APS elementary planning initiative called off

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The misinformation on this site about ASFS is appalling.

No one who isn’t currently at ASFS joined the PTA and voted in the recent election. Two people who live in the neighborhood who would like to eventually attend the school came to one meeting where no election was held.


However, at the meeting where elections were held, the attendance record reached an all time high with new members/attendees who currently attend ASFS but had never come to a previous meeting. They showed up with copies of the same email (probably from the same PP accusing neighborhood people of being racist for wanting to walk to school) telling them who to vote for/vote out. Once the vote was over (and before the results were announced), they all left.

If anything, all these posts about ASFS support the need for APS and the SB to redrawn boundaries around ASFS sooner rather than later so that we can all be spared any further threads on the issue.

I’m an out going officer of the asfs pta so I feel like I should correct the misinformation being spread here.
At the first pta meeting elections were supposed to be held, there were at least fifteen adults who do not have kids at the school present. I know this based off of the sign in sheet. This was the first meeting I had seen this, but it’s possible that they’ve been coming for a while. At that first meeting, there were a number of people making comments that are inconsistent with asfs community values. For example, I saw someone make fun of a parent asking a question in broken English. I don’t know if that person is a member of our community or not, but behavior like that is appalling and not welcome at our school.
At the second pta meeting where we voted, I saw at least three adults who do not have children at the school. I recognize one from the televised school board meetings and I talked to other two.
A large number of people did leave right after the vote, but that was due to Ramadan and the provided child care ending. Early is also relative: they left at 7:30 or later, which many with small kids might consider late for a weeknight.
I agree people who are not current members of the community have a right to join and contribute, but I have not seen any of them outside of these two meetings. If this is the new normal, we need to be more stringent about running background checks on volunteers. I would hate for someone to use this as a way to gain access for more nefarious reasons like child abuse or school violence.

Are you seriously trying to associate Cherrydale parents attending ASFS PTA meetings with child abuse and school shootings? WTF is wrong with you?

Seriously. WTF.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The misinformation on this site about ASFS is appalling.

No one who isn’t currently at ASFS joined the PTA and voted in the recent election. Two people who live in the neighborhood who would like to eventually attend the school came to one meeting where no election was held.


However, at the meeting where elections were held, the attendance record reached an all time high with new members/attendees who currently attend ASFS but had never come to a previous meeting. They showed up with copies of the same email (probably from the same PP accusing neighborhood people of being racist for wanting to walk to school) telling them who to vote for/vote out. Once the vote was over (and before the results were announced), they all left.

If anything, all these posts about ASFS support the need for APS and the SB to redrawn boundaries around ASFS sooner rather than later so that we can all be spared any further threads on the issue.

I’m an out going officer of the asfs pta so I feel like I should correct the misinformation being spread here.
At the first pta meeting elections were supposed to be held, there were at least fifteen adults who do not have kids at the school present. I know this based off of the sign in sheet. This was the first meeting I had seen this, but it’s possible that they’ve been coming for a while. At that first meeting, there were a number of people making comments that are inconsistent with asfs community values. For example, I saw someone make fun of a parent asking a question in broken English. I don’t know if that person is a member of our community or not, but behavior like that is appalling and not welcome at our school.
At the second pta meeting where we voted, I saw at least three adults who do not have children at the school. I recognize one from the televised school board meetings and I talked to other two.
A large number of people did leave right after the vote, but that was due to Ramadan and the provided child care ending. Early is also relative: they left at 7:30 or later, which many with small kids might consider late for a weeknight.
I agree people who are not current members of the community have a right to join and contribute, but I have not seen any of them outside of these two meetings. If this is the new normal, we need to be more stringent about running background checks on volunteers. I would hate for someone to use this as a way to gain access for more nefarious reasons like child abuse or school violence.

I think you should consider asking Jeff to have this removed. There are only four individuals you could be, and people who know the goings-on in the ASFS PTA may be inclined to assume this is sour grapes from one of the officers who lost re-election. If you're not one of those two, that's all the more reason to have it deleted so it's not unfairly associated with them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The misinformation on this site about ASFS is appalling.

No one who isn’t currently at ASFS joined the PTA and voted in the recent election. Two people who live in the neighborhood who would like to eventually attend the school came to one meeting where no election was held.


