ACPS hybrid 3/16

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The tone of the meeting last night was way different than before. Unlike the doom and gloom, and excessive remedial man-splaining he excels at - Hutchings sounded optimistic that it was really going to happen this time. I'm guessing the political pressure got to him. The metrics he worships aren't actually that different from last week - and are certainly magnitudes worse than in the fall when none of this was "feasible".

He's an opportunistic jerk, who cares only about himself. I think he sees the writing on the wall and wants to get ahead of the "narrative" - which is basically the science shows schools are safe.

Whatever, I'll take it - my kids need to be in school - I just wish they didn't have to be in his school district.

They've apparently been safe enough for his own kid.

Yet all the people who kept their kids in ACPS schools and tried to keep their kids from falling behind more are the ones deserving of shame.

I'm so disgusted with ACPS, the SB, the PTAs that never said a word this whole time and PTAC that clearly exists just to suck up to central office & scold parents.

This has been really revealing. I look at my neighbors in a totally different way. Especially those involved in the PTA. It sad they are so happy with the crumbs that ACPS gives their children.

I share your frustration, but your anger is utterly misdirected at parents. Truly--what would you have people do in the short term? I say this as someone who pulled their SN elementary-age kid out to homeschool despite working a 30-hr/week job because I was horrified not only at how truly terrible DL is for little kids but also at how pointless the assignments were. But I can't pile on parents who are trying to make the unworkable workable.

There are still a lot of parents still very upset over the PTAC op-ed in the Alexandria Times from a few weeks ago.

Being upset with PTAC for being ACSP apologists is not the same as being upset with parents in general. PTAC (according to its website) claims to be a voice for all kids and yet all they ever seem to do is praise ACPS.

And I don't think a single PTA said a word this entire time about the issues with DL. PTAs/PTAC isn't the same as average parents just trying to get thru this even though they claim to represent them (and their kids) in some way. ACPS/Hutchings/SB deserve most of the shame but PTAC deserves some too for giving them cover.

They are occupied organizing restaurant nights.

Count me among those who are still upset. It was utterly pointless and designed to give them whatever advantage they perceived it could.

As an active elementary PTA board member, I'll give my perspective on this. I disagreed with the letter from PTAC, but other members of the board didn't. And our board only represents a small segment of our school population. Who are probably equally split on this issue. If you are happy with virtual school, or have other reasons to not want to return, I imagine you're pretty impressed with ACPS.

So it would have been inappropriate for our PTA, or our PTA Board, to speak out on this - because we didn't have a way to represent the voices of our constituency. And because opinions are so very divided.

That is what was so wrong with the PTAC letter. They made it appear that they were representing all of Alexandria PTAs. It was wrong of them, and kind of unethical, and not an action that well run organizations should imitate by posting a rebuttal.

I appreciate this perspective. They should have just written a letter and signed their names without adding "PTAC" to it. But of course its their association with PTAC from which they believe they derive their authority to speak on this matter, so what would have been the point to send the letter without it? And from what I have observed personally of a few people who sent it, they really like attention. That's what is really gross and unethical: they used this letter as an attention-grab and dragged the PTAs into it.

[Anonymous]

I appreciate this perspective too. I applaud your PTA for being sensitive to the diversity of viewpoints of its membership. I am familiar with some of the brutal actions some of the signers and their friends take when people disagree with them so it probably is the right thing not to respond in public.

But they should get their house in order before signing anymore op-eds. Bylaws appear to be a draft and are not certified, say that they are a part of the Fairfax district and are hosted on the ACPS website (which says so much). There are other problematic things too.

Sloppy, especially in a town where so many people work for non-profits.

[Anonymous]

So it would have been inappropriate for our PTA, or our PTA Board, to speak out on this - because we didn't have a way to represent the voices of our constituency. And because opinions are so very divided.

That is what was so wrong with the PTAC letter. They made it appear that they were representing all of Alexandria PTAs. It was wrong of them, and kind of unethical, and not an action that well run organizations should imitate by posting a rebuttal.


I appreciate this perspective. They should have just written a letter and signed their names without adding "PTAC" to it. But of course its their association with PTAC from which they believe they derive their authority to speak on this matter, so what would have been the point to send the letter without it? And from what I have observed personally of a few people who sent it, they really like attention. That's what is really gross and unethical: they used this letter as an attention-grab and dragged the PTAs into it

I agree, they should have signed it in their own names. I only know one of them personally, and she seems fine. But as the parent of a child with severe disabilities, I am outraged that she signed this letter, after how ACPS has treated children with special needs during this pandemic. I don't know if I will even be able to speak to her when I see her again.