APS School Board race

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just saw this! https://www.mirandaturner.org/

She has my vote.

Just saw this? I feel like this is a plant. Anyway, can anyone confirm that this is a new campaign and not someone just stumbling upon her last campaign?

New! From the email that announced:

“Your support was crucial two years ago, and I'm asking for it again. I'm running for School Board in 2023 and I can't do it without you!

My priorities are simple:
Focusing on instruction that supports our students.
Prioritizing the resources to recruit, support, and retain our teachers.
Setting expectations that promote the best in all.
Providing oversight that asks tough questions on the budget and facilities.
Communicating with the community in a frequent, clear, and transparent way.”

I would never trust the judgment of someone who has been a leader in that group. Beyond all of their terrible behavior during the pandemic, they were still pushing GOP propaganda in 2022.

Arlington already rejected her once. Do it again.

Really?! is this what "GOP propaganda" look like:

from Miranda's website: "I’ve been an APS parent since 2015. I was a founding member of the Drew PTA in 2019 and still serve as Social Media Chair, am involved with the Montessori Public School of Arlington PTA, and serve as site liaison for the Drew/Green Valley Girls on the Run team. I’m a member of the Early Childhood Education Committee for the Advisory Council on Teaching & Learning. I volunteer as a Precinct Captain for the Arlington Democrats and spent time last fall knocking doors and poll greeting to elect local Democrats. I’m also a member of Green Valley Civic Association’s Executive Committee and our delegate to the Civic Federation.

In my professional life as a lawyer, I devote substantial time to volunteer pro bono work. I currently represent Planned Parenthood and litigate abortion rights in federal court, and I’ve mentored younger lawyers in housing rights cases and parole proceedings. "

She is a DINO. She's in it to win it, and has the race all locked up. She says the right Dem things while her base in her parent group will support her through the caucus and all the way to the election. She's very smary, savvy. It's not even a real race. She's going to run away with this.

Disagree. She will have great difficulty shaking the APE connection and turning the minds of the self-righteous, enlightened AEM folks. On the other hand, if they are really a quiet minority, based on her competition so far, maybe you're right.

Yes, she’s trying to rebrand. We get that.

Why did she align herself so closely with them?

I won't and can't speak for her, but, will speak for myself and my experience with a child in Kindergarten in 2020. No other group was advocating for schools to re-open to in person education more quickly than they did. I am not a RWNJ, but, my child DID NOT thrive in virtual school. DID NOT. We also had a 2 year old at home. My husband and I also both worked full time. We were drowning. We are still suffering the repercussions of virtual school. And we have more resources than others. We hired a tutor who came to our house twice a week the entire 20/21 year. I supported APE advocating for return to in person schooling. I'm not tone deaf, and have multiple family members who are teachers or school admins in other areas of the US--and no, not FL or the South. Those family members were stunned by APS' posture. So, absent any other body advocating for re-opening, I supported APE. Not everyone in/affiliated with APE is right wing or anti mask, etc etc etc. It has always held itself out as a non-partisan group. It cannot control everyone--and believe me--I saw some of the whacko statements. But, on the whole I think they have done well to advocate for the best interest of children. Go ahead and disagree, but, that's my opinion. And you know what opinions are like.

I've found Miranda to be very sharp and thoughtful. I have encountered her in more venues than the APE space and would never characterize her as a RWNJ or many of the other things strangers who I'm guessing have never spoken to her in person or otherwise are suggesting here. I'd encourage everyone to do their due diligence on which candidate they might support, but, I'd suggest not writing someone off entirely because of rogue individuals that happened to share a vision for schools re-opening sooner than they did.

+1000

APE has some extreme people in it who were angry and hostile during COVID, but that was also a terrible time when a lot of kids and families were struggling mightily due to APS' outlandish and extreme position that was out of touch with the rest of the nation and which I firmly believe is one reason this year has been such a crap show.

And even through all that, Miranda Turner was gracious, open-minded, tried to keep all voices heard, etc. And since then, APE is THE SINGLE BEST source of info on APS stuff. Period. They don't get everything right, because it's a bunch of busy parents doing their best. But they poll their members to get feedback on priorities, and then advocate around those priorities, and actually get stuff done from what I can tell. (I'm on their email list but not otherwise active.)

I like Miranda personally. Have met with her, talked with her, and found her smart, open, thoughtful. I know she does not personally agree with the fringe people in APE because I asked about it directly. But that APE is a big tent is a good thing overall. So overall, really, consider giving her your vote.

