Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hey folks we are an affluent city and must fix our public school crisis.

We are a city with a lot of poor and working class people, which certainly impacts test scores, etc.

Can someone provide a link to an article talking about issues with use covenants? And what evidence is there that they overpaid for the building?

It actually does far more than that. It effects development and keeps business out of the City. Sorry but the City except for Old Town is a poor prospect for developers and for retail as is the continued push for affordable housing.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What would you prefer instead of the TC split?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't defered maintenance an issue that city council has caused more than SB?

What covenants are you referring to?

Hmmm ... no TC split is needed or desirable, and any TC split would grotesquely violate the civil rights of the students excluded from TC and placed in the planned “TC West” that School Board denied was the plan before admitting it. Slight extension of passing periods solves the cosmetic issue, and ACPS publicly announced that there is no safety issue whatsoever. TC is a large facility that was built to be scalable, and TC has more square footage per student than most other NoVa public high schools. No more lying about the TC split, which the School Board did for two years before announcing the real plan. No, City Council is in no way responsible for deferred maintenance, and School Board controls and conducts all routine maintenance. One of the City CIP commissioners already publicly announced that the bulk of the School Board’s alleged “capacity” projects are actually nothing but deferred maintenance and compliance activities. And if you check the public record, including the Council testimony from the School Board, you’ll find that there are use covenants applicable to the office building school.

Of course, if you’d prefer not to do that, you could always just hire a canned Principal to yell and beat everybody up.

Arlingtonn does this with no problem so why is it going to be an issue in ACPS. Beside there is very little public housing left in Alexandria and almost all is concentrated in Old Town. The remainder of housing is market rate.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hey folks we are an affluent city and must fix our public school crisis.

We are a city with a lot of poor and working class people, which certainly impacts test scores, etc.

Can someone provide a link to an article talking about issues with use covenants? And what evidence is there that they overpaid for the building?

I understand your point re: poor and working class people. However I feel it's best in life not to overly assume kids don't or won't rise to academic challenge. Kids know it's a tough environment and a big world. I truly believe it's time for ACPS to try a new approach, one that solely focuses on academics as well as physical education but not let the latter tower over the former. I do believe the ACPS focus is and has been misplaced.

Win-win for education if more succeed at academics in this competitive world.

Anonymous wrote:Hey folks we are an affluent city and must fix our public school crisis.

We are a city with a lot of poor and working class people, which certainly impacts test scores, etc.

Can someone provide a link to an article talking about issues with use covenants? And what evidence is there that they overpaid for the building?

Given further probable changes in the real estate market, Alexandria residents should require our School Board and Admin to get our academic standing up now.

Residents whose kids go private or parochial are complaining about ACPS's impact on housing as much as residents whose kids attend.

And our property taxes? How can Council justify further raises to property tax without linking it to serious improvement academically.

Tired old excuses about ACPS fly in the face of our reality. This Superintendent hiring then firing fiasco further shows just how lame ACPS is.

Anonymous wrote:What would you prefer instead of the TC split?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't defered maintenance an issue that city council has caused more than SB?

What covenants are you referring to?

Hmmm ... no TC split is needed or desirable, and any TC split would grotesquely violate the civil rights of the students excluded from TC and placed in the planned “TC West” that School Board denied was the plan before admitting it. Slight extension of passing periods solves the cosmetic issue, and ACPS publicly announced that there is no safety issue whatsoever. TC is a large facility that was built to be scalable, and TC has more square footage per student than most other NoVa public high schools. No more lying about the TC split, which the School Board did for two years before announcing the real plan. No, City Council is in no way responsible for deferred maintenance, and School Board controls and conducts all routine maintenance. One of the City CIP commissioners already publicly announced that the bulk of the School Board’s alleged “capacity” projects are actually nothing but deferred maintenance and compliance activities. And if you check the public record, including the Council testimony from the School Board, you’ll find that there are use covenants applicable to the office building school.

Of course, if you’d prefer not to do that, you could always just hire a canned Principal to yell and beat everybody up.

What would you prefer instead of the TC split?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't defered maintenance an issue that city council has caused more than SB?

What covenants are you referring to?

Anonymous wrote:If all the kids attending private/parochial school in Alexandria stayed in ACPS, then ACPS would not be in the bottom of the state rankings.

.