However, at the meeting where elections were held, the attendance record reached an all time high with new members/attendees who currently attend ASFS but had never come to a previous meeting. They showed up with copies of the same email (probably from the same PP accusing neighborhood people of being racist for wanting to walk to school) telling them who to vote for/vote out. Once the vote was over (and before the results were announced), they all left.

If anything, all these posts about ASFS support the need for APS and the SB to redrawn boundaries around ASFS sooner rather than later so that we can all be spared any further threads on the issue.

I’m an out going officer of the asfs pta so I feel like I should correct the misinformation being spread here.
At the first pta meeting elections were supposed to be held, there were at least fifteen adults who do not have kids at the school present. I know this based off of the sign in sheet. This was the first meeting I had seen this, but it’s possible that they’ve been coming for a while. At that first meeting, there were a number of people making comments that are inconsistent with asfs community values. For example, I saw someone make fun of a parent asking a question in broken English. I don’t know if that person is a member of our community or not, but behavior like that is appalling and not welcome at our school.
At the second pta meeting where we voted, I saw at least three adults who do not have children at the school. I recognize one from the televised school board meetings and I talked to other two.
A large number of people did leave right after the vote, but that was due to Ramadan and the provided child care ending. Early is also relative: they left at 7:30 or later, which many with small kids might consider late for a weeknight.
I agree people who are not current members of the community have a right to join and contribute, but I have not seen any of them outside of these two meetings. If this is the new normal, we need to be more stringent about running background checks on volunteers. I would hate for someone to use this as a way to gain access for more nefarious reasons like child abuse or school violence.

Are you seriously trying to associate Cherrydale parents attending ASFS PTA meetings with child abuse and school shootings? WTF is wrong with you?

Seriously. WTF.

NP. Actually when I heard that ANYONE off the street could attend a PTA meeting, without any association with the school I did find it troubling. The on-site baby sitting is I think a bunch of high schoolers, so it would be pretty easy for someone to con a teen distracted by their phone once you have access to the building and PTA meeting.

Anyone attending a PTA meeting should be a member and have some rudimentary vetting; if you are not a parent or teacher then they take your license and verify your physical address.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The misinformation on this site about ASFS is appalling.

No one who isn’t currently at ASFS joined the PTA and voted in the recent election. Two people who live in the neighborhood who would like to eventually attend the school came to one meeting where no election was held.


However, at the meeting where elections were held, the attendance record reached an all time high with new members/attendees who currently attend ASFS but had never come to a previous meeting. They showed up with copies of the same email (probably from the same PP accusing neighborhood people of being racist for wanting to walk to school) telling them who to vote for/vote out. Once the vote was over (and before the results were announced), they all left.

If anything, all these posts about ASFS support the need for APS and the SB to redrawn boundaries around ASFS sooner rather than later so that we can all be spared any further threads on the issue.

I’m an out going officer of the asfs pta so I feel like I should correct the misinformation being spread here.
At the first pta meeting elections were supposed to be held, there were at least fifteen adults who do not have kids at the school present. I know this based off of the sign in sheet. This was the first meeting I had seen this, but it’s possible that they’ve been coming for a while. At that first meeting, there were a number of people making comments that are inconsistent with asfs community values. For example, I saw someone make fun of a parent asking a question in broken English. I don’t know if that person is a member of our community or not, but behavior like that is appalling and not welcome at our school.
At the second pta meeting where we voted, I saw at least three adults who do not have children at the school. I recognize one from the televised school board meetings and I talked to other two.
A large number of people did leave right after the vote, but that was due to Ramadan and the provided child care ending. Early is also relative: they left at 7:30 or later, which many with small kids might consider late for a weeknight.
I agree people who are not current members of the community have a right to join and contribute, but I have not seen any of them outside of these two meetings. If this is the new normal, we need to be more stringent about running background checks on volunteers. I would hate for someone to use this as a way to gain access for more nefarious reasons like child abuse or school violence.

Are you seriously trying to associate Cherrydale parents attending ASFS PTA meetings with child abuse and school shootings? WTF is wrong with you?

Seriously. WTF.

NP. Actually when I heard that ANYONE off the street could attend a PTA meeting, without any association with the school I did find it troubling. The on-site baby sitting is I think a bunch of high schoolers, so it would be pretty easy for someone to con a teen distracted by their phone once you have access to the building and PTA meeting.

