How has Karl Frisch raised $371,559 for his campaign, when . . .

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, his entire career since HS has been as a political operative of some sort, so I would guess that he has more knowledge and connections into fundraising than many of the other candidates. This is also why I don't really trust him. He is not in it for the kids (especially since he does not have any of his own) but for himself.

You are totally out of line. I didn't have kids until I was 42 but I was fully invested in my community and fully committed to public education (even taught for 7 years before burning out) so I cared deeply about the school system long before I had kids. You don't have to spawn to care about good schools. In fact, since he isn't distracted by child rearing, he has more time to devote to the work.

Every time I see people commenting on Frisch not having kids, it reads to me like an anti-gay dog whistle.

FWIW, my understanding is that his husband is a teacher. So that gives him even more skin in the game than a parent, and more quality knowledge from the reality inside a school and the system at large. I'd take that as a personal family qualification more than being the random parent of a 5th grader.

Not PP but I agree. I also don’t like Omeish. I think people without kids that join SB are in it for the politics not because they don’t have skin in the game with their kids at school. I think voters should avoid selecting candidates without kids in the schools.

Most people who have kids in the schools are too busy to run for school board. And I don't want them making policies that favor their kids' schools or their kids' particular interests/programs. I don't think it's an important criteria at all.

Karl is that you? Yes, it is important to have actually been through the school system as a parent or teacher and so is going to college. So is not being a political hack. Usually when you've had 2-3 kids or have taught at multiple schools you have a wider breadth of skills. Many of the other people running have been on committees for the school board or the PTA or are longtime residents invested in the community. There is nothing positive about his background, work, or behavior. He's a public policy advocate meaning he only knows how to push for his agenda. He's not a negotiator. I don't need to hear about his dog either. It's scary how he writes about it like it's almost the same as having a child. Is there anything positive he's done on the board? I don't like where FCPS is headed. Strong no.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hope Providence voters come to their senses this year and vote for his opponent.

Fritsch's opponent is Anthony Arthur Sabio. If you go to Ballotpedia you get a questionnaire from him. https://ballotpedia.org/Anthony_Arthur_Sabio

Right away you get a right-wing talking point and it just gets repeated from there. Unequivocally eliminates him from ever being in consideration for my vote.

Protecting parents' rights is a priority. Schools should concentrate on education and leave teaching family values to the parents.

I'm all for this line. You are triggered because it's "right wing". I see helping families and separation of church and state.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, his entire career since HS has been as a political operative of some sort, so I would guess that he has more knowledge and connections into fundraising than many of the other candidates. This is also why I don't really trust him. He is not in it for the kids (especially since he does not have any of his own) but for himself.

You are totally out of line. I didn't have kids until I was 42 but I was fully invested in my community and fully committed to public education (even taught for 7 years before burning out) so I cared deeply about the school system long before I had kids. You don't have to spawn to care about good schools. In fact, since he isn't distracted by child rearing, he has more time to devote to the work.

Every time I see people commenting on Frisch not having kids, it reads to me like an anti-gay dog whistle.

FWIW, my understanding is that his husband is a teacher. So that gives him even more skin in the game than a parent, and more quality knowledge from the reality inside a school and the system at large. I'd take that as a personal family qualification more than being the random parent of a 5th grader.

Not PP but I agree. I also don’t like Omeish. I think people without kids that join SB are in it for the politics not because they don’t have skin in the game with their kids at school. I think voters should avoid selecting candidates without kids in the schools.

Most people who have kids in the schools are too busy to run for school board. And I don't want them making policies that favor their kids' schools or their kids' particular interests/programs. I don't think it's an important criteria at all.

Karl is that you? Yes, it is important to have actually been through the school system as a parent or teacher and so is going to college. So is not being a political hack. Usually when you've had 2-3 kids or have taught at multiple schools you have a wider breadth of skills. Many of the other people running have been on committees for the school board or the PTA or are longtime residents invested in the community. There is nothing positive about his background, work, or behavior. He's a public policy advocate meaning he only knows how to push for his agenda. He's not a negotiator. I don't need to hear about his dog either. It's scary how he writes about it like it's almost the same as having a child. Is there anything positive he's done on the board? I don't like where FCPS is headed. Strong no.