Could very well be. Maybe they wouldn’t be enrolled in privates and parochials if the School Board quit its nonsense time-wasting activities and started to address and remedy its incompetence. The TC Split. The deferred maintenance. The office building school with the unresolved excess space, the iliabilities in bankruptcy, and the covenants that are still open. The office building principal. It just never, ever ends.

If all the kids attending private/parochial school in Alexandria stayed in ACPS, then ACPS would not be in the bottom of the state rankings.

Alexandria City has SERIOUS problems with the ACPS public education process. Just look at our bottom standing on VDOE. Hey folks we are an affluent city and must fix our public school crisis. It starts at the top with the ACPS School Board and perpetuates through Administration.

It's time for the school board all to resign. The fact of the matter is Super Murphy's contract was signed and his hire publicly announced to our community. Would you not call for same if ACPS was an investment company given these revelations? Oh wait, ACPS is an investment company: in our children! And for we Alexandrian's who are begged to support ACPS. This reveals utter incompetence at the helm!

Time for City Council to pressure ACPS, better still time for City Council to get to the bottom of WTH is wrong that ACPS festers so much both academically and administratively?

Whooah. Who is removing posts and why?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree. Google the candidate: his past comes up on the first page. How was this not caught before he was called back for a second interview, much less extended an offer? SMH

What makes you all think the ACPS School Board/Admin didn't know about his past, but chose to proceed anyway? Maybe they wanted a stern leader for that new school, ever think about that? Maybe his asking price was right?

This happened before in recent past: the candidate the Board selected prior to Mort Sherman being chosen was suddenly pulled for problems.

Yeeeeah, no. You think ACPS were willfully exposing themselves to lawsuits by hiring a guy with a well known reputation for hitting kids? You think the same district that routinely puts the underprivileged first was taking the 'tough love' approach in an area populated by poor minorities? That's ridiculous, sorry.

How do you explain his being hired then? Contract signed and announced by ACPS Superintendent?

You're suggesting NONE of John B. Murphy's ACPS vetting revealed these problems? No one, not one board member Googled? I don't buy that at all. Current superintendent's talk with fellow and past superintendents as do Board members when hiring a new Super. No, I simply do not buy that this was missed in vetting, especially since the same predicament happened to the ACPS School Board in 2008, forcing them away from their preferred selection, and into hire Mort Sherman (a none-team player).

Mr. Murphy may have sought to down-play these past episodes, asked a lower ball salary in light of them. And of course, given our past Board Chair's propensity to control decisions, Mr. Murphy's compromise was deemed malleable to Board decision making, which is exactly what ACPS Board wants in a Super. Perfect fit in many ways for the Board.

I don't think they did a background investigation on him prior to hire. Maybe 'on paper' he looked good enough to continue with the hire and that would be contingent on a future successful investigation? None of us know. But if you think they offered him a contract while they were aware of his past abuses then I simply can't agree with you.

These two clips define the issue. Either (1) the School Board simply didn't do their job at all, by not making anyone in the central office or the recruitment firm do the job, or (2) the School Board knowingly decided to hire somebody that would have been a walking, talking, slap at both the students and employees. There are no other options -- either the School Board is monumentally incompetent, or the School Board exercises shockingly bad judgment.

It' not like this is the only open catastrophe involving the School Board.

So, either way, time for every single one of them to go. Now. Not at term-end. Now.

You're quoting me, and yes, I think it's the incompetence.

I have in my possession three emails, from three different board members, three opposing interpretations of the grandfathering policy as it relates to redistricting and those of us moved out of Mason and into Barrett. My friend has one that clearly states her youngest can stay at Mason as long as they wish, despite the JCRE grandfathering regulation provision clearly stating otherwise. They will fight to stay and it's going to cost ACPS a lot of time and effort trying to pull that letter back.

They keep acting like everything is said and done despite the huge amount of loose ends. Gonna be a bumpy ride next Summer.

I knew they were incompetent long before they hired a principal that had just been fired in NY for hitting kids.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some people really enjoy complaining. This guy isn't going to be the principal. They withdrew the offer as soon as the vetting process revealed more info about him. They have a year to find a new person. Get in with your life and find soemthinh more important than a crisis averted to complain about.

The vetting process revealed nothing. The vetting process was over. He was already hired. It was a tip that came in AFTER the vetting process was complete that brought his down fall. ACPS had greenlighted him all the way.

