APS School Board race

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pretty good budget analysis from the 22 year old. Maybe he is a real candidate after all.
https://www.arlnow.com/2023/02/27/aps-highlights-spending-on-staff-security-and-student-health-in-proposed-budget-for-next-school-year/?fbclid=IwAR2xF7IaNHFYABbYgu1UmDXtAtrEVEgdtLttpc4tiVsJH8y0F3XGkaRjtc8

Um, not really. The use of the phrase "if it saves one life" is a pretty clear marker of superficial thinking. Even if I agree we need more SACs, the comparison with SSCs is specious. Note he doesn't come out and say we should hire fewer security staff, because that would put him in a position to be criticized in the future. And if that's not the tradeoff he's proposing, why make the comparison?

On Syphax headcount, "It has been a sentiment among some"...translation: I have no opinion on this and am too lazy to do my own research before putting out a statement.

His methodology for Syphax headcount is flawed as well. +3FTEs, but out of how many? +91 student-facing FTEs, but out of how many? It's a numerator with no denominator. And so what if growth in Syphax is low this year? What if it's already bloated?

This guy is the candidate of Syphax and the status quo. His statements on the budget are "this is mostly good, it responds to criticisms I don't think are valid, it could be better, but only in non-specific ways fueled by magical thinking." He sees his school board campaign as basically an extension of his involvement with Democratic Party politics, and so his goal is going to be to please the right constituencies just enough to get elected, don't rock the boat once he gets there, and then use it as a springboard to the next thing.

Actually the "it's been a sentiment among some" shows me that he is actually paying attention. Because that is absolutely true.

He phrased it that way because he thought you would fall for it. I know it’s true, but he made a point not to say that’s what HE thinks is true. Why attribute it to others? Because he doesn’t want to offend the existing APS leadership. He only mentions the IDEA of Syphax being over staffed so that he can knock it down and claim it’s not a problem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I rarely agree with anything I read on these threads, but I agree with the poster who said having or having had kids in the school system should be an eligibility requirement. I can’t believe the Arlington democrats elevated a candidate (CDT) so disconnected from both Arlington and the general experience of having a kid enrolled in our schools. I understand why they don’t want to relinquish the power they hold with the caucus, but I do resent it.

A month or two ago during a board meeting CDT said she was walking around a school recently and came across a classroom doing a lesson on Japanese internment. And the kids were on their iPads switching between “taking notes” and watching the World Cup. She said, and I’m not kidding, this was great and a good use of classroom technology, because “that’s how work gets done today”. I thought I was hallucinating. I showed it to my wife and her jaw dropped. But it barely merited mention on AEM the next day. I guess that’s what passes for leadership in Arlington.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pretty good budget analysis from the 22 year old. Maybe he is a real candidate after all.
https://www.arlnow.com/2023/02/27/aps-highlights-spending-on-staff-security-and-student-health-in-proposed-budget-for-next-school-year/?fbclid=IwAR2xF7IaNHFYABbYgu1UmDXtAtrEVEgdtLttpc4tiVsJH8y0F3XGkaRjtc8

Um, not really. The use of the phrase "if it saves one life" is a pretty clear marker of superficial thinking. Even if I agree we need more SACs, the comparison with SSCs is specious. Note he doesn't come out and say we should hire fewer security staff, because that would put him in a position to be criticized in the future. And if that's not the tradeoff he's proposing, why make the comparison?

On Syphax headcount, "It has been a sentiment among some"...translation: I have no opinion on this and am too lazy to do my own research before putting out a statement.

His methodology for Syphax headcount is flawed as well. +3FTEs, but out of how many? +91 student-facing FTEs, but out of how many? It's a numerator with no denominator. And so what if growth in Syphax is low this year? What if it's already bloated?

This guy is the candidate of Syphax and the status quo. His statements on the budget are "this is mostly good, it responds to criticisms I don't think are valid, it could be better, but only in non-specific ways fueled by magical thinking." He sees his school board campaign as basically an extension of his involvement with Democratic Party politics, and so his goal is going to be to please the right constituencies just enough to get elected, don't rock the boat once he gets there, and then use it as a springboard to the next thing.

Actually the "it's been a sentiment among some" shows me that he is actually paying attention. Because that is absolutely true.