I'm the PP, and no, I'm not Karl--and I don't live in his district. I was just saying I don't think having kids is an appropriate criteria for me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, his entire career since HS has been as a political operative of some sort, so I would guess that he has more knowledge and connections into fundraising than many of the other candidates. This is also why I don't really trust him. He is not in it for the kids (especially since he does not have any of his own) but for himself.

You are totally out of line. I didn't have kids until I was 42 but I was fully invested in my community and fully committed to public education (even taught for 7 years before burning out) so I cared deeply about the school system long before I had kids. You don't have to spawn to care about good schools. In fact, since he isn't distracted by child rearing, he has more time to devote to the work.

Every time I see people commenting on Frisch not having kids, it reads to me like an anti-gay dog whistle.

FWIW, my understanding is that his husband is a teacher. So that gives him even more skin in the game than a parent, and more quality knowledge from the reality inside a school and the system at large. I'd take that as a personal family qualification more than being the random parent of a 5th grader.

+1 from a gay HS teacher who knows first-hand how these people work

[Anonymous]

He is being groomed for higher office. Don’t want to have him lose so the LGBT+ money rolling in from all over.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, his entire career since HS has been as a political operative of some sort, so I would guess that he has more knowledge and connections into fundraising than many of the other candidates. This is also why I don't really trust him. He is not in it for the kids (especially since he does not have any of his own) but for himself.

You are totally out of line. I didn't have kids until I was 42 but I was fully invested in my community and fully committed to public education (even taught for 7 years before burning out) so I cared deeply about the school system long before I had kids. You don't have to spawn to care about good schools. In fact, since he isn't distracted by child rearing, he has more time to devote to the work.

Every time I see people commenting on Frisch not having kids, it reads to me like an anti-gay dog whistle.

FWIW, my understanding is that his husband is a teacher. So that gives him even more skin in the game than a parent, and more quality knowledge from the reality inside a school and the system at large. I'd take that as a personal family qualification more than being the random parent of a 5th grader.

Not PP but I agree. I also don’t like Omeish. I think people without kids that join SB are in it for the politics not because they don’t have skin in the game with their kids at school. I think voters should avoid selecting candidates without kids in the schools.

Most people who have kids in the schools are too busy to run for school board. And I don't want them making policies that favor their kids' schools or their kids' particular interests/programs. I don't think it's an important criteria at all.

Karl is that you? Yes, it is important to have actually been through the school system as a parent or teacher and so is going to college. So is not being a political hack. Usually when you've had 2-3 kids or have taught at multiple schools you have a wider breadth of skills. Many of the other people running have been on committees for the school board or the PTA or are longtime residents invested in the community. There is nothing positive about his background, work, or behavior. He's a public policy advocate meaning he only knows how to push for his agenda. He's not a negotiator. I don't need to hear about his dog either. It's scary how he writes about it like it's almost the same as having a child. Is there anything positive he's done on the board? I don't like where FCPS is headed. Strong no.

I'm the PP, and no, I'm not Karl--and I don't live in his district. I was just saying I don't think having kids is an appropriate criteria for me.

You sound like Karl. Are you certain you’re not him?

And why are you weighing in here if you are not even in his district?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, his entire career since HS has been as a political operative of some sort, so I would guess that he has more knowledge and connections into fundraising than many of the other candidates. This is also why I don't really trust him. He is not in it for the kids (especially since he does not have any of his own) but for himself.

You are totally out of line. I didn't have kids until I was 42 but I was fully invested in my community and fully committed to public education (even taught for 7 years before burning out) so I cared deeply about the school system long before I had kids. You don't have to spawn to care about good schools. In fact, since he isn't distracted by child rearing, he has more time to devote to the work.

Every time I see people commenting on Frisch not having kids, it reads to me like an anti-gay dog whistle.

FWIW, my understanding is that his husband is a teacher. So that gives him even more skin in the game than a parent, and more quality knowledge from the reality inside a school and the system at large. I'd take that as a personal family qualification more than being the random parent of a 5th grader.

Not PP but I agree. I also don’t like Omeish. I think people without kids that join SB are in it for the politics not because they don’t have skin in the game with their kids at school. I think voters should avoid selecting candidates without kids in the schools.

Most people who have kids in the schools are too busy to run for school board. And I don't want them making policies that favor their kids' schools or their kids' particular interests/programs. I don't think it's an important criteria at all.