Anyone attending a PTA meeting should be a member and have some rudimentary vetting; if you are not a parent or teacher then they take your license and verify your physical address.

If you're so sincere in your concern, maybe you should have a discussion about it with your school administration rather than here in the context of a PTA election, so that your "concern" doesn't come across as such a crass smear campaign.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The misinformation on this site about ASFS is appalling.

No one who isn’t currently at ASFS joined the PTA and voted in the recent election. Two people who live in the neighborhood who would like to eventually attend the school came to one meeting where no election was held.


However, at the meeting where elections were held, the attendance record reached an all time high with new members/attendees who currently attend ASFS but had never come to a previous meeting. They showed up with copies of the same email (probably from the same PP accusing neighborhood people of being racist for wanting to walk to school) telling them who to vote for/vote out. Once the vote was over (and before the results were announced), they all left.

If anything, all these posts about ASFS support the need for APS and the SB to redrawn boundaries around ASFS sooner rather than later so that we can all be spared any further threads on the issue.

I’m an out going officer of the asfs pta so I feel like I should correct the misinformation being spread here.
At the first pta meeting elections were supposed to be held, there were at least fifteen adults who do not have kids at the school present. I know this based off of the sign in sheet. This was the first meeting I had seen this, but it’s possible that they’ve been coming for a while. At that first meeting, there were a number of people making comments that are inconsistent with asfs community values. For example, I saw someone make fun of a parent asking a question in broken English. I don’t know if that person is a member of our community or not, but behavior like that is appalling and not welcome at our school.
At the second pta meeting where we voted, I saw at least three adults who do not have children at the school. I recognize one from the televised school board meetings and I talked to other two.
A large number of people did leave right after the vote, but that was due to Ramadan and the provided child care ending. Early is also relative: they left at 7:30 or later, which many with small kids might consider late for a weeknight.
I agree people who are not current members of the community have a right to join and contribute, but I have not seen any of them outside of these two meetings. If this is the new normal, we need to be more stringent about running background checks on volunteers. I would hate for someone to use this as a way to gain access for more nefarious reasons like child abuse or school violence.

Does this go before or after turning Buck into an upper school for ASF on the list of priorities?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The misinformation on this site about ASFS is appalling.

No one who isn’t currently at ASFS joined the PTA and voted in the recent election. Two people who live in the neighborhood who would like to eventually attend the school came to one meeting where no election was held.


However, at the meeting where elections were held, the attendance record reached an all time high with new members/attendees who currently attend ASFS but had never come to a previous meeting. They showed up with copies of the same email (probably from the same PP accusing neighborhood people of being racist for wanting to walk to school) telling them who to vote for/vote out. Once the vote was over (and before the results were announced), they all left.

If anything, all these posts about ASFS support the need for APS and the SB to redrawn boundaries around ASFS sooner rather than later so that we can all be spared any further threads on the issue.

I’m an out going officer of the asfs pta so I feel like I should correct the misinformation being spread here.
At the first pta meeting elections were supposed to be held, there were at least fifteen adults who do not have kids at the school present. I know this based off of the sign in sheet. This was the first meeting I had seen this, but it’s possible that they’ve been coming for a while. At that first meeting, there were a number of people making comments that are inconsistent with asfs community values. For example, I saw someone make fun of a parent asking a question in broken English. I don’t know if that person is a member of our community or not, but behavior like that is appalling and not welcome at our school.
At the second pta meeting where we voted, I saw at least three adults who do not have children at the school. I recognize one from the televised school board meetings and I talked to other two.
A large number of people did leave right after the vote, but that was due to Ramadan and the provided child care ending. Early is also relative: they left at 7:30 or later, which many with small kids might consider late for a weeknight.
I agree people who are not current members of the community have a right to join and contribute, but I have not seen any of them outside of these two meetings. If this is the new normal, we need to be more stringent about running background checks on volunteers. I would hate for someone to use this as a way to gain access for more nefarious reasons like child abuse or school violence.

Are you seriously trying to associate Cherrydale parents attending ASFS PTA meetings with child abuse and school shootings? WTF is wrong with you?

Seriously. WTF.

NP. Actually when I heard that ANYONE off the street could attend a PTA meeting, without any association with the school I did find it troubling. The on-site baby sitting is I think a bunch of high schoolers, so it would be pretty easy for someone to con a teen distracted by their phone once you have access to the building and PTA meeting.

