has my vote.

I'm sure everyone agrees with you. I'm glad Sandy emphasizes literacy. It's not a controversial topic. All of the candidates support expanding or improving literacy in APS, especially for the demographics of students that are routinely falling behind. I worry that she doesn't have much more to say.

I haven't received my ballot yet. I might reach out to her campaign to ask about her other priorities. I've visited her website and have heard her say on multiple occasions that all of the candidates are running on the same platform, but she doesn't talk much about those other priorities. David has a four-point plan for equity. Cristina has a framework for addressing inequity. Both candidates describe specific plans for leading APS.

They seem the most prepared to me.

David has been running longer than any of the candidates. He should be more knowledgable by now. Sandy's old-school. Some people might like that. Others don't.

I prefer David over Sandy. Her platform is that we need to be smart on equity, educators, data...as if everyone who runs for school board doesn't think they are smarter than everyone else. David might have less to say than others, but he is a good listener and takes other people's opinions into account.

[Anonymous]

Oh wow! Someone on AEM just threw it down on the whole "poor Symone" narrative. It's kind of classic, actually. It really takes down the whole argument, quoting an Office of Special Counsel opinion from 2009 pretty much describing this situation and how it's not permissible. How can Symone's campaign really claim that this is a newfound and more conservative interpretation of the Hatch Act? As if THIS administration takes a more conservative view of any ethics law!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Oh wow! Someone on AEM just threw it down on the whole "poor Symone" narrative. It's kind of classic, actually. It really takes down the whole argument, quoting an Office of Special Counsel opinion from 2009 pretty much describing this situation and how it's not permissible. How can Symone's campaign really claim that this is a newfound and more conservative interpretation of the Hatch Act? As if THIS administration takes a more conservative view of any ethics law!

Go Honora! Hopefully this will put this issue to bed once and for all. And hopefully folks will see that Symone must have had her head in the sand if she really thought participating in the caucus didn't violate the Hatch Act. I'm still guessing that she did know, but was arrogant enough to think no one would call her on it because she's a POC and a woman. And WTF is with her agency's ethics office that they didn't know this either, unless Symone gave them an inaccurate description of the actual caucus process. Anyway too many issues to stay stuck on this one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh wow! Someone on AEM just threw it down on the whole "poor Symone" narrative. It's kind of classic, actually. It really takes down the whole argument, quoting an Office of Special Counsel opinion from 2009 pretty much describing this situation and how it's not permissible. How can Symone's campaign really claim that this is a newfound and more conservative interpretation of the Hatch Act? As if THIS administration takes a more conservative view of any ethics law!

Go Honora! Hopefully this will put this issue to bed once and for all. And hopefully folks will see that Symone must have had her head in the sand if she really thought participating in the caucus didn't violate the Hatch Act. I'm still guessing that she did know, but was arrogant enough to think no one would call her on it because she's a POC and a woman. And WTF is with her agency's ethics office that they didn't know this either, unless Symone gave them an inaccurate description of the actual caucus process. Anyway too many issues to stay stuck on this one.

I'm not sure prose vomit with zero paragraphs (Honora, not either of the PPs) is the best way to convince people your a deep and rational thinker, but I also can't imagine that anyone doesn't have an opinion on Symone yet, either.

I wasn't going to vote for Terron, but every time his supporters pipe up, I feel so much [that German word for feeling embarrassed on someone else's behalf]. His wife, especially, isn't doing him any favors. It's like your mom thinking you're great.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh wow! Someone on AEM just threw it down on the whole "poor Symone" narrative. It's kind of classic, actually. It really takes down the whole argument, quoting an Office of Special Counsel opinion from 2009 pretty much describing this situation and how it's not permissible. How can Symone's campaign really claim that this is a newfound and more conservative interpretation of the Hatch Act? As if THIS administration takes a more conservative view of any ethics law!