Karl is that you? Yes, it is important to have actually been through the school system as a parent or teacher and so is going to college. So is not being a political hack. Usually when you've had 2-3 kids or have taught at multiple schools you have a wider breadth of skills. Many of the other people running have been on committees for the school board or the PTA or are longtime residents invested in the community. There is nothing positive about his background, work, or behavior. He's a public policy advocate meaning he only knows how to push for his agenda. He's not a negotiator. I don't need to hear about his dog either. It's scary how he writes about it like it's almost the same as having a child. Is there anything positive he's done on the board? I don't like where FCPS is headed. Strong no.

I'm the PP, and no, I'm not Karl--and I don't live in his district. I was just saying I don't think having kids is an appropriate criteria for me.

You sound like Karl. Are you certain you’re not him?

And why are you weighing in here if you are not even in his district?

I'm pretty certain I'm not Karl--straight, female, and a parent of 2. I care about SB races and I was weighing in because I think it's wrong to say people need to have kids to care about the schools. I vote for people based on their policies, relevant experience and character.

[Anonymous]

When people point out that he has no kids it's not an anti-gay thing. It's pointing out that he has no long term stake in how children/students are getting educated. Sure, his partner is a teacher...but most parents are primarily interested in how public schools are serving the KIDS, and secondarily interested in how teachers are benefitting from FCPS.

He has no background in education policy or practice; ,and he isn't even as educated as most parents (no bachelors or trade degree). So we are left wondering what he actually brings to the table. Gay-representation is one thing...and that's a plus...but then covid hit, and we found out that his priority is himself 9ver the 189,000 students (himsrlf and his partner...with the dramatic tears rather than c9ncerning himself with what 189000 KIDS needed). That's when he lost me forever.

If he had kids in FCPS, he would have had to think about the damage to those kids. Since he doesn't have kids in public school...or kids at all...he was able to dismiss that from his concerns and focus entirely on his spouse to the exclusion of 189000 kids.

He has shown that when push comes to shove he's looking out for himself first.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:When people point out that he has no kids it's not an anti-gay thing. It's pointing out that he has no long term stake in how children/students are getting educated. Sure, his partner is a teacher...but most parents are primarily interested in how public schools are serving the KIDS, and secondarily interested in how teachers are benefitting from FCPS.

He has no background in education policy or practice; ,and he isn't even as educated as most parents (no bachelors or trade degree). So we are left wondering what he actually brings to the table. Gay-representation is one thing...and that's a plus...but then covid hit, and we found out that his priority is himself 9ver the 189,000 students (himsrlf and his partner...with the dramatic tears rather than c9ncerning himself with what 189000 KIDS needed). That's when he lost me forever.

If he had kids in FCPS, he would have had to think about the damage to those kids. Since he doesn't have kids in public school...or kids at all...he was able to dismiss that from his concerns and focus entirely on his spouse to the exclusion of 189000 kids.

He has shown that when push comes to shove he's looking out for himself first.

oh please.
If you have a kid, you're looking out for 189,000 other kids?
You're never looking out for yourself or only your kid (especially if you're on DCUM -- no self promotion here!).
Focusing on desires of teachers is part of being on the school board.
Focusing on future generations (even if you're not a parent) is part of being on the school board.
Just admit that you were not "lost" when covid hit, but that you were never with the gays.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, his entire career since HS has been as a political operative of some sort, so I would guess that he has more knowledge and connections into fundraising than many of the other candidates. This is also why I don't really trust him. He is not in it for the kids (especially since he does not have any of his own) but for himself.

You are totally out of line. I didn't have kids until I was 42 but I was fully invested in my community and fully committed to public education (even taught for 7 years before burning out) so I cared deeply about the school system long before I had kids. You don't have to spawn to care about good schools. In fact, since he isn't distracted by child rearing, he has more time to devote to the work.

Every time I see people commenting on Frisch not having kids, it reads to me like an anti-gay dog whistle.

FWIW, my understanding is that his husband is a teacher. So that gives him even more skin in the game than a parent, and more quality knowledge from the reality inside a school and the system at large. I'd take that as a personal family qualification more than being the random parent of a 5th grader.

Not PP but I agree. I also don’t like Omeish. I think people without kids that join SB are in it for the politics not because they don’t have skin in the game with their kids at school. I think voters should avoid selecting candidates without kids in the schools.