+1 Fully endorse this. Even if some of the APE advocates in 2000 and 2001 had some unsavory strategies, we should be focusing on the future and trying to fix together the problems that APS needs to solve (and needs our help doing it). If needed, we should have some kind of an APE-y, Smart Restart-y amnesty to reset things so that we can all work together. Nursing old grievances will swallow us all. Righteous causes do not require rigteous anger by anyone, and isn't a good mode for engagement.

another +1!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can’t decide what is most bizarre about this thread. That anyone in 2023 is saying anti-mask like it’s a slur is hilarious - look around at almost everyone now. No one wants to wear them let alone require them on children now. And can there be a thread about APS without someone going down some weird conspiracy theory of some influence of Koch please? I find it bizarre and ironic as a supporter of public school policies traditionally held by the left that there is a constant desire by posters to give the GOP the issues of higher teacher pay and smaller class sizes, closing opportunity gaps etc that I am seeing on Arlington Parents’ website and twitter. These don’t seem like scary and conspiratorial concepts. You are giving away the platform of public schools to the right.

They were aggressively anti-mask way back when. And they were anti-teacher, anti-school, etc. Someone who helped a lot with her first campaign behaved very poorly at a SB meeting.

Just an odd group of miscreants for a potential school board member to side with.

I don't think she "sided" with them. I think she agreed with the goals. What's more, a SB member NEEDS to be able to work with "odd groups of miscreants" as you've already noted by citing her campaign manager's poor behavior at a SB meeting.

Unless another candidate really impresses me with something spectacular, if the vote were today, I'd likely vote for MT if for no other reason than the fact that she was able to endure some of the worst behaved parents and to manage a range of perspectives and viewpoints.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know her, although not well. I have mixed feelings on her. Her kids are nice, which in general speaks highly of a parent. She is a solid Key volunteer. She is EXTREMELY committed to the 'keep Key on Key' movement, anyone who feels differently must have nefarious motives or be stupid. She can be kind of standoffish. I don't know who the other candidates are.

That's the way Mary Kadera was about McKinley disappearing. Didn't stop her from getting on the Board.

That is true up to a point. Mary K was McKinley PTA president at the time- and she represented the McKinley viewpoint- Mckinley was more caught of guard then Key, and there were other options- moving ats to mcKinley was not the only viable option.
In contrast- Erin was part of the keep key on key movement for years. My memory on this issue goes back a long time- multiple times aps planning staff tried to engage the Key community about the need to move and get them to work collaboratively on a location. It was very clear for a long time that they needed the Key building as a neighborhood school. Erin was part of, if not the leader of, a group of parents who treated the staff with contempt and mocked them for even trying to raise the idea of a move. She absolutely refused to consider the validity of any of the data the staff presented about the need for a neighborhood school at the Key site, and she was extremely dismissive of any Key parent trying to suggest that we should be open to a new location. She was absolutely caught up in groupthink about it- talking to that group of parents was like talking to a buzz saw.

It’s fun to revisit some of that rhetoric about how a move would destroy the program. As far as I know everything move related has actually been totally fine and the effed up thing we should have been worried about (Covid) was a total surprise.

I didn't say the community a
+1

Correct. Everything Erin & team said would happen didn't come to frution. A majority of Key parents have actually moved on, it's just a small group that can't get over it. This group isn't respected within APS circles or the larger Immersion community (parents, staff, admins, etc).

I’m a Key parent who is definitely over it, and yes, it’s mostly been fine… but the move did serve to shrink the immersion program, because Key previously had 6 K classes but can only fit 4 in the new building. So that’s one concern that did come true— fewer kids get to start immersion.

Going down to 4 K classes wasn't a product of the move. That had been long talked about and advocated for by immersion admins for years. Erin and "keep Key on Key" advocates did the Key community a disservice by linking the 2 issues. There is another whole thread on this site that talks about the quality of instruction at Key and how it needs to be improved. It's very hard to know each student by name, strength and need in an elementary school with over 700 students. Especially given the high number of SPED students and all immersion students are language learners.

As a Key parent for 8+ years, no…. The class reduction was due to the move. Claremont had advocated for fewer students/classes due to overcrowding, but Key never did (at least not that I ever heard about).

Do you trust that your principal at Key would advocate for what is best for the school even if parents don't see the need when it comes to school size? Key parent leaders didn't foster an environment that allowed for its admins or APS to explain why reducing the number of K classes was needed or best.

From my understanding, there isn't a long waiting list of Spanish Ks that haven't been able to get into Key the last 2 years.

