APS - School Shifts in the Fall?

[Anonymous]

Can we just outright say that doxxing is bad, period?

Doxxing teachers is bad
Doxxing community members through FOIA requests and posting them anon is bad

Nobody's henhouse is clean.

[Anonymous]

Resteering the discussion about adding days, I'm an APS teacher and my question is that there are 2 models for hybrid in APS right now. One is hybrid kids are split and each group attends 2 days with the teacher there 4 days; and the other is that the entire hybrid group attends 2 days and the entire class is virtual the other 2 days. In this model, the classroom is used by 2 different grade levels during the week.

In order to add additional days we would need to find additional rooms to be able to hold these in person classes concurrently that could have the capacity for the additional days, make sure those rooms have air cleaners (the unused rooms in my school don't have air cleaners like the used rooms do).

I would love to be in person 4 days for myself as a teacher and my own kids who are in APS at different schools. But I don't think anyone's plans for adding elementary days take the differences between these 2 elementary models happening right now into account.The 2 day model will require a lot of reshuffling in those schools of the facilities and setups that have been made for hybrid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Recall SB lady is posting on AEM today. Very ballsy!

You seem very invested in trying to derail this discussion.

I'm all-in on the discussion. I do think though it's funny that no one has ever commented on the actual screenshots - the SB recall.

What is Turner's position on the SB recall? Let me guess - you'll skip right over that one again.

Actually, Miranda posted an answer on AEM this week that said the does not support the recall. It was deep in a thread, so you may have missed it, but she's on the record saying it's not her. Again, there are 900 people in the APE FB group. Some of them are pretty extreme.

Just like some of the folks in AEM are pretty extreme. Remember the teacher screaming that hybrid would be A PRISON!!!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ok, this is getting out of hand. Let’s just logically presume NEITHER candidate would be actively involved and aware of this FOIA business. Yes, they’re supporters are, but doubt both candidates would want to be involved/aware of this. It would make them look bad, and I would think they would be cognizant of helicopter Arlington Parent sleuths. Both candidates have outlined their positions, Let your VOTE do the talking, & let’s act like civilized people.

Agree - it looks like neither were involved in FOIA business.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can we just outright say that doxxing is bad, period?

Doxxing teachers is bad
Doxxing community members through FOIA requests and posting them anon is bad

Nobody's henhouse is clean.

It appears that neither candidate was involved. Stop trying to put this on the candidates.

[Anonymous]

lpstout wrote:From Mary Kadera: The community is asking “Why not in Arlington?” in response to Fairfax Co opening its schools for four-day instruction. It’s a fair question and I hope APS leaders will answer it during the next School Board meeting. For my thoughts about what’s possible during the rest of the school year in APS, see https://bit.ly/3gv3rO1

Oh good, Mary has her campaign manager out in earnest this morning.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Recall SB lady is posting on AEM today. Very ballsy!

You seem very invested in trying to derail this discussion.

I'm all-in on the discussion. I do think though it's funny that no one has ever commented on the actual screenshots - the SB recall.

What is Turner's position on the SB recall? Let me guess - you'll skip right over that one again.

Actually, Miranda posted an answer on AEM this week that said the does not support the recall. It was deep in a thread, so you may have missed it, but she's on the record saying it's not her. Again, there are 900 people in the APE FB group. Some of them are pretty extreme.

Thanks - I must have missed it. I'll go back and re-read. Which thread was it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm becoming convinced that people in AEM who "never come to DCUM" in actually posts here multiple times daily. It's the same damn derailment and "ad hominem" argument from both sides.

I'm convinced that there are some dumb AF parents in Arlington who think there can't possibly be multiple people who have the same opinions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The handle is @ap_eshit if you want to look it up in blocked status.

The account will never be made public again, but they are certainly still posting. If the person who created it actually recognized their behavior was inappropriate, they would have deleted the account entirely. Instead they only made it private, which means they intend to keep going with encouraging doxxing and harassment, they’re just going to do it more in secret.

How can you tell?

I didn’t mean it in the sense that they necessarily have tweeted again since making it private, only that the plan is to still use it to actively tweet material to followers. There is literally no reason for that account to still exist unless they plan to continue using it. Which is a dicey proposition because Virginia law is fairly accommodating of subpoenas for IP addresses and related data for specific social media accounts if someone who was targeted by the account were to file a lawsuit against the John/Jane Doe owner of it.

I have a Twitter account, but have never posted to it. Not even sure if I can still log in.

The existence of an account doesn't mean anything.