Anyone attending a PTA meeting should be a member and have some rudimentary vetting; if you are not a parent or teacher then they take your license and verify your physical address.

But can they vote? I would think not. Our PTA would never let that fly. And we'd probably notice of random people were attending, too, and ask them to leave because the school isn't open to just anyone. Wierd. Cherrydale residents are crazy AF if they did this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The misinformation on this site about ASFS is appalling.

No one who isn’t currently at ASFS joined the PTA and voted in the recent election. Two people who live in the neighborhood who would like to eventually attend the school came to one meeting where no election was held.


However, at the meeting where elections were held, the attendance record reached an all time high with new members/attendees who currently attend ASFS but had never come to a previous meeting. They showed up with copies of the same email (probably from the same PP accusing neighborhood people of being racist for wanting to walk to school) telling them who to vote for/vote out. Once the vote was over (and before the results were announced), they all left.

If anything, all these posts about ASFS support the need for APS and the SB to redrawn boundaries around ASFS sooner rather than later so that we can all be spared any further threads on the issue.

I’m an out going officer of the asfs pta so I feel like I should correct the misinformation being spread here.
At the first pta meeting elections were supposed to be held, there were at least fifteen adults who do not have kids at the school present. I know this based off of the sign in sheet. This was the first meeting I had seen this, but it’s possible that they’ve been coming for a while. At that first meeting, there were a number of people making comments that are inconsistent with asfs community values. For example, I saw someone make fun of a parent asking a question in broken English. I don’t know if that person is a member of our community or not, but behavior like that is appalling and not welcome at our school.
At the second pta meeting where we voted, I saw at least three adults who do not have children at the school. I recognize one from the televised school board meetings and I talked to other two.
A large number of people did leave right after the vote, but that was due to Ramadan and the provided child care ending. Early is also relative: they left at 7:30 or later, which many with small kids might consider late for a weeknight.
I agree people who are not current members of the community have a right to join and contribute, but I have not seen any of them outside of these two meetings. If this is the new normal, we need to be more stringent about running background checks on volunteers. I would hate for someone to use this as a way to gain access for more nefarious reasons like child abuse or school violence.

Does this go before or after turning Buck into an upper school for ASF on the list of priorities?

I'm pretty sure pedophiles are not limited to people who don't have kids at the school currently. Nor are they all residing in Cherrydale. I think all PTA members and officers should be screened as a sexual offender. Wait, wait, actually, all parents should be screened. Every single parent at ASFS should be screened. Because as far as I know, none of them are screened. That isn't cool.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The misinformation on this site about ASFS is appalling.

No one who isn’t currently at ASFS joined the PTA and voted in the recent election. Two people who live in the neighborhood who would like to eventually attend the school came to one meeting where no election was held.


However, at the meeting where elections were held, the attendance record reached an all time high with new members/attendees who currently attend ASFS but had never come to a previous meeting. They showed up with copies of the same email (probably from the same PP accusing neighborhood people of being racist for wanting to walk to school) telling them who to vote for/vote out. Once the vote was over (and before the results were announced), they all left.

If anything, all these posts about ASFS support the need for APS and the SB to redrawn boundaries around ASFS sooner rather than later so that we can all be spared any further threads on the issue.

I’m an out going officer of the asfs pta so I feel like I should correct the misinformation being spread here.
At the first pta meeting elections were supposed to be held, there were at least fifteen adults who do not have kids at the school present. I know this based off of the sign in sheet. This was the first meeting I had seen this, but it’s possible that they’ve been coming for a while. At that first meeting, there were a number of people making comments that are inconsistent with asfs community values. For example, I saw someone make fun of a parent asking a question in broken English. I don’t know if that person is a member of our community or not, but behavior like that is appalling and not welcome at our school.
At the second pta meeting where we voted, I saw at least three adults who do not have children at the school. I recognize one from the televised school board meetings and I talked to other two.
A large number of people did leave right after the vote, but that was due to Ramadan and the provided child care ending. Early is also relative: they left at 7:30 or later, which many with small kids might consider late for a weeknight.
I agree people who are not current members of the community have a right to join and contribute, but I have not seen any of them outside of these two meetings. If this is the new normal, we need to be more stringent about running background checks on volunteers. I would hate for someone to use this as a way to gain access for more nefarious reasons like child abuse or school violence.