Most people who have kids in the schools are too busy to run for school board. And I don't want them making policies that favor their kids' schools or their kids' particular interests/programs. I don't think it's an important criteria at all.

Karl is that you? Yes, it is important to have actually been through the school system as a parent or teacher and so is going to college. So is not being a political hack. Usually when you've had 2-3 kids or have taught at multiple schools you have a wider breadth of skills. Many of the other people running have been on committees for the school board or the PTA or are longtime residents invested in the community. There is nothing positive about his background, work, or behavior. He's a public policy advocate meaning he only knows how to push for his agenda. He's not a negotiator. I don't need to hear about his dog either. It's scary how he writes about it like it's almost the same as having a child. Is there anything positive he's done on the board? I don't like where FCPS is headed. Strong no.

I'm the PP, and no, I'm not Karl--and I don't live in his district. I was just saying I don't think having kids is an appropriate criteria for me.

You sound like Karl. Are you certain you’re not him?

And why are you weighing in here if you are not even in his district?

I'm pretty certain I'm not Karl--straight, female, and a parent of 2. I care about SB races and I was weighing in because I think it's wrong to say people need to have kids to care about the schools. I vote for people based on their policies, relevant experience and character.

But he does not have any relevant educational experience; he sis not even graduate from college.

He has only a political agenda.

And $300,000 in campaign funds, compared to everyone else’s paltry fifty thousand.

Why is that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, his entire career since HS has been as a political operative of some sort, so I would guess that he has more knowledge and connections into fundraising than many of the other candidates. This is also why I don't really trust him. He is not in it for the kids (especially since he does not have any of his own) but for himself.

You are totally out of line. I didn't have kids until I was 42 but I was fully invested in my community and fully committed to public education (even taught for 7 years before burning out) so I cared deeply about the school system long before I had kids. You don't have to spawn to care about good schools. In fact, since he isn't distracted by child rearing, he has more time to devote to the work.

Every time I see people commenting on Frisch not having kids, it reads to me like an anti-gay dog whistle.

FWIW, my understanding is that his husband is a teacher. So that gives him even more skin in the game than a parent, and more quality knowledge from the reality inside a school and the system at large. I'd take that as a personal family qualification more than being the random parent of a 5th grader.

+1 from a gay HS teacher who knows first-hand how these people work

It's disappointing that any teacher choosing to engage on Frisch's candidacy would use terms like "these people." You certainly wouldn't like that if such a derogatory phrase were applied across-the-board to LBGTQ activists.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When people point out that he has no kids it's not an anti-gay thing. It's pointing out that he has no long term stake in how children/students are getting educated. Sure, his partner is a teacher...but most parents are primarily interested in how public schools are serving the KIDS, and secondarily interested in how teachers are benefitting from FCPS.

He has no background in education policy or practice; ,and he isn't even as educated as most parents (no bachelors or trade degree). So we are left wondering what he actually brings to the table. Gay-representation is one thing...and that's a plus...but then covid hit, and we found out that his priority is himself 9ver the 189,000 students (himsrlf and his partner...with the dramatic tears rather than c9ncerning himself with what 189000 KIDS needed). That's when he lost me forever.

If he had kids in FCPS, he would have had to think about the damage to those kids. Since he doesn't have kids in public school...or kids at all...he was able to dismiss that from his concerns and focus entirely on his spouse to the exclusion of 189000 kids.

He has shown that when push comes to shove he's looking out for himself first.

oh please.
If you have a kid, you're looking out for 189,000 other kids?
You're never looking out for yourself or only your kid (especially if you're on DCUM -- no self promotion here!).
Focusing on desires of teachers is part of being on the school board.
Focusing on future generations (even if you're not a parent) is part of being on the school board.
Just admit that you were not "lost" when covid hit, but that you were never with the gays.

DP. I was fine with him until he wasted tens of millions of taxpayer dollars on a completely unnecessary elementary school project in Dunn Loring to save a dog park.

He could be a straight Ph.D with degrees from Harvard and Stanford, a wife, and seven kids, and I'd still think that's a disqualifying boondoggle that renders him unfit for future office.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When people point out that he has no kids it's not an anti-gay thing. It's pointing out that he has no long term stake in how children/students are getting educated. Sure, his partner is a teacher...but most parents are primarily interested in how public schools are serving the KIDS, and secondarily interested in how teachers are benefitting from FCPS.

