We know ACPS is bad but WHY

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

ACPS is the perfect example of why Democrat policies don’t work. Rich Dems get to be woke and say they’re for progressive social policies while putting their kids in private school so they don’t have to deal with the fallout from their progressive social policies.

Certainly an example of hypocrisy, saying how public school is vital and giving more parents choice with vouchers is bad, while they put their own children in private because they’ve got money to choose.

+1. And last night the School Board elected Alderton for a second term as chair and Greene as vice chair. Neither has kids in ACPS (Alderton's kids go to private/parochial; Greene doesn't have kids). Just more of the same. So disappointing.

The voters are part of the problem. District A voters gave Greene the most votes (more than the other incumbent Rief) so Greene ends up as vice chair even though she is not very active on the Board.

Serious question: Why would someone who doesn't have kids in the public schools want to be on the school board? I have never understood this. What's the point? The incentive?

People who don’t have kids can still be public school teachers and administrators. It’s still possible to care deeply about your community’s education system without children in public schools. Many people work in the education field in different capacities and still feel invested, whether or not they have kids enrolled in public schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

ACPS is the perfect example of why Democrat policies don’t work. Rich Dems get to be woke and say they’re for progressive social policies while putting their kids in private school so they don’t have to deal with the fallout from their progressive social policies.

Certainly an example of hypocrisy, saying how public school is vital and giving more parents choice with vouchers is bad, while they put their own children in private because they’ve got money to choose.

+1. And last night the School Board elected Alderton for a second term as chair and Greene as vice chair. Neither has kids in ACPS (Alderton's kids go to private/parochial; Greene doesn't have kids). Just more of the same. So disappointing.

The voters are part of the problem. District A voters gave Greene the most votes (more than the other incumbent Rief) so Greene ends up as vice chair even though she is not very active on the Board.

Serious question: Why would someone who doesn't have kids in the public schools want to be on the school board? I have never understood this. What's the point? The incentive?

People who don’t have kids can still be public school teachers and administrators. It’s still possible to care deeply about your community’s education system without children in public schools. Many people work in the education field in different capacities and still feel invested, whether or not they have kids enrolled in public schools.

Of course. But if someone DOES have kids, and they send them to private school, how deeply do they care about their community's public education system? What--are they planning to sit on the board until they've raised the schools up to their standards, then switch into the system?