He phrased it that way because he thought you would fall for it. I know it’s true, but he made a point not to say that’s what HE thinks is true. Why attribute it to others? Because he doesn’t want to offend the existing APS leadership. He only mentions the IDEA of Syphax being over staffed so that he can knock it down and claim it’s not a problem.

Yep caught that too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I rarely agree with anything I read on these threads, but I agree with the poster who said having or having had kids in the school system should be an eligibility requirement. I can’t believe the Arlington democrats elevated a candidate (CDT) so disconnected from both Arlington and the general experience of having a kid enrolled in our schools. I understand why they don’t want to relinquish the power they hold with the caucus, but I do resent it.

A month or two ago during a board meeting CDT said she was walking around a school recently and came across a classroom doing a lesson on Japanese internment. And the kids were on their iPads switching between “taking notes” and watching the World Cup. She said, and I’m not kidding, this was great and a good use of classroom technology, because “that’s how work gets done today”. I thought I was hallucinating. I showed it to my wife and her jaw dropped. But it barely merited mention on AEM the next day. I guess that’s what passes for leadership in Arlington.

Lol. I remember that. She called it multitasking. She clearly knows nothing about brain development or attention spans.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pretty good budget analysis from the 22 year old. Maybe he is a real candidate after all.
https://www.arlnow.com/2023/02/27/aps-highlights-spending-on-staff-security-and-student-health-in-proposed-budget-for-next-school-year/?fbclid=IwAR2xF7IaNHFYABbYgu1UmDXtAtrEVEgdtLttpc4tiVsJH8y0F3XGkaRjtc8

Um, not really. The use of the phrase "if it saves one life" is a pretty clear marker of superficial thinking. Even if I agree we need more SACs, the comparison with SSCs is specious. Note he doesn't come out and say we should hire fewer security staff, because that would put him in a position to be criticized in the future. And if that's not the tradeoff he's proposing, why make the comparison?

On Syphax headcount, "It has been a sentiment among some"...translation: I have no opinion on this and am too lazy to do my own research before putting out a statement.

His methodology for Syphax headcount is flawed as well. +3FTEs, but out of how many? +91 student-facing FTEs, but out of how many? It's a numerator with no denominator. And so what if growth in Syphax is low this year? What if it's already bloated?

This guy is the candidate of Syphax and the status quo. His statements on the budget are "this is mostly good, it responds to criticisms I don't think are valid, it could be better, but only in non-specific ways fueled by magical thinking." He sees his school board campaign as basically an extension of his involvement with Democratic Party politics, and so his goal is going to be to please the right constituencies just enough to get elected, don't rock the boat once he gets there, and then use it as a springboard to the next thing.

BINGO. We do not need another CDT. Having (or had) kids in the system should be a minimum requirement.

Normally I agree with you but having someone so fresh out of high school himself could be interesting. How many of us had to sit through active shooter drills? Or had contemporaries OD on fentanyl?

I don't know why people are criticizing his tweet about saving one life. How many more kids' lives do you think we should lose?

Because what the school board needs is someone who has a deep understanding of budgets, facilities, and will ask very sharp questions and follow ups to those questions. Very few 22 year olds have that skill and he simply hasn’t had the time (years) to understand how APS works. He also doesn’t have perspective of APS specifically. And frankly based on his work experience it looks like he doesn’t have a real job and is doing this on a lark and hoping it works out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

As someone who was also on a committee many, many years ago, I agree with all of this. The concept is overall problematic to begin with.

[Anonymous]

The 22 year old is not from Arlington, doesn’t live here, doesn’t work here, has no kids here, didn’t go to school here, isn’t an educator, is that all correct?

Then WTH is he doing here??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

As someone who was also on a committee many, many years ago, I agree with all of this. The concept is overall problematic to begin with.

Yep. Advisory committees keep busybody parents busy, and contained. To the degree they are used, it’s to push syphax ideas to parents to drum up support.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I rarely agree with anything I read on these threads, but I agree with the poster who said having or having had kids in the school system should be an eligibility requirement. I can’t believe the Arlington democrats elevated a candidate (CDT) so disconnected from both Arlington and the general experience of having a kid enrolled in our schools. I understand why they don’t want to relinquish the power they hold with the caucus, but I do resent it.

