AAP Expansion and Haycock - Elizabeth Schultz amendment

[Anonymous]

Nonetheless that's the answer you received

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Since the testimony was public, is there any reason the teacher's name has not been mentioned. My son when to Haycock and I am curious if that was his third grade teacher.

Donna Bertsch

Speaker #1

http://www.boarddocs.com/vsba/fairfax/Board.nsf/files/94AM8F593AA6/$file/Speakers'%20Testimonies.pdf

Good evening. My name is Donna Bertsch and I am a third grade AAP teacher at
Haycock Elementary School. From the outset I’d like to say that it’s difficult to speak
publically about this issue because I really do not want any of my current and former
students to feel hurt. The thoughts I will share may be ones you or your parents may not
necessarily agree with, but I care very much about each of you and nothing I will say is
meant to be personal.

[Anonymous]

Ms. Bertsch should not have testified publicly when she had students on both side of the issue. Poor judgment and poor taste. She could have shared her testimony privately

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ms. Bertsch should not have testified publicly when she had students on both side of the issue. Poor judgment and poor taste. She could have shared her testimony privately

What if it the school board requested her to do so? Just like they surprised both the principals of the two schools to speak at the meeting before this past one...talk about being caught between a rock and a hard stone. These teachers could also be forced to move as there will not be as many classes of Aap next year. They are all aware of this.

[Anonymous]

This was not surprise testimony. She submitted written testimony as well.

Perhaps Strauss asked her to speak--if she did she was out of line.

Again, it was inappropriate and in poor taste. She should have considered her position as a teacher of all of the kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ms. Bertsch should not have testified publicly when she had students on both side of the issue. Poor judgment and poor taste. She could have shared her testimony privately

What if it the school board requested her to do so? Just like they surprised both the principals of the two schools to speak at the meeting before this past one...talk about being caught between a rock and a hard stone. These teachers could also be forced to move as there will not be as many classes of Aap next year. They are all aware of this.

If the school board asked a teacher to speak, they wouldn't have done so via one of the community slots.
Mrs. Bertsch has been at Haycock for ages and knows she is not likely to be relocated.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This was not surprise testimony. She submitted written testimony as well.

Perhaps Strauss asked her to speak--if she did she was out of line.

Again, it was inappropriate and in poor taste. She should have considered her position as a teacher of all of the kids.

I assume she cleared it with the principal. She was very clear her remarks were not directed at individual students.

It was neither inappropriate nor in bad taste, but it was compelling. The public benefits by hearing directly how the current situation affects teachers. It makes it easier to understand why the board voted as it did than would be the case if her views were expressed privately. Usually people complain when they think decisions are made behind closed doors.

[Anonymous]

You clearly don't understand the relationship between a student and teacher. These are third graders-not high school kids.
Again, it was inappropriate and in poor taste. If the principal approved it, she was inconsiderate of the kids as well--but she does not have the personal relationship with them that the teacher does. The teacher should have known better.

[Anonymous]

Also, Ms. Bertsch lives in Haycock neighborhood. Maybe the neighbors put the pressure on.......

[Anonymous]

The board made the right decision, but the teacher should not have testified. I think less and less of Haycock based on some of these comments and the fact that the teacher would actually get up and testify. The school board knew very well the conditions there. There was no need.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You clearly don't understand the relationship between a student and teacher. These are third graders-not high school kids.
Again, it was inappropriate and in poor taste. If the principal approved it, she was inconsiderate of the kids as well--but she does not have the personal relationship with them that the teacher does. The teacher should have known better.

I'm probably with the same views you are but I don't think that there is any need for a child to have seen that testimony or be told about it. It is inappropriate on a parents part of a young child to subject that to them period. That meeting was also no place for children to be at as well.

[Anonymous]

I agree. As a parent I would not have subjected my child to any of this. However, you can be sure that some parents did and that their children will "share" with the rest of the class. Just like they "share" the birthday parties they have been to with those who haven't.......

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You clearly don't understand the relationship between a student and teacher. These are third graders-not high school kids.
Again, it was inappropriate and in poor taste. If the principal approved it, she was inconsiderate of the kids as well--but she does not have the personal relationship with them that the teacher does. The teacher should have known better.

She was exercising her rights and made it very clear nothing should be taken personally or as directed at individual students. If students were upset, it was more likely not because of anything she said, but because of what their parents may have said to them before and after she spoke. And absolutely nothing that she said spoke to her relationship to her students this year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You clearly don't understand the relationship between a student and teacher. These are third graders-not high school kids.
Again, it was inappropriate and in poor taste. If the principal approved it, she was inconsiderate of the kids as well--but she does not have the personal relationship with them that the teacher does. The teacher should have known better.

She was exercising her rights and made it very clear nothing should be taken personally or as directed at individual students. If students were upset, it was more likely not because of anything she said, but because of what their parents may have said to them before and after she spoke. And absolutely nothing that she said spoke to her relationship to her students this year.

Her students are very bright kids. They know what all of this means and can read between the lines.
If they wanted a teacher to speak, it would have made more sense to have a gen Ed teacher speak.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The board made the right decision, but the teacher should not have testified. I think less and less of Haycock based on some of these comments and the fact that the teacher would actually get up and testify. The school board knew very well the conditions there. There was no need.

Wrong. After the work session, Patty Reed withdrew her motions to send Haycock students to an annex at Lemon Road or Pimmit. Then, shortly before the actual meeting, Schultz introduced a new motion to the same effect, prompting a whole new round of discussions and advocacy, including advocacy by teachers and administrators who were very surprised that Schultz would presume to know what was best at a school she knows little about outside her own district. Had Schultz not put this back on the table, it may have been the case that the testimony and discussion at the board meeting could have been shorter.

Haycock students, parents, teachers and administrators all spoke up at various times, expressing their views. Were your community in a similar situation, the same thing would likely happen. What happened at Haycock gets more play on DCUM because it's an area where a lot of DCUM posters live or have acquaintances. So it literally comes with the territory.