Did you create an alt Twitter account for purposes of harassing people and then lock it down after getting outed? If not, you’re in a different position, so what you do with your Twitter account isn’t relevant.

The point was....the existence of an account doesn't mean anything. Just because they haven't deleted it doesn't ABSOLUTELY mean that they are going to use it. So irrational...

PP who made the original comments, the one to which you most immediately responded was not me. The person who owns that account has created potential legal risk for themselves already. They are sufficiently aware of that risk that they have locked down the account so only people they trust can see it. And yet they chose not to delete it, which is what a smart person would do if they planned to never tweet from it again. That wouldn’t completely insulate them from legal risk, but it would make it far less likely that someone targeted by that account in the past would feel the need to take legal action to keep it from happening again. The owner, however, has chosen to keep it active, which only makes sense if they are planning to still use it.

Obviously there is a chance that they are just leaving it dormant but don’t plan to use it. But when someone has already shown their malicious intent, its reasonable to believe them.

Huh? There is nothing legally risky about that account or the tweets that I saw.

Ethically it's shitty AF, but it isn't illegal.

Like I said, the existence of an account doesn't mean anything. Just because they haven't deleted it doesn't ABSOLUTELY mean that they are going to use it. So freaking irrational...

DP. The post of the FOIA request could easily be construed as trying to incite doxxing or harassment toward the person who was named, especially given the commentary that went with it. All the person would have to do is survive a demurrer, and then the subpoenas can issue.

Absolutely not. FOIA records are public information including the identity of any FOIA requester. Nice try.

That has nothing to do with whether the Twitter account owner was encouraging potential harm to the individual, and submitting a FOIA request does not make you a public figure for purposes of heightening the standard of liability for libel.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Resteering the discussion about adding days, I'm an APS teacher and my question is that there are 2 models for hybrid in APS right now. One is hybrid kids are split and each group attends 2 days with the teacher there 4 days; and the other is that the entire hybrid group attends 2 days and the entire class is virtual the other 2 days. In this model, the classroom is used by 2 different grade levels during the week.

In order to add additional days we would need to find additional rooms to be able to hold these in person classes concurrently that could have the capacity for the additional days, make sure those rooms have air cleaners (the unused rooms in my school don't have air cleaners like the used rooms do).

I would love to be in person 4 days for myself as a teacher and my own kids who are in APS at different schools. But I don't think anyone's plans for adding elementary days take the differences between these 2 elementary models happening right now into account.The 2 day model will require a lot of reshuffling in those schools of the facilities and setups that have been made for hybrid.

At some schools the classroom is sitting empty three days a week. My 2nd grader could go back all 5 days a week with no shifts in teachers or classrooms. Lunch is already outside.

APS has already said that it's been able to combine 6' distanced classrooms with the new 3' distancing. This frees up classroom space for both models.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Recall SB lady is posting on AEM today. Very ballsy!

You seem very invested in trying to derail this discussion.

I'm all-in on the discussion. I do think though it's funny that no one has ever commented on the actual screenshots - the SB recall.

What is Turner's position on the SB recall? Let me guess - you'll skip right over that one again.

Miranda Turner has never supported any kind of recall, which you know because you would have posted the screen shots if she did. This is you trying to invent rumors to smear Ms. Turner as a candidate, which tells me all I need to know about your character and integrity.

It's a question - not "a rumor".

Multiple people in the group she "leads" support the SB recall. She responded to the question about supporting the lawsuit...it's reasonable for her to respond to the question about supporting the recall.

DP here, and I think that's a fair point. You can probably just send her an email and ask her yourself (not being snarky). But being on the steering committee of APE is not MT's sole identity, and frankly, I think it's kind of silly to paint either candidate with the brush of the craziest, fringiest members of any group they're affiliated with. APE is at least transparent (meaning you can join the FB group and see that there are indeed some pretty far-out-there people posting about stuff like doing away with masks, etc). But APE is more than just a FB group and some people who are involved aren't even on FB or active in the group on there. If we're thinking along those lines, then MK should be ready to answer for some of the stuff SR and AEM are doing and saying, some of which I think is just as out there albeit in a different direction.

Agree that they shouldn't be judged by random supporters, but there is a big difference in MT's role on APE vs. MK's role on SR and AEM. Is MK even a member of SR? (I'm not so I don't know)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm becoming convinced that people in AEM who "never come to DCUM" in actually posts here multiple times daily. It's the same damn derailment and "ad hominem" argument from both sides.

I'm convinced that there are some dumb AF parents in Arlington who think there can't possibly be multiple people who have the same opinions.