And they don't have a year. This is November. The new principal needs to be vetted and hired prior to July '18. Do you need helping help counting the months between November and July? Hint- it's not 12 months.

It's like you haven't even read anything about this.

There are many things to complain about with regard to ACPS. Their withdrawing an offer of employment before a crisis began is was way way down on the list.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree. Google the candidate: his past comes up on the first page. How was this not caught before he was called back for a second interview, much less extended an offer? SMH

What makes you all think the ACPS School Board/Admin didn't know about his past, but chose to proceed anyway? Maybe they wanted a stern leader for that new school, ever think about that? Maybe his asking price was right?

This happened before in recent past: the candidate the Board selected prior to Mort Sherman being chosen was suddenly pulled for problems.

Yeeeeah, no. You think ACPS were willfully exposing themselves to lawsuits by hiring a guy with a well known reputation for hitting kids? You think the same district that routinely puts the underprivileged first was taking the 'tough love' approach in an area populated by poor minorities? That's ridiculous, sorry.

How do you explain his being hired then? Contract signed and announced by ACPS Superintendent?

You're suggesting NONE of John B. Murphy's ACPS vetting revealed these problems? No one, not one board member Googled? I don't buy that at all. Current superintendent's talk with fellow and past superintendents as do Board members when hiring a new Super. No, I simply do not buy that this was missed in vetting, especially since the same predicament happened to the ACPS School Board in 2008, forcing them away from their preferred selection, and into hire Mort Sherman (a none-team player).

Mr. Murphy may have sought to down-play these past episodes, asked a lower ball salary in light of them. And of course, given our past Board Chair's propensity to control decisions, Mr. Murphy's compromise was deemed malleable to Board decision making, which is exactly what ACPS Board wants in a Super. Perfect fit in many ways for the Board.

I don't think they did a background investigation on him prior to hire. Maybe 'on paper' he looked good enough to continue with the hire and that would be contingent on a future successful investigation? None of us know. But if you think they offered him a contract while they were aware of his past abuses then I simply can't agree with you.

These two clips define the issue. Either (1) the School Board simply didn't do their job at all, by not making anyone in the central office or the recruitment firm do the job, or (2) the School Board knowingly decided to hire somebody that would have been a walking, talking, slap at both the students and employees. There are no other options -- either the School Board is monumentally incompetent, or the School Board exercises shockingly bad judgment.

It' not like this is the only open catastrophe involving the School Board.

So, either way, time for every single one of them to go. Now. Not at term-end. Now.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree. Google the candidate: his past comes up on the first page. How was this not caught before he was called back for a second interview, much less extended an offer? SMH

What makes you all think the ACPS School Board/Admin didn't know about his past, but chose to proceed anyway? Maybe they wanted a stern leader for that new school, ever think about that? Maybe his asking price was right?

This happened before in recent past: the candidate the Board selected prior to Mort Sherman being chosen was suddenly pulled for problems.

Yeeeeah, no. You think ACPS were willfully exposing themselves to lawsuits by hiring a guy with a well known reputation for hitting kids? You think the same district that routinely puts the underprivileged first was taking the 'tough love' approach in an area populated by poor minorities? That's ridiculous, sorry.

How do you explain his being hired then? Contract signed and announced by ACPS Superintendent?

You're suggesting NONE of John B. Murphy's ACPS vetting revealed these problems? No one, not one board member Googled? I don't buy that at all. Current superintendent's talk with fellow and past superintendents as do Board members when hiring a new Super. No, I simply do not buy that this was missed in vetting, especially since the same predicament happened to the ACPS School Board in 2008, forcing them away from their preferred selection, and into hire Mort Sherman (a none-team player).

Mr. Murphy may have sought to down-play these past episodes, asked a lower ball salary in light of them. And of course, given our past Board Chair's propensity to control decisions, Mr. Murphy's compromise was deemed malleable to Board decision making, which is exactly what ACPS Board wants in a Super. Perfect fit in many ways for the Board.

I don't think they did a background investigation on him prior to hire. Maybe 'on paper' he looked good enough to continue with the hire and that would be contingent on a future successful investigation? None of us know. But if you think they offered him a contract while they were aware of his past abuses then I simply can't agree with you.