APS School Board Chair Drama

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm the OG OP that started this thread. Whoa what a ride! I haven't been back since May, but wow. The developments! The intrigue! The absolute skunk smell at Syphax!

I'm glad that MK is chair now and hope that the Board can carry on without all the petty in the upcoming year. CDT and DP I doubt will have as many supporters as MK had at her inauguration at their last meeting for sure.

The funniest is looking back at the posters who were so, so sure the coup attempt could not be real.

I can't look down on the others who couldn't believe this shit. We have the most childish school board. Our 5th graders could run our system better.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I dunno. I pretty much hate Miranda/APE, but I've grown to hate Cristina and David more. Their showing at the last SB meeting was childish and petty.

They’ve been disappointing for sure but are still lightyears better than APE/MT.

Looks like they are getting the away for the day policy they won’t shut up about.

It's going to be a terrible, ineffectual policy because there will be no thought or deliberation put into it. Just something that needs to be done because the State said so.

Exactly. APE is always worried about their own kids first. No thought about kids who need to have a phone. If APEs don't want their kids to have a phone, don't give it to them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I dunno. I pretty much hate Miranda/APE, but I've grown to hate Cristina and David more. Their showing at the last SB meeting was childish and petty.

They’ve been disappointing for sure but are still lightyears better than APE/MT.

Looks like they are getting the away for the day policy they won’t shut up about.

It's going to be a terrible, ineffectual policy because there will be no thought or deliberation put into it. Just something that needs to be done because the State said so.

Exactly. APE is always worried about their own kids first. No thought about kids who need to have a phone. If APEs don't want their kids to have a phone, don't give it to them.

“Kids who need to have a phone”. We went over this in the other thread. High schoolers all managed without smartphones before 2012. And there probably will still be exceptions if your kid has a glucose monitor or something. It will be OK.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I dunno. I pretty much hate Miranda/APE, but I've grown to hate Cristina and David more. Their showing at the last SB meeting was childish and petty.

They’ve been disappointing for sure but are still lightyears better than APE/MT.

Looks like they are getting the away for the day policy they won’t shut up about.

It's going to be a terrible, ineffectual policy because there will be no thought or deliberation put into it. Just something that needs to be done because the State said so.

Exactly. APE is always worried about their own kids first. No thought about kids who need to have a phone. If APEs don't want their kids to have a phone, don't give it to them.

So the policy is bad because it won’t have enough exceptions, but also because it won’t be enforced strictly?

Away for the day isn’t some fringe hobbyhorse. It’s literally the policy of the whole of England, and Australia is working on one too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I dunno. I pretty much hate Miranda/APE, but I've grown to hate Cristina and David more. Their showing at the last SB meeting was childish and petty.

They’ve been disappointing for sure but are still lightyears better than APE/MT.

Looks like they are getting the away for the day policy they won’t shut up about.

It's going to be a terrible, ineffectual policy because there will be no thought or deliberation put into it. Just something that needs to be done because the State said so.

Exactly. APE is always worried about their own kids first. No thought about kids who need to have a phone. If APEs don't want their kids to have a phone, don't give it to them.

So the policy is bad because it won’t have enough exceptions, but also because it won’t be enforced strictly?

Away for the day isn’t some fringe hobbyhorse. It’s literally the policy of the whole of England, and Australia is working on one too.

Smartphones have been around since the late 2000s with little to no issues. Why is it a problem NOW?

It's because your special snowflake needs to carry one at all times. You raised an entitled kid. Now it's their teacher's problem. You can be a A+ parent and make them keep these gadgets at home instead of making school systems establish policies that YOU caused.


And I'm fine with SPED and medically fragile kids getting accommodations to keep their phones in class as long as it is used as intended by their plans because I'm a good person like that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I dunno. I pretty much hate Miranda/APE, but I've grown to hate Cristina and David more. Their showing at the last SB meeting was childish and petty.

They’ve been disappointing for sure but are still lightyears better than APE/MT.

Looks like they are getting the away for the day policy they won’t shut up about.

It's going to be a terrible, ineffectual policy because there will be no thought or deliberation put into it. Just something that needs to be done because the State said so.

FCPS has an away for the day policy already similar to what Youngkin wants but enforcement depends on the school and is kinda meh. Expect the same from APS.