He has no background in education policy or practice; ,and he isn't even as educated as most parents (no bachelors or trade degree). So we are left wondering what he actually brings to the table. Gay-representation is one thing...and that's a plus...but then covid hit, and we found out that his priority is himself 9ver the 189,000 students (himsrlf and his partner...with the dramatic tears rather than c9ncerning himself with what 189000 KIDS needed). That's when he lost me forever.

If he had kids in FCPS, he would have had to think about the damage to those kids. Since he doesn't have kids in public school...or kids at all...he was able to dismiss that from his concerns and focus entirely on his spouse to the exclusion of 189000 kids.

He has shown that when push comes to shove he's looking out for himself first.

oh please.
If you have a kid, you're looking out for 189,000 other kids?
You're never looking out for yourself or only your kid (especially if you're on DCUM -- no self promotion here!).
Focusing on desires of teachers is part of being on the school board.
Focusing on future generations (even if you're not a parent) is part of being on the school board.
Just admit that you were not "lost" when covid hit, but that you were never with the gays.

No I won't admit that. I have nothing against him for being gay. As I said, that fact that he brought that diversity was a slight plus. BUT, my kid ended up dropping OUT of FCPS because of the virtual mess. The virtual disaster isn't 100% on Frisch's shoulders, but the way he handled making his decision was a complete failure. He didn't make the decision based on a balanced assessment of the pros and cons. He got emotionally twisted up and essentially was not capable of looking beyond his own fears (that were not rational). So, that's where he lost me. I have no respect for him. He didn't consider my kid or your kid and the impact that closing schools would have. He got lost in his own dramas. I have no faith that he has much of anything to add to the school board after that.... and no degree... not even a technical degree? Couldn't be bothered to finish a college or technical degree??? what does that say about someone? Not good. Not who I want to represent my interests. But, my kid's time in FCPS is getting shorter and really, I'm pretty much over it at this point. Very little of what they do (good or bad) is going to impact my household directly. So, I can just skip the vote for Karl. But, I sure was glad to vote AGAINST him for the Dem primary for state rep. And I'll happily vote against him if I have a chance. Give me another gay or trans candidate and I'll vote for them... but not Karl.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When people point out that he has no kids it's not an anti-gay thing. It's pointing out that he has no long term stake in how children/students are getting educated. Sure, his partner is a teacher...but most parents are primarily interested in how public schools are serving the KIDS, and secondarily interested in how teachers are benefitting from FCPS.

He has no background in education policy or practice; ,and he isn't even as educated as most parents (no bachelors or trade degree). So we are left wondering what he actually brings to the table. Gay-representation is one thing...and that's a plus...but then covid hit, and we found out that his priority is himself 9ver the 189,000 students (himsrlf and his partner...with the dramatic tears rather than c9ncerning himself with what 189000 KIDS needed). That's when he lost me forever.

If he had kids in FCPS, he would have had to think about the damage to those kids. Since he doesn't have kids in public school...or kids at all...he was able to dismiss that from his concerns and focus entirely on his spouse to the exclusion of 189000 kids.

He has shown that when push comes to shove he's looking out for himself first.

oh please.
If you have a kid, you're looking out for 189,000 other kids?
You're never looking out for yourself or only your kid (especially if you're on DCUM -- no self promotion here!).
Focusing on desires of teachers is part of being on the school board.
Focusing on future generations (even if you're not a parent) is part of being on the school board.
Just admit that you were not "lost" when covid hit, but that you were never with the gays.

You would have a person stake in whether kids go to school or not. You would have a person stake in the education they are getting, and you would regularly have to interact with other parents and kids. Karl's #1 is his political ambitions and #2 is his "partner's" interests. (He doesn't refer to the partner as a "spouse" -- so I guess they aren't married?). Look, it's good to have someone represent the teachers on the school board. That's a legitimate interest group. It's just not MY priority and I'm not voting for someone whose priorities are teachers before kids. And more specifically to Karl, I'm not voting for someone who has his partner's interest over my kid's interests. If teachers like him --- then he's their guy. But, he's shown he's not the person who can represent my interests well. He doesn't impress me, and no matter how many times you claim that's because we're anti-gay, it's just really not.

[Anonymous]

Typo correction:

You would have a PERSONAL stake in whether kids go to school or not (if you had kids in FCPS).