Why is the Foxhall Community Citizens Association scared of public school children?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How many of the candidates for DC Council for Ward 3 are shamelessly trawling for votes in NIMBY land?

Goulet gave “Save Hardy Park” a shout-out in a recent tweet so I guess he either believes the lies the FCCA is pushing or cares more about their votes than he does about the truth.

Frumin was pandering to them too it seems by floating some fanciful ideas about finding somewhere else to put the school.

Have any of the candidates straight up called Avery and co. out? If Ward 3 doesn’t elect a candidate who has the balls to stand up to nincompoops of this ilk, absolutely nothing is going to get done in the Ward for the next 4 years.

Frumin has raised the most money and Goulet got the wapo endorsement. The 4-5 'progressive' candidates are pretty much just diluting each others vote. My money is on the entire ES plan being scrapped. (The high school will probably still happen)

Frumin’s fundraising advantage is entirely due to money raised from people outside the ward. Tricia Duncan has more Ward 3 contributors.

The Post endorsement is worthless and may even backfire. Goulet is getting a lot of negative press as well for things he has said about housing voucher recipients.

But you are dead right about the progressive candidates diluting the vote. They need to figure it out and get behind one candidate. I don’t expect they will, though, egos being what they are.

There is only one viable 'conservative' candidate (Goulet). And for the life of me, I cannot figure out the difference between Duncan and Bergman on any issue. So I see it as either Frumin goes though with name recognition (not that is much here) or Goulet goes thorugh since all 25% of conservative dems vote for him. All the rest seem screwed. Now I might be wrong and one of them may have good 'ground' game, but the jury is out.

Also from W3, frumin has 403 donors and Duncan only has 331. All others are under 200.

The difference betweem Bergman and Duncan is that 1) Bergman actually knows what he is talking about and 2) has actually accomplished things as an ANC Commissioner.

Duncan uses the words, but she has no idea what she is saying and is unintentionally hilarious in the forums when she uses words in ways that don't make sense. She is clearly a wonderful Community Association leader, but she is clearly having trouble gaining any traction outside of Palisades.

She really does seem to be pinning her hopes on her home neighborhood turning out for her unanimously, and I'm not sure that's gonna work. I know that her attempts at reaching voters in other W3 neighborhoods have not gone all that well. A friend of hers whose kid goes to our DCPS hosted a meet-and-greet for her in CCDC and struggled to get people to show up, I hear.

She has 2, and depending on how you count it, 4 other candidates who are from the greater Palisades/kent area. She may "own" MacArthur Boulevard, but the broader area is going to be split 3-4 ways.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How many of the candidates for DC Council for Ward 3 are shamelessly trawling for votes in NIMBY land?

Goulet gave “Save Hardy Park” a shout-out in a recent tweet so I guess he either believes the lies the FCCA is pushing or cares more about their votes than he does about the truth.

Frumin was pandering to them too it seems by floating some fanciful ideas about finding somewhere else to put the school.

Have any of the candidates straight up called Avery and co. out? If Ward 3 doesn’t elect a candidate who has the balls to stand up to nincompoops of this ilk, absolutely nothing is going to get done in the Ward for the next 4 years.

Frumin has raised the most money and Goulet got the wapo endorsement. The 4-5 'progressive' candidates are pretty much just diluting each others vote. My money is on the entire ES plan being scrapped. (The high school will probably still happen)

Frumin’s fundraising advantage is entirely due to money raised from people outside the ward. Tricia Duncan has more Ward 3 contributors.

The Post endorsement is worthless and may even backfire. Goulet is getting a lot of negative press as well for things he has said about housing voucher recipients.

But you are dead right about the progressive candidates diluting the vote. They need to figure it out and get behind one candidate. I don’t expect they will, though, egos being what they are.

There is only one viable 'conservative' candidate (Goulet). And for the life of me, I cannot figure out the difference between Duncan and Bergman on any issue. So I see it as either Frumin goes though with name recognition (not that is much here) or Goulet goes thorugh since all 25% of conservative dems vote for him. All the rest seem screwed. Now I might be wrong and one of them may have good 'ground' game, but the jury is out.

Also from W3, frumin has 403 donors and Duncan only has 331. All others are under 200.

The difference betweem Bergman and Duncan is that 1) Bergman actually knows what he is talking about and 2) has actually accomplished things as an ANC Commissioner.

Duncan uses the words, but she has no idea what she is saying and is unintentionally hilarious in the forums when she uses words in ways that don't make sense. She is clearly a wonderful Community Association leader, but she is clearly having trouble gaining any traction outside of Palisades.