Are you seriously trying to associate Cherrydale parents attending ASFS PTA meetings with child abuse and school shootings? WTF is wrong with you?

Seriously. WTF.

NP. Actually when I heard that ANYONE off the street could attend a PTA meeting, without any association with the school I did find it troubling. The on-site baby sitting is I think a bunch of high schoolers, so it would be pretty easy for someone to con a teen distracted by their phone once you have access to the building and PTA meeting.

Anyone attending a PTA meeting should be a member and have some rudimentary vetting; if you are not a parent or teacher then they take your license and verify your physical address.

But can they vote? I would think not. Our PTA would never let that fly. And we'd probably notice of random people were attending, too, and ask them to leave because the school isn't open to just anyone. Wierd. Cherrydale residents are crazy AF if they did this.

It was hard to tell who was random, because a lot of Rosslyn parents showed up at their first PTA meeting also in order to majority vote out Cherrydale parents. It's become a turf war.

[Anonymous]

The ASFS PTA meeting minutes from last year are an interesting read (just the External Affairs reports, you can skip the rest). I hadn't realized until I just read them how heavily the PTA advocated to prevent a Key/ASFS swap, reduce the size of the school and create as large a walk zone as possible, all of which would result in Rosslyn being zoned out of the school. I get where they're coming from, but I can also totally understand why the Rosslyn folks were up in arms and voted out the External Affairs person in favor of one of their own.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The misinformation on this site about ASFS is appalling.

No one who isn’t currently at ASFS joined the PTA and voted in the recent election. Two people who live in the neighborhood who would like to eventually attend the school came to one meeting where no election was held.


However, at the meeting where elections were held, the attendance record reached an all time high with new members/attendees who currently attend ASFS but had never come to a previous meeting. They showed up with copies of the same email (probably from the same PP accusing neighborhood people of being racist for wanting to walk to school) telling them who to vote for/vote out. Once the vote was over (and before the results were announced), they all left.

If anything, all these posts about ASFS support the need for APS and the SB to redrawn boundaries around ASFS sooner rather than later so that we can all be spared any further threads on the issue.

I’m an out going officer of the asfs pta so I feel like I should correct the misinformation being spread here.
At the first pta meeting elections were supposed to be held, there were at least fifteen adults who do not have kids at the school present. I know this based off of the sign in sheet. This was the first meeting I had seen this, but it’s possible that they’ve been coming for a while. At that first meeting, there were a number of people making comments that are inconsistent with asfs community values. For example, I saw someone make fun of a parent asking a question in broken English. I don’t know if that person is a member of our community or not, but behavior like that is appalling and not welcome at our school.
At the second pta meeting where we voted, I saw at least three adults who do not have children at the school. I recognize one from the televised school board meetings and I talked to other two.
A large number of people did leave right after the vote, but that was due to Ramadan and the provided child care ending. Early is also relative: they left at 7:30 or later, which many with small kids might consider late for a weeknight.
I agree people who are not current members of the community have a right to join and contribute, but I have not seen any of them outside of these two meetings. If this is the new normal, we need to be more stringent about running background checks on volunteers. I would hate for someone to use this as a way to gain access for more nefarious reasons like child abuse or school violence.

Are you seriously trying to associate Cherrydale parents attending ASFS PTA meetings with child abuse and school shootings? WTF is wrong with you?

Seriously. WTF.

NP. Actually when I heard that ANYONE off the street could attend a PTA meeting, without any association with the school I did find it troubling. The on-site baby sitting is I think a bunch of high schoolers, so it would be pretty easy for someone to con a teen distracted by their phone once you have access to the building and PTA meeting.

Anyone attending a PTA meeting should be a member and have some rudimentary vetting; if you are not a parent or teacher then they take your license and verify your physical address.

But can they vote? I would think not. Our PTA would never let that fly. And we'd probably notice of random people were attending, too, and ask them to leave because the school isn't open to just anyone. Wierd. Cherrydale residents are crazy AF if they did this.

It was hard to tell who was random, because a lot of Rosslyn parents showed up at their first PTA meeting also in order to majority vote out Cherrydale parents. It's become a turf war.