Claremont did advocate to going down to 4 K classes but also to increase the number of VPI classes from 2 to 4. This helps to improve outcomes for EL students by providing them with bilingual early childhood education and increase access to the immersion program for the students that need it the most. Key PTA could have and should have advocated for the same, but again, they decided to fight APS instead of partnering with them. They also created in environment that didn't allow for Ms. Perdomo to openly share what she thinks might have been best for Key.

As a key parent of 8 years have you ever heard your principal or anyone from APS say the reason Key needed 4 K was because of the move? Or have you only heard that from parents and teachers?

I definitely remember Marjorie Myers, the previous principal, saying she wanted to drop back down to 4 kindergartens b/c she was concerned about how overcrowded Key was becoming. She was forcefully rebuked by Key parents b/c they were concerned this would give fodder to the idea of moving Key, an idea that was starting to percolate. I do hold the 'take no prisoners' advocacy against Erin. She was not alone in this- but those Key parents were not thinking of what was best for immersion long term, and they definitely were not thinking of what was best for the school system as a whole. They were focused on what was best for them personally- and they trumped up a lot of arguments to support their position, and got a lot of people unnecessarily fired up and angry, with some outright lies. I understand the 'passionate views on both sides' perspective, but what she displayed was an unwillingness to look at data and a lot of willingness to manipulate facts to match an agenda. Those are not qualities I look for in a school board member. I would like her to at least answer the question of what she has learned from that, and looking at it now, how would she approach the situation differently both as an advocate and as a school board member.

YES! Absolutely NOT the person for the job of SB!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jeff/Admin: Can you explain why posts in this thread keep getting deleted if they mention APE?

There is a post directly above yours that mentions APE that did not get deleted. Posts are getting deleted for that reason. They are getting deleted for making false statements.

This group, which a SB candidate led for years, was an open schools group in Arlington. They were abusive online and in school board meetings. Some of their most aggressive, vocal members were anti-maskers, anti-CRT, pro-voucher. They were aligned with open schools groups out in FCPS and LCPS. Including Ian Prior, PDE (Koch bro), etc.

I h

This is really really really offensive. To say APE - which has an EXTREMELY public website and biweekly newsletter - is anti-CRT or pro-voucher or supported by Koch brothers or Ian Prior is complete lies. You shouldn't be allowed to defame like this on a public website. Show us ANY proof of anti-CRT or pro-voucher or supported by Koch or aligned with Ian Prior. Literally anything.

Here's an idea - some people thought kids should be in school sooner than you did, apparently. That doesn't make them bigots.

APE website: www.arlingtonparentsforeducation.org

DP. Not an APE member and don't know who the members are. I agree with PP. However, while APE's work may be "extremely public," I don't understand why they are so anonymous. Those opinion pieces on various topics supposedly written by concerned parents or teachers are NEVER SIGNED. I can understand MAYBE a teacher being hesitant to have their name associated with a criticism of APS due to job concerns. But there is no reason for a parent to not sign their name to their own opinion piece. This just casts an air of secrecy and doubt: are these really pieces written by different concerned teachers and parents, or are they written by the same one or few members? APE proclaims its transparency - then OWN it and sign your names!

Regarding anonymous opinion pieces. I have not contributed to the newsletter but here are some reasons I would only do so on an anonymous basis: 1) look at this thread and the delusional APE trolls who want to tear them apart and spread lies - I don't need that in my life, 2) I have a serious career I've worked very hard for and do not need opinion pieces re my kids' school experience showing in a google search, 3) I respect my kids' privacy and wouldn't feel comfortable sharing their difficulties so publicly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just saw this! https://www.mirandaturner.org/

She has my vote.

Just saw this? I feel like this is a plant. Anyway, can anyone confirm that this is a new campaign and not someone just stumbling upon her last campaign?

New! From the email that announced:

“Your support was crucial two years ago, and I'm asking for it again. I'm running for School Board in 2023 and I can't do it without you!

My priorities are simple:
Focusing on instruction that supports our students.
Prioritizing the resources to recruit, support, and retain our teachers.
Setting expectations that promote the best in all.
Providing oversight that asks tough questions on the budget and facilities.
Communicating with the community in a frequent, clear, and transparent way.”

I would never trust the judgment of someone who has been a leader in that group. Beyond all of their terrible behavior during the pandemic, they were still pushing GOP propaganda in 2022.

Arlington already rejected her once. Do it again.

