Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My experience with SB members (both watching meetings online and in-person at office hour visits) and the planning office has been we need someone who can provide good oversight and has a good head for data and numbers... I was pretty shocked in the past by some of the misunderstandings and false assumptions.

+1 I want a candidate who understands the CIP and budgeting process, who understands where funding comes from and where it goes, who has an understanding of finance, HR, facilities, bonds, management, data systems, etc, in addition to teaching/learning. Maybe that's a tall order.

Anonymous wrote:My experience with SB members (both watching meetings online and in-person at office hour visits) and the planning office has been we need someone who can provide good oversight and has a good head for data and numbers... I was pretty shocked in the past by some of the misunderstandings and false assumptions.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP re: Kreiger's young kids and sorry if that came across as hateful. Not my intent. I think everyone should vote and all perspectives have value.

But what bothers me is he feels like having super young kids makes him uniquely qualified. He uses that in his ads as a selling point. It's a terrible argument.

He has the perspective of how how one APS school works at one level. And it's a choice school, too, which makes his experiences even less representative.

Having older kids who have gone through the system and are still in multiple levels, I have a different perspective now than when I was a 1-school APS parent. All the schools work very differently. And middle school and high school are very different from elementary school. School Board oversees all three levels. So, it's not an advantage to lack those other perspectives, and certainly not a selling point.

Plus, he seems to imply that he is more invested because his kids will be in the system longer. I also find that offensive. School Board is a 4-yr term.

I just find the argument to be a really terrible one, short-sighted and arrogant.

NP - agreed, wholeheartedly. He has seen kindergarten. He has not seen the 1:1 rollout or anything else. And the fact that his experience is limited to only very early option elementary is a microscopic hair more than Cristina's APS experience.

Anonymous wrote:PP re: Kreiger's young kids and sorry if that came across as hateful. Not my intent. I think everyone should vote and all perspectives have value.

But what bothers me is he feels like having super young kids makes him uniquely qualified. He uses that in his ads as a selling point. It's a terrible argument.

He has the perspective of how how one APS school works at one level. And it's a choice school, too, which makes his experiences even less representative.

Having older kids who have gone through the system and are still in multiple levels, I have a different perspective now than when I was a 1-school APS parent. All the schools work very differently. And middle school and high school are very different from elementary school. School Board oversees all three levels. So, it's not an advantage to lack those other perspectives, and certainly not a selling point.

Plus, he seems to imply that he is more invested because his kids will be in the system longer. I also find that offensive. School Board is a 4-yr term.

I just find the argument to be a really terrible one, short-sighted and arrogant.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did Sandy really vote for Trump? Can someone source that better than a rumor?

I have no knowledge of the situation but it sounds like a dirty smear campaign - Arlington Style. The ACDC is so dirty.

+1 ACDC probably is behind this to make sure their handpicked candidate gets the endorsement. Long overdue to get ACDC out of the SB race.

But serious question and I'm not even sure how I feel about it -- do you think candidates should reveal who they voted for?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I actually had quite a different response. I feel like she knows exactly what isn’t working and has first-hand experience as a recent APS teacher to know what needs changing. I wasn’t sold on her at first, but really, we have an absolute vacuum of institutional knowledge (3 SB members leaving and a new as-yet-to-be-named Super). We really need somebody with a lot of institutional knowledge, and I appreciate her perspective as a classroom teacher. She knows that all these stupid new initiatives that roll out one after the other with no teacher training and without any method of evaluating how well or if they are working are a large problem. Always chasing the shiny new thing and abandoning things without understanding why they didn’t work hasn’t worked and won’t work in the future. These sweeping “visions” without understanding how they’d be implemented, or the realities inside classrooms that sometimes make even the best ideas infeasible, are not what we need. We need experience, and a return to things that were working (like direct and explicit English language instruction). She’s the only one old enough to have gone to teacher’s college before the “balanced literacy” bs took over. She might be the only one to know that most teachers wouldn’t even know how to teach kids to read except the way they do now, and if we expect them to change, we won’t do it by shaming them, but by retraining them.

+1 million!!!!!! It's absolutely terrifying that 3/5 will be new and a new superintendent!!!! We need Sandy on the Board!