+1. I'm an FCPS parent and this is how it goes. Good luck to APS. For everything. I thought we were a mess, but your district really needs some cleanup on aisle 9.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I dunno. I pretty much hate Miranda/APE, but I've grown to hate Cristina and David more. Their showing at the last SB meeting was childish and petty.

They’ve been disappointing for sure but are still lightyears better than APE/MT.

Looks like they are getting the away for the day policy they won’t shut up about.

This is bad because…?

It's a good policy but APE/MT will take credit for it.

Well, people on here have been screaming that they are a lobbying group now so maybe they are behind it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I dunno. I pretty much hate Miranda/APE, but I've grown to hate Cristina and David more. Their showing at the last SB meeting was childish and petty.

They’ve been disappointing for sure but are still lightyears better than APE/MT.

Looks like they are getting the away for the day policy they won’t shut up about.

It's going to be a terrible, ineffectual policy because there will be no thought or deliberation put into it. Just something that needs to be done because the State said so.

Exactly. APE is always worried about their own kids first. No thought about kids who need to have a phone. If APEs don't want their kids to have a phone, don't give it to them.

So the policy is bad because it won’t have enough exceptions, but also because it won’t be enforced strictly?

Away for the day isn’t some fringe hobbyhorse. It’s literally the policy of the whole of England, and Australia is working on one too.

Smartphones have been around since the late 2000s with little to no issues. Why is it a problem NOW?

It's because your special snowflake needs to carry one at all times. You raised an entitled kid. Now it's their teacher's problem. You can be a A+ parent and make them keep these gadgets at home instead of making school systems establish policies that YOU caused.


And I'm fine with SPED and medically fragile kids getting accommodations to keep their phones in class as long as it is used as intended by their plans because I'm a good person like that.

I’m the poster you’re responding to. My kid has no smartphone. I want this policy because the evidence seems persuasive. My kid isn’t entitled.

When you attack people like this it makes whatever point you’re trying to make incomprehensible. It’s not even clear if you support or oppose it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I dunno. I pretty much hate Miranda/APE, but I've grown to hate Cristina and David more. Their showing at the last SB meeting was childish and petty.

They’ve been disappointing for sure but are still lightyears better than APE/MT.

Looks like they are getting the away for the day policy they won’t shut up about.

It's going to be a terrible, ineffectual policy because there will be no thought or deliberation put into it. Just something that needs to be done because the State said so.

Exactly. APE is always worried about their own kids first. No thought about kids who need to have a phone. If APEs don't want their kids to have a phone, don't give it to them.

So the policy is bad because it won’t have enough exceptions, but also because it won’t be enforced strictly?

Away for the day isn’t some fringe hobbyhorse. It’s literally the policy of the whole of England, and Australia is working on one too.

Smartphones have been around since the late 2000s with little to no issues. Why is it a problem NOW?

It's because your special snowflake needs to carry one at all times. You raised an entitled kid. Now it's their teacher's problem. You can be a A+ parent and make them keep these gadgets at home instead of making school systems establish policies that YOU caused.


And I'm fine with SPED and medically fragile kids getting accommodations to keep their phones in class as long as it is used as intended by their plans because I'm a good person like that.

I’m the poster you’re responding to. My kid has no smartphone. I want this policy because the evidence seems persuasive. My kid isn’t entitled.

When you attack people like this it makes whatever point you’re trying to make incomprehensible. It’s not even clear if you support or oppose it.

Belive it or not, I was responding to the royal you rather than you personally. Because I have no idea who you are. Or care.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I dunno. I pretty much hate Miranda/APE, but I've grown to hate Cristina and David more. Their showing at the last SB meeting was childish and petty.

They’ve been disappointing for sure but are still lightyears better than APE/MT.

Looks like they are getting the away for the day policy they won’t shut up about.

It's going to be a terrible, ineffectual policy because there will be no thought or deliberation put into it. Just something that needs to be done because the State said so.

Exactly. APE is always worried about their own kids first. No thought about kids who need to have a phone. If APEs don't want their kids to have a phone, don't give it to them.

So the policy is bad because it won’t have enough exceptions, but also because it won’t be enforced strictly?