Really?! is this what "GOP propaganda" look like:

from Miranda's website: "I’ve been an APS parent since 2015. I was a founding member of the Drew PTA in 2019 and still serve as Social Media Chair, am involved with the Montessori Public School of Arlington PTA, and serve as site liaison for the Drew/Green Valley Girls on the Run team. I’m a member of the Early Childhood Education Committee for the Advisory Council on Teaching & Learning. I volunteer as a Precinct Captain for the Arlington Democrats and spent time last fall knocking doors and poll greeting to elect local Democrats. I’m also a member of Green Valley Civic Association’s Executive Committee and our delegate to the Civic Federation.

In my professional life as a lawyer, I devote substantial time to volunteer pro bono work. I currently represent Planned Parenthood and litigate abortion rights in federal court, and I’ve mentored younger lawyers in housing rights cases and parole proceedings. "

She is a DINO. She's in it to win it, and has the race all locked up. She says the right Dem things while her base in her parent group will support her through the caucus and all the way to the election. She's very smary, savvy. It's not even a real race. She's going to run away with this.

Disagree. She will have great difficulty shaking the APE connection and turning the minds of the self-righteous, enlightened AEM folks. On the other hand, if they are really a quiet minority, based on her competition so far, maybe you're right.

Yes, she’s trying to rebrand. We get that.

Why did she align herself so closely with them?

I can only presume because she felt strongly about the driving issues behind the organization forming and was, as many people likely are, unaware of how the bad apples would behave and develop the impression of the group. Not being part of the group or privy to its internal issues, how would anyone know what she did or did not try to do to contain the boorish behaviors and actions of individual members? Yes, she could have called them out publicly or done the typical response of organizations ("the behaviors and attitudes do not represent the values of our organization blah blah blah"). Maybe she was just trying her best to work for things she passionately believes in and thought that was the better good and more valuable than not working within the group.

Maybe not. But I'm willing to hear her out because I have not heard anything offensive from her and agree with much of what the group advocates for, even if I don't like how they go about their effort.

So an ineffective leader?

I'd say the fact that APE endures and is a seemingly strong, very organized group that continues to put out the most comprehensive information of any APS sources says quite the opposite. Under an ineffective leader, the group would have imploded. For all you know, she contained or helped reduce some of the negative behaviors.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can’t decide what is most bizarre about this thread. That anyone in 2023 is saying anti-mask like it’s a slur is hilarious - look around at almost everyone now. No one wants to wear them let alone require them on children now. And can there be a thread about APS without someone going down some weird conspiracy theory of some influence of Koch please? I find it bizarre and ironic as a supporter of public school policies traditionally held by the left that there is a constant desire by posters to give the GOP the issues of higher teacher pay and smaller class sizes, closing opportunity gaps etc that I am seeing on Arlington Parents’ website and twitter. These don’t seem like scary and conspiratorial concepts. You are giving away the platform of public schools to the right.

They were aggressively anti-mask way back when. And they were anti-teacher, anti-school, etc. Someone who helped a lot with her first campaign behaved very poorly at a SB meeting.

Just an odd group of miscreants for a potential school board member to side with.

So I now can guess pretty accurately who you are based on your rabid AEM postings.

I was a member of the APE FB group. I was never anti-mask and there wasn't a push for that in the FB group or by the members. Was there a handful of people who might of been - probably - but overall that just wasn't the issue at hand. It was school reopening. And if masks were a part of that, it was ok. And no one needs to believe me because if you really want to know, request to join the group and read through the posts.

I think people like you who continue to push the whole masking thing are behind the curve.

People have moved on and don't really care or have anymore need to use a mask to display there particular political party. The year started off with AEM and even posts on this board about how terrible no masks was going to be and the covid explosion sure to come. It never happened and largely people have accepted it's not going to AND in hindsight, yes, many have probably come to realize they did have some overblown ideas about school spread, etc. Especially as more and more studies and data from legit sources seem to indicate. Now we know better so in the future, they can draw from the lessons learned.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jeff/Admin: Can you explain why posts in this thread keep getting deleted if they mention APE?

There is a post directly above yours that mentions APE that did not get deleted. Posts are getting deleted for that reason. They are getting deleted for making false statements.

This group, which a SB candidate led for years, was an open schools group in Arlington. They were abusive online and in school board meetings. Some of their most aggressive, vocal members were anti-maskers, anti-CRT, pro-voucher. They were aligned with open schools groups out in FCPS and LCPS. Including Ian Prior, PDE (Koch bro), etc.

I h

This is really really really offensive. To say APE - which has an EXTREMELY public website and biweekly newsletter - is anti-CRT or pro-voucher or supported by Koch brothers or Ian Prior is complete lies. You shouldn't be allowed to defame like this on a public website. Show us ANY proof of anti-CRT or pro-voucher or supported by Koch or aligned with Ian Prior. Literally anything.