Of course random walk-in can vote, it’s a show of hands. That’s why they tried this stunt.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The misinformation on this site about ASFS is appalling.

No one who isn’t currently at ASFS joined the PTA and voted in the recent election. Two people who live in the neighborhood who would like to eventually attend the school came to one meeting where no election was held.


However, at the meeting where elections were held, the attendance record reached an all time high with new members/attendees who currently attend ASFS but had never come to a previous meeting. They showed up with copies of the same email (probably from the same PP accusing neighborhood people of being racist for wanting to walk to school) telling them who to vote for/vote out. Once the vote was over (and before the results were announced), they all left.

If anything, all these posts about ASFS support the need for APS and the SB to redrawn boundaries around ASFS sooner rather than later so that we can all be spared any further threads on the issue.

I’m an out going officer of the asfs pta so I feel like I should correct the misinformation being spread here.
At the first pta meeting elections were supposed to be held, there were at least fifteen adults who do not have kids at the school present. I know this based off of the sign in sheet. This was the first meeting I had seen this, but it’s possible that they’ve been coming for a while. At that first meeting, there were a number of people making comments that are inconsistent with asfs community values. For example, I saw someone make fun of a parent asking a question in broken English. I don’t know if that person is a member of our community or not, but behavior like that is appalling and not welcome at our school.
At the second pta meeting where we voted, I saw at least three adults who do not have children at the school. I recognize one from the televised school board meetings and I talked to other two.
A large number of people did leave right after the vote, but that was due to Ramadan and the provided child care ending. Early is also relative: they left at 7:30 or later, which many with small kids might consider late for a weeknight.
I agree people who are not current members of the community have a right to join and contribute, but I have not seen any of them outside of these two meetings. If this is the new normal, we need to be more stringent about running background checks on volunteers. I would hate for someone to use this as a way to gain access for more nefarious reasons like child abuse or school violence.

Are you seriously trying to associate Cherrydale parents attending ASFS PTA meetings with child abuse and school shootings? WTF is wrong with you?

Seriously. WTF.

NP. Actually when I heard that ANYONE off the street could attend a PTA meeting, without any association with the school I did find it troubling. The on-site baby sitting is I think a bunch of high schoolers, so it would be pretty easy for someone to con a teen distracted by their phone once you have access to the building and PTA meeting.

Anyone attending a PTA meeting should be a member and have some rudimentary vetting; if you are not a parent or teacher then they take your license and verify your physical address.

If you're so sincere in your concern, maybe you should have a discussion about it with your school administration rather than here in the context of a PTA election, so that your "concern" doesn't come across as such a crass smear campaign.

Yes I had already written the National PTA

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The ASFS PTA meeting minutes from last year are an interesting read (just the External Affairs reports, you can skip the rest). I hadn't realized until I just read them how heavily the PTA advocated to prevent a Key/ASFS swap, reduce the size of the school and create as large a walk zone as possible, all of which would result in Rosslyn being zoned out of the school. I get where they're coming from, but I can also totally understand why the Rosslyn folks were up in arms and voted out the External Affairs person in favor of one of their own.

PP again. It reminds me a bit of what Tuckahoe did, when their board went to battle to get Tuckahoe off the list of potential option sites because all of their board members were in the walk zone and they weren't concerned with how that decision would affect their community members on the other side of Lee Highway who might not get to go to Reed like they'd prefer as a result.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The ASFS PTA meeting minutes from last year are an interesting read (just the External Affairs reports, you can skip the rest). I hadn't realized until I just read them how heavily the PTA advocated to prevent a Key/ASFS swap, reduce the size of the school and create as large a walk zone as possible, all of which would result in Rosslyn being zoned out of the school. I get where they're coming from, but I can also totally understand why the Rosslyn folks were up in arms and voted out the External Affairs person in favor of one of their own.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The misinformation on this site about ASFS is appalling.

No one who isn’t currently at ASFS joined the PTA and voted in the recent election. Two people who live in the neighborhood who would like to eventually attend the school came to one meeting where no election was held.


However, at the meeting where elections were held, the attendance record reached an all time high with new members/attendees who currently attend ASFS but had never come to a previous meeting. They showed up with copies of the same email (probably from the same PP accusing neighborhood people of being racist for wanting to walk to school) telling them who to vote for/vote out. Once the vote was over (and before the results were announced), they all left.