A month or two ago during a board meeting CDT said she was walking around a school recently and came across a classroom doing a lesson on Japanese internment. And the kids were on their iPads switching between “taking notes” and watching the World Cup. She said, and I’m not kidding, this was great and a good use of classroom technology, because “that’s how work gets done today”. I thought I was hallucinating. I showed it to my wife and her jaw dropped. But it barely merited mention on AEM the next day. I guess that’s what passes for leadership in Arlington.

Lol. I remember that. She called it multitasking. She clearly knows nothing about brain development or attention spans.

CDT is such a disappointment. I didn’t even vote for her and I’m still disappointed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The 22 year old is not from Arlington, doesn’t live here, doesn’t work here, has no kids here, didn’t go to school here, isn’t an educator, is that all correct?

Then WTH is he doing here??

Correct. He seems to like politics and went to AU and stayed local after college. He’s probably hoping to get a job here and needs a political stepping stone job.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The 22 year old is not from Arlington, doesn’t live here, doesn’t work here, has no kids here, didn’t go to school here, isn’t an educator, is that all correct?

Then WTH is he doing here??

Correct. He seems to like politics and went to AU and stayed local after college. He’s probably hoping to get a job here and needs a political stepping stone job.

At this age he’s barely finishing up undergrad. With no local ties whatsoever, and no interests or stakes here.

Seriously? Who is endorsing this?!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pretty good budget analysis from the 22 year old. Maybe he is a real candidate after all.
https://www.arlnow.com/2023/02/27/aps-highlights-spending-on-staff-security-and-student-health-in-proposed-budget-for-next-school-year/?fbclid=IwAR2xF7IaNHFYABbYgu1UmDXtAtrEVEgdtLttpc4tiVsJH8y0F3XGkaRjtc8

Um, not really. The use of the phrase "if it saves one life" is a pretty clear marker of superficial thinking. Even if I agree we need more SACs, the comparison with SSCs is specious. Note he doesn't come out and say we should hire fewer security staff, because that would put him in a position to be criticized in the future. And if that's not the tradeoff he's proposing, why make the comparison?

On Syphax headcount, "It has been a sentiment among some"...translation: I have no opinion on this and am too lazy to do my own research before putting out a statement.

His methodology for Syphax headcount is flawed as well. +3FTEs, but out of how many? +91 student-facing FTEs, but out of how many? It's a numerator with no denominator. And so what if growth in Syphax is low this year? What if it's already bloated?

This guy is the candidate of Syphax and the status quo. His statements on the budget are "this is mostly good, it responds to criticisms I don't think are valid, it could be better, but only in non-specific ways fueled by magical thinking." He sees his school board campaign as basically an extension of his involvement with Democratic Party politics, and so his goal is going to be to please the right constituencies just enough to get elected, don't rock the boat once he gets there, and then use it as a springboard to the next thing.

BINGO. We do not need another CDT. Having (or had) kids in the system should be a minimum requirement.

Normally I agree with you but having someone so fresh out of high school himself could be interesting. How many of us had to sit through active shooter drills? Or had contemporaries OD on fentanyl?

I don't know why people are criticizing his tweet about saving one life. How many more kids' lives do you think we should lose?

Vote for him if you want, but to my mind, perspective isn’t the same as wisdom, talent, or good judgment. Typically one demonstrates these things by accumulating experiences and accomplishments that speak to the requirements of the job. I’m not saying it’s impossible to do that by age 22, but it’s naturally more difficult.

what's objectionable to you about saving the life of a student? why don't you want that too?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I rarely agree with anything I read on these threads, but I agree with the poster who said having or having had kids in the school system should be an eligibility requirement. I can’t believe the Arlington democrats elevated a candidate (CDT) so disconnected from both Arlington and the general experience of having a kid enrolled in our schools. I understand why they don’t want to relinquish the power they hold with the caucus, but I do resent it.