Here's an idea - some people thought kids should be in school sooner than you did, apparently. That doesn't make them bigots.

APE website: www.arlingtonparentsforeducation.org

DP. Not an APE member and don't know who the members are. I agree with PP. However, while APE's work may be "extremely public," I don't understand why they are so anonymous. Those opinion pieces on various topics supposedly written by concerned parents or teachers are NEVER SIGNED. I can understand MAYBE a teacher being hesitant to have their name associated with a criticism of APS due to job concerns. But there is no reason for a parent to not sign their name to their own opinion piece. This just casts an air of secrecy and doubt: are these really pieces written by different concerned teachers and parents, or are they written by the same one or few members? APE proclaims its transparency - then OWN it and sign your names!

Regarding anonymous opinion pieces. I have not contributed to the newsletter but here are some reasons I would only do so on an anonymous basis: 1) look at this thread and the delusional APE trolls who want to tear them apart and spread lies - I don't need that in my life, 2) I have a serious career I've worked very hard for and do not need opinion pieces re my kids' school experience showing in a google search, 3) I respect my kids' privacy and wouldn't feel comfortable sharing their difficulties so publicly.

Understandable - and precisely why you wouldn't write a letter to the editor or an opinion piece for the Washington Post, as it requires a name. Like any reputable newspaper, APE should do the same; and it would serve itself well to have non-anonymous opinion pieces, if they're going to have them. If not, then don't couch it in that format and just write about the issues. I guarantee you: the anonymity makes things suspect and makes people leery of the group, which then diminishes the group's credibility and effectiveness.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jeff/Admin: Can you explain why posts in this thread keep getting deleted if they mention APE?

There is a post directly above yours that mentions APE that did not get deleted. Posts are getting deleted for that reason. They are getting deleted for making false statements.

This group, which a SB candidate led for years, was an open schools group in Arlington. They were abusive online and in school board meetings. Some of their most aggressive, vocal members were anti-maskers, anti-CRT, pro-voucher. They were aligned with open schools groups out in FCPS and LCPS. Including Ian Prior, PDE (Koch bro), etc.

I h

This is really really really offensive. To say APE - which has an EXTREMELY public website and biweekly newsletter - is anti-CRT or pro-voucher or supported by Koch brothers or Ian Prior is complete lies. You shouldn't be allowed to defame like this on a public website. Show us ANY proof of anti-CRT or pro-voucher or supported by Koch or aligned with Ian Prior. Literally anything.

Here's an idea - some people thought kids should be in school sooner than you did, apparently. That doesn't make them bigots.

APE website: www.arlingtonparentsforeducation.org

DP. Not an APE member and don't know who the members are. I agree with PP. However, while APE's work may be "extremely public," I don't understand why they are so anonymous. Those opinion pieces on various topics supposedly written by concerned parents or teachers are NEVER SIGNED. I can understand MAYBE a teacher being hesitant to have their name associated with a criticism of APS due to job concerns. But there is no reason for a parent to not sign their name to their own opinion piece. This just casts an air of secrecy and doubt: are these really pieces written by different concerned teachers and parents, or are they written by the same one or few members? APE proclaims its transparency - then OWN it and sign your names!

Regarding anonymous opinion pieces. I have not contributed to the newsletter but here are some reasons I would only do so on an anonymous basis: 1) look at this thread and the delusional APE trolls who want to tear them apart and spread lies - I don't need that in my life, 2) I have a serious career I've worked very hard for and do not need opinion pieces re my kids' school experience showing in a google search, 3) I respect my kids' privacy and wouldn't feel comfortable sharing their difficulties so publicly.

Understandable - and precisely why you wouldn't write a letter to the editor or an opinion piece for the Washington Post, as it requires a name. Like any reputable newspaper, APE should do the same; and it would serve itself well to have non-anonymous opinion pieces, if they're going to have them. If not, then don't couch it in that format and just write about the issues. I guarantee you: the anonymity makes things suspect and makes people leery of the group, which then diminishes the group's credibility and effectiveness.

As a reader of their newsletter, I respectfully disagree. I’ve found the pieces very valuable and informative and can relate to many of the opinions. Perhaps the anonymity would make the suspect if the were writing on issues that weren’t hyper-local or personal. I do not hold them to same std as the WaPo and anyone that does is being unreasonable, IMO.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Seems like Miranda and Erin will split the "parents know more than educators" vote. Go Angelo!

This is concerning in a Democratic Primary.

It's a talking point of the ultra right "parents rights" movement.

Conservative parents are joining APS committees in large numbers.