If anything, all these posts about ASFS support the need for APS and the SB to redrawn boundaries around ASFS sooner rather than later so that we can all be spared any further threads on the issue.

I’m an out going officer of the asfs pta so I feel like I should correct the misinformation being spread here.
At the first pta meeting elections were supposed to be held, there were at least fifteen adults who do not have kids at the school present. I know this based off of the sign in sheet. This was the first meeting I had seen this, but it’s possible that they’ve been coming for a while. At that first meeting, there were a number of people making comments that are inconsistent with asfs community values. For example, I saw someone make fun of a parent asking a question in broken English. I don’t know if that person is a member of our community or not, but behavior like that is appalling and not welcome at our school.
At the second pta meeting where we voted, I saw at least three adults who do not have children at the school. I recognize one from the televised school board meetings and I talked to other two.
A large number of people did leave right after the vote, but that was due to Ramadan and the provided child care ending. Early is also relative: they left at 7:30 or later, which many with small kids might consider late for a weeknight.
I agree people who are not current members of the community have a right to join and contribute, but I have not seen any of them outside of these two meetings. If this is the new normal, we need to be more stringent about running background checks on volunteers. I would hate for someone to use this as a way to gain access for more nefarious reasons like child abuse or school violence.

Does this go before or after turning Buck into an upper school for ASF on the list of priorities?

I'm pretty sure pedophiles are not limited to people who don't have kids at the school currently. Nor are they all residing in Cherrydale. I think all PTA members and officers should be screened as a sexual offender. Wait, wait, actually, all parents should be screened. Every single parent at ASFS should be screened. Because as far as I know, none of them are screened. That isn't cool.

Are you daft? All parents have to submit proof of residency, which you can bet is references to the offenders registry.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The misinformation on this site about ASFS is appalling.

No one who isn’t currently at ASFS joined the PTA and voted in the recent election. Two people who live in the neighborhood who would like to eventually attend the school came to one meeting where no election was held.


However, at the meeting where elections were held, the attendance record reached an all time high with new members/attendees who currently attend ASFS but had never come to a previous meeting. They showed up with copies of the same email (probably from the same PP accusing neighborhood people of being racist for wanting to walk to school) telling them who to vote for/vote out. Once the vote was over (and before the results were announced), they all left.

If anything, all these posts about ASFS support the need for APS and the SB to redrawn boundaries around ASFS sooner rather than later so that we can all be spared any further threads on the issue.

I’m an out going officer of the asfs pta so I feel like I should correct the misinformation being spread here.
At the first pta meeting elections were supposed to be held, there were at least fifteen adults who do not have kids at the school present. I know this based off of the sign in sheet. This was the first meeting I had seen this, but it’s possible that they’ve been coming for a while. At that first meeting, there were a number of people making comments that are inconsistent with asfs community values. For example, I saw someone make fun of a parent asking a question in broken English. I don’t know if that person is a member of our community or not, but behavior like that is appalling and not welcome at our school.
At the second pta meeting where we voted, I saw at least three adults who do not have children at the school. I recognize one from the televised school board meetings and I talked to other two.
A large number of people did leave right after the vote, but that was due to Ramadan and the provided child care ending. Early is also relative: they left at 7:30 or later, which many with small kids might consider late for a weeknight.
I agree people who are not current members of the community have a right to join and contribute, but I have not seen any of them outside of these two meetings. If this is the new normal, we need to be more stringent about running background checks on volunteers. I would hate for someone to use this as a way to gain access for more nefarious reasons like child abuse or school violence.

Are you seriously trying to associate Cherrydale parents attending ASFS PTA meetings with child abuse and school shootings? WTF is wrong with you?

Seriously. WTF.

NP. Actually when I heard that ANYONE off the street could attend a PTA meeting, without any association with the school I did find it troubling. The on-site baby sitting is I think a bunch of high schoolers, so it would be pretty easy for someone to con a teen distracted by their phone once you have access to the building and PTA meeting.

Anyone attending a PTA meeting should be a member and have some rudimentary vetting; if you are not a parent or teacher then they take your license and verify your physical address.

If you're so sincere in your concern, maybe you should have a discussion about it with your school administration rather than here in the context of a PTA election, so that your "concern" doesn't come across as such a crass smear campaign.

School administration can’t limit access, National PTA policy.