Away for the day isn’t some fringe hobbyhorse. It’s literally the policy of the whole of England, and Australia is working on one too.

Smartphones have been around since the late 2000s with little to no issues. Why is it a problem NOW?

It's because your special snowflake needs to carry one at all times. You raised an entitled kid. Now it's their teacher's problem. You can be a A+ parent and make them keep these gadgets at home instead of making school systems establish policies that YOU caused.


And I'm fine with SPED and medically fragile kids getting accommodations to keep their phones in class as long as it is used as intended by their plans because I'm a good person like that.

I’m the poster you’re responding to. My kid has no smartphone. I want this policy because the evidence seems persuasive. My kid isn’t entitled.

When you attack people like this it makes whatever point you’re trying to make incomprehensible. It’s not even clear if you support or oppose it.

And I'm fine with having a policy, but one that is thought out. Not just because Youngkin ordered it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I dunno. I pretty much hate Miranda/APE, but I've grown to hate Cristina and David more. Their showing at the last SB meeting was childish and petty.

They’ve been disappointing for sure but are still lightyears better than APE/MT.

Looks like they are getting the away for the day policy they won’t shut up about.

This is bad because…?

It's a good policy but APE/MT will take credit for it.

Well, people on here have been screaming that they are a lobbying group now so maybe they are behind it.

Finally, someone admits that APE is a lobbying group. They have their own interests in mind, not APS's. Maybe one day they'll show us their financials instead of a postcard.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I dunno. I pretty much hate Miranda/APE, but I've grown to hate Cristina and David more. Their showing at the last SB meeting was childish and petty.

They’ve been disappointing for sure but are still lightyears better than APE/MT.

Looks like they are getting the away for the day policy they won’t shut up about.

It's going to be a terrible, ineffectual policy because there will be no thought or deliberation put into it. Just something that needs to be done because the State said so.

FCPS has an away for the day policy already similar to what Youngkin wants but enforcement depends on the school and is kinda meh. Expect the same from APS.

+1. I'm an FCPS parent and this is how it goes. Good luck to APS. For everything. I thought we were a mess, but your district really needs some cleanup on aisle 9.

APS is a dumpster fire. Every so often I'm tempted to move to FCPS. It's inertia, man.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I dunno. I pretty much hate Miranda/APE, but I've grown to hate Cristina and David more. Their showing at the last SB meeting was childish and petty.

They’ve been disappointing for sure but are still lightyears better than APE/MT.

Looks like they are getting the away for the day policy they won’t shut up about.

This is bad because…?

It's a good policy but APE/MT will take credit for it.

Well, people on here have been screaming that they are a lobbying group now so maybe they are behind it.

Finally, someone admits that APE is a lobbying group. They have their own interests in mind, not APS's. Maybe one day they'll show us their financials instead of a postcard.

Of course they are a lobbying group. They are great at gaslighting when people point that out. They haven’t thought this cell phone thing through at all and they sound unhinged.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I dunno. I pretty much hate Miranda/APE, but I've grown to hate Cristina and David more. Their showing at the last SB meeting was childish and petty.

They’ve been disappointing for sure but are still lightyears better than APE/MT.

Looks like they are getting the away for the day policy they won’t shut up about.

This is bad because…?

It's a good policy but APE/MT will take credit for it.

Well, people on here have been screaming that they are a lobbying group now so maybe they are behind it.

They are a lobbying group.

Formed by right wingers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I dunno. I pretty much hate Miranda/APE, but I've grown to hate Cristina and David more. Their showing at the last SB meeting was childish and petty.

They’ve been disappointing for sure but are still lightyears better than APE/MT.

Looks like they are getting the away for the day policy they won’t shut up about.

This is bad because…?

It's a good policy but APE/MT will take credit for it.

Well, people on here have been screaming that they are a lobbying group now so maybe they are behind it.

Finally, someone admits that APE is a lobbying group. They have their own interests in mind, not APS's. Maybe one day they'll show us their financials instead of a postcard.

Of course they are a lobbying group. They are great at gaslighting when people point that out. They haven’t thought this cell phone thing through at all and they sound unhinged.

You just need to google who the most vocal ones work for to know they are not in the interests of public education. They work for people who are all in to Project 2025.

They are lobbyists in real life too.