What if the parent run School Health Board puts out a recommendation to limit rights to trans students? Or change family life curriculum?

What if the parent run ACTL Social Studies committee recommends limiting African American Studies?

What if the parent run ACTL ELA committee doesn't want some types of books to be read in English?

"Drive central office staff to respect APS committee recommendations and survey results" - Erin's wesbite

Do we really want central office to respect committees recommendations that don't share out values? This is why we have an elected school board. It's their job to look at the recommendations offered by central office staff AND parent committees, and then decide how to move forward in the best interest of our community and students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can’t decide what is most bizarre about this thread. That anyone in 2023 is saying anti-mask like it’s a slur is hilarious - look around at almost everyone now. No one wants to wear them let alone require them on children now. And can there be a thread about APS without someone going down some weird conspiracy theory of some influence of Koch please? I find it bizarre and ironic as a supporter of public school policies traditionally held by the left that there is a constant desire by posters to give the GOP the issues of higher teacher pay and smaller class sizes, closing opportunity gaps etc that I am seeing on Arlington Parents’ website and twitter. These don’t seem like scary and conspiratorial concepts. You are giving away the platform of public schools to the right.

They were aggressively anti-mask way back when. And they were anti-teacher, anti-school, etc. Someone who helped a lot with her first campaign behaved very poorly at a SB meeting.

Just an odd group of miscreants for a potential school board member to side with.

So I now can guess pretty accurately who you are based on your rabid AEM postings.

I was a member of the APE FB group. I was never anti-mask and there wasn't a push for that in the FB group or by the members. Was there a handful of people who might of been - probably - but overall that just wasn't the issue at hand. It was school reopening. And if masks were a part of that, it was ok. And no one needs to believe me because if you really want to know, request to join the group and read through the posts.

I think people like you who continue to push the whole masking thing are behind the curve.

People have moved on and don't really care or have anymore need to use a mask to display there particular political party. The year started off with AEM and even posts on this board about how terrible no masks was going to be and the covid explosion sure to come. It never happened and largely people have accepted it's not going to AND in hindsight, yes, many have probably come to realize they did have some overblown ideas about school spread, etc. Especially as more and more studies and data from legit sources seem to indicate. Now we know better so in the future, they can draw from the lessons learned.

Interesting. I have never posted on AEM.

Many people saw their bad behavior. It was very public.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can’t decide what is most bizarre about this thread. That anyone in 2023 is saying anti-mask like it’s a slur is hilarious - look around at almost everyone now. No one wants to wear them let alone require them on children now. And can there be a thread about APS without someone going down some weird conspiracy theory of some influence of Koch please? I find it bizarre and ironic as a supporter of public school policies traditionally held by the left that there is a constant desire by posters to give the GOP the issues of higher teacher pay and smaller class sizes, closing opportunity gaps etc that I am seeing on Arlington Parents’ website and twitter. These don’t seem like scary and conspiratorial concepts. You are giving away the platform of public schools to the right.

They were aggressively anti-mask way back when. And they were anti-teacher, anti-school, etc. Someone who helped a lot with her first campaign behaved very poorly at a SB meeting.

Just an odd group of miscreants for a potential school board member to side with.

The thing is, we can see in hindsight that they were correct in many ways. After vaccines were available to all adults there really wasn't any reason to wear masks or not go 5 days/week in person. I realize that masks were a political signifier in many ways, but there really was no scientific reason to bother with them at all in the 21-22 school year.

[Anonymous]

Close affiliation with APE is a bad look for someone trying to be competitive in the democratic caucus.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know her, although not well. I have mixed feelings on her. Her kids are nice, which in general speaks highly of a parent. She is a solid Key volunteer. She is EXTREMELY committed to the 'keep Key on Key' movement, anyone who feels differently must have nefarious motives or be stupid. She can be kind of standoffish. I don't know who the other candidates are.

That's the way Mary Kadera was about McKinley disappearing. Didn't stop her from getting on the Board.

That is true up to a point. Mary K was McKinley PTA president at the time- and she represented the McKinley viewpoint- Mckinley was more caught of guard then Key, and there were other options- moving ats to mcKinley was not the only viable option.
In contrast- Erin was part of the keep key on key movement for years. My memory on this issue goes back a long time- multiple times aps planning staff tried to engage the Key community about the need to move and get them to work collaboratively on a location. It was very clear for a long time that they needed the Key building as a neighborhood school. Erin was part of, if not the leader of, a group of parents who treated the staff with contempt and mocked them for even trying to raise the idea of a move. She absolutely refused to consider the validity of any of the data the staff presented about the need for a neighborhood school at the Key site, and she was extremely dismissive of any Key parent trying to suggest that we should be open to a new location. She was absolutely caught up in groupthink about it- talking to that group of parents was like talking to a buzz saw.