Go Honora! Hopefully this will put this issue to bed once and for all. And hopefully folks will see that Symone must have had her head in the sand if she really thought participating in the caucus didn't violate the Hatch Act. I'm still guessing that she did know, but was arrogant enough to think no one would call her on it because she's a POC and a woman. And WTF is with her agency's ethics office that they didn't know this either, unless Symone gave them an inaccurate description of the actual caucus process. Anyway too many issues to stay stuck on this one.

I'm not sure prose vomit with zero paragraphs (Honora, not either of the PPs) is the best way to convince people your a deep and rational thinker, but I also can't imagine that anyone doesn't have an opinion on Symone yet, either.

I wasn't going to vote for Terron, but every time his supporters pipe up, I feel so much [that German word for feeling embarrassed on someone else's behalf]. His wife, especially, isn't doing him any favors. It's like your mom thinking you're great.

I don’t think Terron looks better, but I do think Symone made a very big mistake and really shouldn’t have been so cavalier about flouting what many of us knew to be the law (and many previous Feds who have not run because they also knew). She should have known, and I have to believe she did know and thought she’d get around it. The ACDC caucus is a partisan event, always has been. If we don’t want the SB to be a partisan election, there shouldn’t be a caucus for endorsement from any party. It’s a farce that supposedly it isn’t partisan. We can’t have it both ways. Feds can’t run for SB while seeking a party endorsement. In short, both wrong, and both lost my vote. I don’t believe the ends justify the means.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh wow! Someone on AEM just threw it down on the whole "poor Symone" narrative. It's kind of classic, actually. It really takes down the whole argument, quoting an Office of Special Counsel opinion from 2009 pretty much describing this situation and how it's not permissible. How can Symone's campaign really claim that this is a newfound and more conservative interpretation of the Hatch Act? As if THIS administration takes a more conservative view of any ethics law!

Go Honora! Hopefully this will put this issue to bed once and for all. And hopefully folks will see that Symone must have had her head in the sand if she really thought participating in the caucus didn't violate the Hatch Act. I'm still guessing that she did know, but was arrogant enough to think no one would call her on it because she's a POC and a woman. And WTF is with her agency's ethics office that they didn't know this either, unless Symone gave them an inaccurate description of the actual caucus process. Anyway too many issues to stay stuck on this one.

I'm not sure prose vomit with zero paragraphs (Honora, not either of the PPs) is the best way to convince people your a deep and rational thinker, but I also can't imagine that anyone doesn't have an opinion on Symone yet, either.

I wasn't going to vote for Terron, but every time his supporters pipe up, I feel so much [that German word for feeling embarrassed on someone else's behalf]. His wife, especially, isn't doing him any favors. It's like your mom thinking you're great.

While I agree that the FB post was a little hard to read and follow, once I reread it (a few times!), it seems clear that Symone messed up and that the law (and her inability to follow a well established legal position) caused her caucus problems, not anyone else. So I don’t understand why she’s blaming another candidate for her own legal and candidate shortcomings. Even if Terron was the one who reported her, which I don’t think I’ll believe until I hear it from OSC. I don’t know his wife, though. What is she doing? Something beyond what I expect a supportive partner would do?

[Anonymous]

Does anyone know if Symone has any endorsements? I know she's not in the Dem caucus, but I am trying to decide whether to save one of my votes for her and I'm interested to see if anyone knows about any. I thought I remembered reading that Del Jennifer Carroll Foy had endorsed her earlier this year, but can't find it now (or really any other endorsements) on Symone's website. TIA!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Oh wow! Someone on AEM just threw it down on the whole "poor Symone" narrative. It's kind of classic, actually. It really takes down the whole argument, quoting an Office of Special Counsel opinion from 2009 pretty much describing this situation and how it's not permissible. How can Symone's campaign really claim that this is a newfound and more conservative interpretation of the Hatch Act? As if THIS administration takes a more conservative view of any ethics law!

I really appreciated this too. I like Symone- and may be happy to vote for her as an independent- but her seeking the democratic endorsement was plainly illegal.
The blame lies at the foot of the ACDC- for insisting on controlling what should be a non-partisan election, not on Terron or anyone who wants laws to be followed.