DP. I don’t assume posts are by the same person just because they hold similar views. But when posts appear on both forums making the same arguments and using the same turns of phrase within minutes of each other, thats a pretty big coincidence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Recall SB lady is posting on AEM today. Very ballsy!

You seem very invested in trying to derail this discussion.

I'm all-in on the discussion. I do think though it's funny that no one has ever commented on the actual screenshots - the SB recall.

What is Turner's position on the SB recall? Let me guess - you'll skip right over that one again.

Miranda Turner has never supported any kind of recall, which you know because you would have posted the screen shots if she did. This is you trying to invent rumors to smear Ms. Turner as a candidate, which tells me all I need to know about your character and integrity.

It's a question - not "a rumor".

Multiple people in the group she "leads" support the SB recall. She responded to the question about supporting the lawsuit...it's reasonable for her to respond to the question about supporting the recall.

DP here, and I think that's a fair point. You can probably just send her an email and ask her yourself (not being snarky). But being on the steering committee of APE is not MT's sole identity, and frankly, I think it's kind of silly to paint either candidate with the brush of the craziest, fringiest members of any group they're affiliated with. APE is at least transparent (meaning you can join the FB group and see that there are indeed some pretty far-out-there people posting about stuff like doing away with masks, etc). But APE is more than just a FB group and some people who are involved aren't even on FB or active in the group on there. If we're thinking along those lines, then MK should be ready to answer for some of the stuff SR and AEM are doing and saying, some of which I think is just as out there albeit in a different direction.

Agree that they shouldn't be judged by random supporters, but there is a big difference in MT's role on APE vs. MK's role on SR and AEM. Is MK even a member of SR? (I'm not so I don't know)

I'm not, either, but I think one issue is that no one seems to know who is part of SR apart from a couple of very vocal proponents. Is it just like 8-10 people? Or what? And now that we are doing this extremely gradual, phased-in version of what they wanted, are they done?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm becoming convinced that people in AEM who "never come to DCUM" in actually posts here multiple times daily. It's the same damn derailment and "ad hominem" argument from both sides.

I'm convinced that there are some dumb AF parents in Arlington who think there can't possibly be multiple people who have the same opinions.

DP. I don’t assume posts are by the same person just because they hold similar views. But when posts appear on both forums making the same arguments and using the same turns of phrase within minutes of each other, thats a pretty big coincidence.

Her post didn't use the same "turns of phrase" at all. She commented on attacking fellow parents on DCUM.

I said: "APE is no better. Doxxing and bullying teachers? Gross."

Not even a coincidence...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Recall SB lady is posting on AEM today. Very ballsy!

You seem very invested in trying to derail this discussion.

I'm all-in on the discussion. I do think though it's funny that no one has ever commented on the actual screenshots - the SB recall.

What is Turner's position on the SB recall? Let me guess - you'll skip right over that one again.

Miranda Turner has never supported any kind of recall, which you know because you would have posted the screen shots if she did. This is you trying to invent rumors to smear Ms. Turner as a candidate, which tells me all I need to know about your character and integrity.

It's a question - not "a rumor".

Multiple people in the group she "leads" support the SB recall. She responded to the question about supporting the lawsuit...it's reasonable for her to respond to the question about supporting the recall.

DP here, and I think that's a fair point. You can probably just send her an email and ask her yourself (not being snarky). But being on the steering committee of APE is not MT's sole identity, and frankly, I think it's kind of silly to paint either candidate with the brush of the craziest, fringiest members of any group they're affiliated with. APE is at least transparent (meaning you can join the FB group and see that there are indeed some pretty far-out-there people posting about stuff like doing away with masks, etc). But APE is more than just a FB group and some people who are involved aren't even on FB or active in the group on there. If we're thinking along those lines, then MK should be ready to answer for some of the stuff SR and AEM are doing and saying, some of which I think is just as out there albeit in a different direction.

Agree that they shouldn't be judged by random supporters, but there is a big difference in MT's role on APE vs. MK's role on SR and AEM. Is MK even a member of SR? (I'm not so I don't know)

MK supposedly is not in social media at all. Since Smart Restart keeps information about their leadership strictly locked down other than being able to see who the admins are for the Facebook group, there is no way to know whether/how she may be involved with the group. You can see in public filings that sctive Smart Restart members make up a meaningful portion of her campaign donors.

What we do know about MK’s involvement is that she is in the leadership for CCPTA, which has been remarkably hands off with school reopening issues. They really don’t seem to have bothered.