It’s fun to revisit some of that rhetoric about how a move would destroy the program. As far as I know everything move related has actually been totally fine and the effed up thing we should have been worried about (Covid) was a total surprise.

I didn't say the community a
+1

Correct. Everything Erin & team said would happen didn't come to frution. A majority of Key parents have actually moved on, it's just a small group that can't get over it. This group isn't respected within APS circles or the larger Immersion community (parents, staff, admins, etc).

I’m a Key parent who is definitely over it, and yes, it’s mostly been fine… but the move did serve to shrink the immersion program, because Key previously had 6 K classes but can only fit 4 in the new building. So that’s one concern that did come true— fewer kids get to start immersion.

Going down to 4 K classes wasn't a product of the move. That had been long talked about and advocated for by immersion admins for years. Erin and "keep Key on Key" advocates did the Key community a disservice by linking the 2 issues. There is another whole thread on this site that talks about the quality of instruction at Key and how it needs to be improved. It's very hard to know each student by name, strength and need in an elementary school with over 700 students. Especially given the high number of SPED students and all immersion students are language learners.

As a Key parent for 8+ years, no…. The class reduction was due to the move. Claremont had advocated for fewer students/classes due to overcrowding, but Key never did (at least not that I ever heard about).

Do you trust that your principal at Key would advocate for what is best for the school even if parents don't see the need when it comes to school size? Key parent leaders didn't foster an environment that allowed for its admins or APS to explain why reducing the number of K classes was needed or best.

From my understanding, there isn't a long waiting list of Spanish Ks that haven't been able to get into Key the last 2 years.

Claremont did advocate to going down to 4 K classes but also to increase the number of VPI classes from 2 to 4. This helps to improve outcomes for EL students by providing them with bilingual early childhood education and increase access to the immersion program for the students that need it the most. Key PTA could have and should have advocated for the same, but again, they decided to fight APS instead of partnering with them. They also created in environment that didn't allow for Ms. Perdomo to openly share what she thinks might have been best for Key.

As a key parent of 8 years have you ever heard your principal or anyone from APS say the reason Key needed 4 K was because of the move? Or have you only heard that from parents and teachers?

I definitely remember Marjorie Myers, the previous principal, saying she wanted to drop back down to 4 kindergartens b/c she was concerned about how overcrowded Key was becoming. She was forcefully rebuked by Key parents b/c they were concerned this would give fodder to the idea of moving Key, an idea that was starting to percolate. I do hold the 'take no prisoners' advocacy against Erin. She was not alone in this- but those Key parents were not thinking of what was best for immersion long term, and they definitely were not thinking of what was best for the school system as a whole. They were focused on what was best for them personally- and they trumped up a lot of arguments to support their position, and got a lot of people unnecessarily fired up and angry, with some outright lies. I understand the 'passionate views on both sides' perspective, but what she displayed was an unwillingness to look at data and a lot of willingness to manipulate facts to match an agenda. Those are not qualities I look for in a school board member. I would like her to at least answer the question of what she has learned from that, and looking at it now, how would she approach the situation differently both as an advocate and as a school board member.

+1 - All of this!

Erin’s platform and the Key PTA leadership feel parents know more than their principal and other highly skilled professionals in APS. It came up in their move, in reducing the number of Kindergarten classes, the Immersion task force, etc. This is a pattern and it’s problematic. From Erin’s website: “Drive central office staff to respect APS committee recommendations”. Why are we paying for staff if parents know more than teachers, principals and admins?

the whole advisory committee thing in APS is kind of problematic- and I say this as a former advisory committee member. I do get concerned when I hear pushing for the advisory committees to be 'respected' more. They already get a great deal of 'respect', air time with the school board, and aps staff focus. They don't, and absolutely should not, always get their recommendations adopted. Recognize that ANYONE can join an advisory committee. It doesn't mean that you have any level of expertise, it doesn't mean that you have a system wide view of things- it simply means that you are willing to show up for meetings. Most of the committees are tiny. There is little to no 'vetting' of the recommendations. Some of them are super thoughtful, and have been extremely helpful to APS- eg the English Language Arts committee that pushed back for years on the lucy caulkins curriculum and continued to bring the need for phonics based instruction, and research surrounding that, up.
Less useful is the also extraordinary common recommendation to add additional central office staff e.g. 'immersion specialist.' or like most recently from the science advisory committee add a 'science specialist' and science 'coaches' to the elementary schools. https://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/November-2022_Science-Advisory-Committee-Recommendation-1.pdf

[Anonymous]

I am a current Escuela Key parent. I would not vote for Erin. Or rather every parent is named Erin there, so we call her Erin FS.