Anonymous wrote:

I actually had quite a different response. I feel like she knows exactly what isn’t working and has first-hand experience as a recent APS teacher to know what needs changing. I wasn’t sold on her at first, but really, we have an absolute vacuum of institutional knowledge (3 SB members leaving and a new as-yet-to-be-named Super). We really need somebody with a lot of institutional knowledge, and I appreciate her perspective as a classroom teacher. She knows that all these stupid new initiatives that roll out one after the other with no teacher training and without any method of evaluating how well or if they are working are a large problem. Always chasing the shiny new thing and abandoning things without understanding why they didn’t work hasn’t worked and won’t work in the future. These sweeping “visions” without understanding how they’d be implemented, or the realities inside classrooms that sometimes make even the best ideas infeasible, are not what we need. We need experience, and a return to things that were working (like direct and explicit English language instruction). She’s the only one old enough to have gone to teacher’s college before the “balanced literacy” bs took over. She might be the only one to know that most teachers wouldn’t even know how to teach kids to read except the way they do now, and if we expect them to change, we won’t do it by shaming them, but by retraining them.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If your criteria = endorsed by two current school board members then your picks are Sandy (Barbara & Reid) and David (Nancy & Tannia). That's how I am voting.

David & Cristina were both endorsed by Nancy & Tannia. Terron was also endorsed by Reid. I think only Steven didn't receive an endorsement from one of them.

I was going to choose Sandy as my third choice but feel queasy about it now. I just don't know if I can stomach ranking Steven higher than 5 after all of the unsolicited messages.

You don't have to rank everyone. If you only like 2 ppl, only rank 2. Leave the rest blank.

I was planning to vote just for Cristina and Sandy, but now I'm not so sure. It feels less risky to rank all five candidates. I'm still hoping for more information about Sandy's status as a Republican or Trump supporter.

Well, what additional information could you get? There’s literally no way to know how anyone voted, you know, secret ballot and all. But it seems weird that she’d vote for him and then bash him on social media, as a private citizen, unless you think she’s been calculating all this time. And given her endorsements, by Ds, it also seems unlikely that she’s a secret R. Maybe she voted for V? I have no idea. But, again, he only won because a LOT of Ds voted for him, including many public officials who are still Ds. I did not, but many of my friends and neighbors did, and they didn’t turn into secret Rs. A bunch of them fell for his hogwash that the transportation funding was fungible and could be put towards schools instead. And some were just against the streetcar and the aquatic center and not really for or against V or a “Republican” agenda. It’s insane that someone is now equating those two candidates. V won because of some very specific circumstances, including infighting within the ACDC.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If your criteria = endorsed by two current school board members then your picks are Sandy (Barbara & Reid) and David (Nancy & Tannia). That's how I am voting.

David & Cristina were both endorsed by Nancy & Tannia. Terron was also endorsed by Reid. I think only Steven didn't receive an endorsement from one of them.

I was going to choose Sandy as my third choice but feel queasy about it now. I just don't know if I can stomach ranking Steven higher than 5 after all of the unsolicited messages.

You don't have to rank everyone. If you only like 2 ppl, only rank 2. Leave the rest blank.

I was planning to vote just for Cristina and Sandy, but now I'm not so sure. It feels less risky to rank all five candidates. I'm still hoping for more information about Sandy's status as a Republican or Trump supporter.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If your criteria = endorsed by two current school board members then your picks are Sandy (Barbara & Reid) and David (Nancy & Tannia). That's how I am voting.

David & Cristina were both endorsed by Nancy & Tannia. Terron was also endorsed by Reid. I think only Steven didn't receive an endorsement from one of them.

I was going to choose Sandy as my third choice but feel queasy about it now. I just don't know if I can stomach ranking Steven higher than 5 after all of the unsolicited messages.

You don't have to rank everyone. If you only like 2 ppl, only rank 2. Leave the rest blank.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If your criteria = endorsed by two current school board members then your picks are Sandy (Barbara & Reid) and David (Nancy & Tannia). That's how I am voting.

David & Cristina were both endorsed by Nancy & Tannia. Terron was also endorsed by Reid. I think only Steven didn't receive an endorsement from one of them.

I was going to choose Sandy as my third choice but feel queasy about it now. I just don't know if I can stomach ranking Steven higher than 5 after all of the unsolicited messages.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If your criteria = endorsed by two current school board members then your picks are Sandy (Barbara & Reid) and David (Nancy & Tannia). That's how I am voting.

David & Cristina were both endorsed by Nancy & Tannia. Terron was also endorsed by Reid. I think only Steven didn't receive an endorsement from one of them.

Anonymous wrote:If your criteria = endorsed by two current school board members then your picks are Sandy (Barbara & Reid) and David (Nancy & Tannia). That's how I am voting.

Anonymous wrote:If your criteria = endorsed by two current school board members then your picks are Sandy (Barbara & Reid) and David (Nancy & Tannia). That's how I am voting.