She really does seem to be pinning her hopes on her home neighborhood turning out for her unanimously, and I'm not sure that's gonna work. I know that her attempts at reaching voters in other W3 neighborhoods have not gone all that well. A friend of hers whose kid goes to our DCPS hosted a meet-and-greet for her in CCDC and struggled to get people to show up, I hear.

She has 2, and depending on how you count it, 4 other candidates who are from the greater Palisades/kent area. She may "own" MacArthur Boulevard, but the broader area is going to be split 3-4 ways.

I'd say Duncan, Goulet, Thomas, Brown and Bergman are all Palisadsian.

[Anonymous]

I'm generally against ranked choice voting, but this race shows a clear need.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm generally against ranked choice voting, but this race shows a clear need.

Why against? It seems way better than our terrible low-participation primary system.

[Anonymous]

I don't think people have thoughts about candidates much beyond the first one or two, and the same problems with strategic voting crop up with how you order candidates as they do if you just choose one candidate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't think people have thoughts about candidates much beyond the first one or two, and the same problems with strategic voting crop up with how you order candidates as they do if you just choose one candidate.

In ranked-choice there is no strategic voting. Rank them in your actual order of preference. That's the appeal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't think people have thoughts about candidates much beyond the first one or two, and the same problems with strategic voting crop up with how you order candidates as they do if you just choose one candidate.

In ranked-choice there is no strategic voting. Rank them in your actual order of preference. That's the appeal.

Not true, the Gibbard-Satterthwaite theorem is the formal statement of the logic. Here is an example: http://probability.ca/jeff/rankedstrategic.html

But it is better than the system we have now

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't think people have thoughts about candidates much beyond the first one or two, and the same problems with strategic voting crop up with how you order candidates as they do if you just choose one candidate.

In ranked-choice there is no strategic voting. Rank them in your actual order of preference. That's the appeal.

Not true, the Gibbard-Satterthwaite theorem is the formal statement of the logic. Here is an example: http://probability.ca/jeff/rankedstrategic.html

But it is better than the system we have now

I'd describe it a little more simply: the same strategic voting issues you have with 1 candidate in a multi-candidate field crop up when you do ranked choice. You want one person to win, but don't think they will, so you vote for someone else. Now you have to figure out your strategy for every ranking!

~6 plausible candidates is simply too many. Ward 2 shows what can happen when you have a large primary field. I have nothing against Pinto, but no way she wins in a smaller field.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't think people have thoughts about candidates much beyond the first one or two, and the same problems with strategic voting crop up with how you order candidates as they do if you just choose one candidate.

In ranked-choice there is no strategic voting. Rank them in your actual order of preference. That's the appeal.

Not true, the Gibbard-Satterthwaite theorem is the formal statement of the logic. Here is an example: http://probability.ca/jeff/rankedstrategic.html

But it is better than the system we have now

I'd describe it a little more simply: the same strategic voting issues you have with 1 candidate in a multi-candidate field crop up when you do ranked choice. You want one person to win, but don't think they will, so you vote for someone else. Now you have to figure out your strategy for every ranking!

~6 plausible candidates is simply too many. Ward 2 shows what can happen when you have a large primary field. I have nothing against Pinto, but no way she wins in a smaller field.

Same with Nadeau's last race, where she received fewer votes than the two people running against her combined. One strong candidate would have easily beaten her.

[Anonymous]

Goulet is holding a meet-and-greet with the FCCA contingent on Friday evening. If anyone attends, do report back. Goulet clearly thinks it’s a voting bloc worth courting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Its a private school type of area, private schools need support. I could ask why you are scared of handicap kids from the Lab school.

Our neighbor's kid goes to Lab on tax payers' dime. The kid is neither disabled nor poor. The dad knows how to get others to pay for his private tuition. Talking about white privilege.

DCPS hasn't voluntarily placed students at Lab -- or any private school -- in about 15 years.

Just a note that Lab School specifically serves kids with average or above average intelligence, and mostly with language based learning differences. This is a group that public schools really fail to serve, which is how folks end up with private placements.

So, to the PP, a child might not appear "disabled" unless your version of hanging out with neighbors includes asking a child to decode a written text while you stand there.

Most Lab school students do not have learning disabilities. They typically pay thousands of dollars to private school psychologists to put together tailored test results that will enable them to sue the city or county for funding to elite private schools like Lab. It's a more elite, more politically-connected version of a charter school that feeds graduates to certain private colleges. Look at the colleges that their graduates are admitted to. All you have to do is take a tour and ask for this information. They are very proud of their pipeline of white privilege. You can also take a tour and look at the students in the classrooms. The lower school classrooms are indistinguishable from a public elementary school in a high income school district.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone posting here actually live in the neighborhood?