Erin FS did not keep our community together during the pandemic. It was the previous president who not only got us through the bogus move, but then the pandemic happened and it was A's leadership that kept us together. Erin paled compared to her. A lot of us who remember her still miss her. Her kid is now in middle school. Honestly, she should be the person running for the SB.

During Erin FS's reign, she micromanaged the entire school. It's like I had to get her permission to speak to Sra Perdomo. I wasn't even on the PTA, and I laughed and laughed. I was friendly with a few people on the Executive Committee and they all hated her too. One even left for private school. She had other reasons to leave, but I distinctly remember her saying that she never wanted to deal with Erin FS again.

She is rude AF too if she doesn't like you.


Honestly, I don't like any candidate who has filed. What a terrible lot. Who is that 22 year old again because he might have my vote. Go Gen Z!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jeff/Admin: Can you explain why posts in this thread keep getting deleted if they mention APE?

There is a post directly above yours that mentions APE that did not get deleted. Posts are getting deleted for that reason. They are getting deleted for making false statements.

This group, which a SB candidate led for years, was an open schools group in Arlington. They were abusive online and in school board meetings. Some of their most aggressive, vocal members were anti-maskers, anti-CRT, pro-voucher. They were aligned with open schools groups out in FCPS and LCPS. Including Ian Prior, PDE (Koch bro), etc.

I h

This is really really really offensive. To say APE - which has an EXTREMELY public website and biweekly newsletter - is anti-CRT or pro-voucher or supported by Koch brothers or Ian Prior is complete lies. You shouldn't be allowed to defame like this on a public website. Show us ANY proof of anti-CRT or pro-voucher or supported by Koch or aligned with Ian Prior. Literally anything.

Here's an idea - some people thought kids should be in school sooner than you did, apparently. That doesn't make them bigots.

APE website: www.arlingtonparentsforeducation.org

DP. Not an APE member and don't know who the members are. I agree with PP. However, while APE's work may be "extremely public," I don't understand why they are so anonymous. Those opinion pieces on various topics supposedly written by concerned parents or teachers are NEVER SIGNED. I can understand MAYBE a teacher being hesitant to have their name associated with a criticism of APS due to job concerns. But there is no reason for a parent to not sign their name to their own opinion piece. This just casts an air of secrecy and doubt: are these really pieces written by different concerned teachers and parents, or are they written by the same one or few members? APE proclaims its transparency - then OWN it and sign your names!

Regarding anonymous opinion pieces. I have not contributed to the newsletter but here are some reasons I would only do so on an anonymous basis: 1) look at this thread and the delusional APE trolls who want to tear them apart and spread lies - I don't need that in my life, 2) I have a serious career I've worked very hard for and do not need opinion pieces re my kids' school experience showing in a google search, 3) I respect my kids' privacy and wouldn't feel comfortable sharing their difficulties so publicly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seems like Miranda and Erin will split the "parents know more than educators" vote. Go Angelo!

This is concerning in a Democratic Primary.

It's a talking point of the ultra right "parents rights" movement.

Conservative parents are joining APS committees in large numbers.

What if the parent run School Health Board puts out a recommendation to limit rights to trans students? Or change family life curriculum?

What if the parent run ACTL Social Studies committee recommends limiting African American Studies?

What if the parent run ACTL ELA committee doesn't want some types of books to be read in English?

"Drive central office staff to respect APS committee recommendations and survey results" - Erin's wesbite

Do we really want central office to respect committees recommendations that don't share out values? This is why we have an elected school board. It's their job to look at the recommendations offered by central office staff AND parent committees, and then decide how to move forward in the best interest of our community and students.

This is straight paranoia. Like, monsters-in-the-closet paranoia. The biggest knocks on the committee system are that 1) people only get selected for committees from a narrow and self-selecting group. If you're not "in the club", you'll never get picked, and 2) The staff doesn't even listen to committee reports and surveys.

Just look at the calendar process! That had no left-right valence, but the committee tried to stack the deck against what most people wanted, the survey confirmed that parents didn't like the committe-preferred option, and the staff proposed that one anyway!

APS has actual problems that kind of require actual solutions, but you're over here hiding under your bedsheets because you think a bunch of MAGAts are infiltrating Arlington, Illuminati-style. Doing secret handshakes and whispering "hail Trump" in each others' ears.