A month or two ago during a board meeting CDT said she was walking around a school recently and came across a classroom doing a lesson on Japanese internment. And the kids were on their iPads switching between “taking notes” and watching the World Cup. She said, and I’m not kidding, this was great and a good use of classroom technology, because “that’s how work gets done today”. I thought I was hallucinating. I showed it to my wife and her jaw dropped. But it barely merited mention on AEM the next day. I guess that’s what passes for leadership in Arlington.

so why didn't you raise this on AEM yourself? who else was supposed to comment on it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pretty good budget analysis from the 22 year old. Maybe he is a real candidate after all.
https://www.arlnow.com/2023/02/27/aps-highlights-spending-on-staff-security-and-student-health-in-proposed-budget-for-next-school-year/?fbclid=IwAR2xF7IaNHFYABbYgu1UmDXtAtrEVEgdtLttpc4tiVsJH8y0F3XGkaRjtc8

Um, not really. The use of the phrase "if it saves one life" is a pretty clear marker of superficial thinking. Even if I agree we need more SACs, the comparison with SSCs is specious. Note he doesn't come out and say we should hire fewer security staff, because that would put him in a position to be criticized in the future. And if that's not the tradeoff he's proposing, why make the comparison?

On Syphax headcount, "It has been a sentiment among some"...translation: I have no opinion on this and am too lazy to do my own research before putting out a statement.

His methodology for Syphax headcount is flawed as well. +3FTEs, but out of how many? +91 student-facing FTEs, but out of how many? It's a numerator with no denominator. And so what if growth in Syphax is low this year? What if it's already bloated?

This guy is the candidate of Syphax and the status quo. His statements on the budget are "this is mostly good, it responds to criticisms I don't think are valid, it could be better, but only in non-specific ways fueled by magical thinking." He sees his school board campaign as basically an extension of his involvement with Democratic Party politics, and so his goal is going to be to please the right constituencies just enough to get elected, don't rock the boat once he gets there, and then use it as a springboard to the next thing.

BINGO. We do not need another CDT. Having (or had) kids in the system should be a minimum requirement.

Normally I agree with you but having someone so fresh out of high school himself could be interesting. How many of us had to sit through active shooter drills? Or had contemporaries OD on fentanyl?

I don't know why people are criticizing his tweet about saving one life. How many more kids' lives do you think we should lose?

Vote for him if you want, but to my mind, perspective isn’t the same as wisdom, talent, or good judgment. Typically one demonstrates these things by accumulating experiences and accomplishments that speak to the requirements of the job. I’m not saying it’s impossible to do that by age 22, but it’s naturally more difficult.

what's objectionable to you about saving the life of a student? why don't you want that too?

DP - it makes you sound like Maude Flanders screaming “won’t somebody think of the children??” It’s an insipid thought-terminating cliche that most people recognize to be meaningless upon becoming adults. A zero MPH speed limit would save lives, including children’s lives, but no one thinks that’s worth it. I’m the tweets he doesn’t actually know that SACs save lives (though it seems a safe assumption), but how many? Is that the most cost-effective way of saving lives, or could more lives be saved by putting the same amount of money somewhere else? He doesn’t know, and more importantly he doesn’t care because he’s more interested in adopting an emotionally satisfying pose. It’s basically the opposite of the kind of budgetary thinking we need from SB members.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I rarely agree with anything I read on these threads, but I agree with the poster who said having or having had kids in the school system should be an eligibility requirement. I can’t believe the Arlington democrats elevated a candidate (CDT) so disconnected from both Arlington and the general experience of having a kid enrolled in our schools. I understand why they don’t want to relinquish the power they hold with the caucus, but I do resent it.

A month or two ago during a board meeting CDT said she was walking around a school recently and came across a classroom doing a lesson on Japanese internment. And the kids were on their iPads switching between “taking notes” and watching the World Cup. She said, and I’m not kidding, this was great and a good use of classroom technology, because “that’s how work gets done today”. I thought I was hallucinating. I showed it to my wife and her jaw dropped. But it barely merited mention on AEM the next day. I guess that’s what passes for leadership in Arlington.

so why didn't you raise this on AEM yourself? who else was supposed to comment on it?

In my experience there is a narrow range of acceptable opinion on AEM, and criticizing a school board member for being too sanguine on educational technology is exactly the sort of thing that gets you dog-piled. What’s more, if CDT had made an intelligent, nuanced point then posting about it might invite a more civil discussion, but because her comment was so boneheaded there’s no real substantive way to defend it. Lacking any substantive way to defend the comment, the AEM crowd will most likely go into tribal “defense of the indefensible” mode, meaning character attacks, condescending explanations about what she ACTUALLY meant, and sly (or even overt) insinuations of racism.

No thanks. I’ll continue reading AEM silently just to keep my finger on the pulse of the crazy.