Well, there's at least two of us.

Make that three.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Its a private school type of area, private schools need support. I could ask why you are scared of handicap kids from the Lab school.

Our neighbor's kid goes to Lab on tax payers' dime. The kid is neither disabled nor poor. The dad knows how to get others to pay for his private tuition. Talking about white privilege.

DCPS hasn't voluntarily placed students at Lab -- or any private school -- in about 15 years.

Just a note that Lab School specifically serves kids with average or above average intelligence, and mostly with language based learning differences. This is a group that public schools really fail to serve, which is how folks end up with private placements.

So, to the PP, a child might not appear "disabled" unless your version of hanging out with neighbors includes asking a child to decode a written text while you stand there.

Most Lab school students do not have learning disabilities. They typically pay thousands of dollars to private school psychologists to put together tailored test results that will enable them to sue the city or county for funding to elite private schools like Lab. It's a more elite, more politically-connected version of a charter school that feeds graduates to certain private colleges. Look at the colleges that their graduates are admitted to. All you have to do is take a tour and ask for this information. They are very proud of their pipeline of white privilege. You can also take a tour and look at the students in the classrooms. The lower school classrooms are indistinguishable from a public elementary school in a high income school district.

Interesting. As a child who is on grade level with an IEP, I’ve been confused by who gets placed at LAB. Especially since they don’t take kids with disruptive behavior, which is the most frequent reason a kid with normal IQ would need a private placement ….

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Its a private school type of area, private schools need support. I could ask why you are scared of handicap kids from the Lab school.

Our neighbor's kid goes to Lab on tax payers' dime. The kid is neither disabled nor poor. The dad knows how to get others to pay for his private tuition. Talking about white privilege.

DCPS hasn't voluntarily placed students at Lab -- or any private school -- in about 15 years.

Just a note that Lab School specifically serves kids with average or above average intelligence, and mostly with language based learning differences. This is a group that public schools really fail to serve, which is how folks end up with private placements.

So, to the PP, a child might not appear "disabled" unless your version of hanging out with neighbors includes asking a child to decode a written text while you stand there.

Most Lab school students do not have learning disabilities. They typically pay thousands of dollars to private school psychologists to put together tailored test results that will enable them to sue the city or county for funding to elite private schools like Lab. It's a more elite, more politically-connected version of a charter school that feeds graduates to certain private colleges. Look at the colleges that their graduates are admitted to. All you have to do is take a tour and ask for this information. They are very proud of their pipeline of white privilege. You can also take a tour and look at the students in the classrooms. The lower school classrooms are indistinguishable from a public elementary school in a high income school district.

Interesting. As a child who is on grade level with an IEP, I’ve been confused by who gets placed at LAB. Especially since they don’t take kids with disruptive behavior, which is the most frequent reason a kid with normal IQ would need a private placement ….

I think it’s about time for . . . Dave McKenna!!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Its a private school type of area, private schools need support. I could ask why you are scared of handicap kids from the Lab school.

Our neighbor's kid goes to Lab on tax payers' dime. The kid is neither disabled nor poor. The dad knows how to get others to pay for his private tuition. Talking about white privilege.

DCPS hasn't voluntarily placed students at Lab -- or any private school -- in about 15 years.

Just a note that Lab School specifically serves kids with average or above average intelligence, and mostly with language based learning differences. This is a group that public schools really fail to serve, which is how folks end up with private placements.

So, to the PP, a child might not appear "disabled" unless your version of hanging out with neighbors includes asking a child to decode a written text while you stand there.

Most Lab school students do not have learning disabilities. They typically pay thousands of dollars to private school psychologists to put together tailored test results that will enable them to sue the city or county for funding to elite private schools like Lab. It's a more elite, more politically-connected version of a charter school that feeds graduates to certain private colleges. Look at the colleges that their graduates are admitted to. All you have to do is take a tour and ask for this information. They are very proud of their pipeline of white privilege. You can also take a tour and look at the students in the classrooms. The lower school classrooms are indistinguishable from a public elementary school in a high income school district.

Interesting. As a child who is on grade level with an IEP, I’ve been confused by who gets placed at LAB. Especially since they don’t take kids with disruptive behavior, which is the most frequent reason a kid with normal IQ would need a private placement ….

I think it’s about time for . . . Dave McKenna!!!

He does have his hands full exposing the nexus between rapist DAs and killer cops in southern Maryland, but it would be nice to think he can spare a few moments to take on another one of DC’s most hypocritical elite private schools.