Anonymous wrote:Mayoral control of DCPS has not come close to what was promised when it was implemented. It is time to end it and re-form the School Board to have more legal authority over the system.

What does this even mean? I won't expect an answer. People keep asking what in heck you all are talking about and no one can explain it.

Mayoral control of DCPS has not come close to what was promised when it was implemented. It is time to end it and re-form the School Board to have more legal authority over the system.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:any post about a certain organization must be worded very precisely so that your post doesn't get deleted and you don't get blocked.

v true

I mean, I'm right.

e.g. https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/982140.page

https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/989690.page#20497151

I need to keep justifying myself so here’s some links where I posted more untrue things.
We’ll keep teaching kids and doing a great job. You keep doing you

I agree. It is fun to not engage and to instead exude toxic positivity.

What on the multiple threads on the WTU make teachers think you wanna engage with us? You’ve made up your minds so we’ll focus on our jobs and the kids ty have a great weekend

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:any post about a certain organization must be worded very precisely so that your post doesn't get deleted and you don't get blocked.

v true

I mean, I'm right.

e.g. https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/982140.page

https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/989690.page#20497151

I need to keep justifying myself so here’s some links where I posted more untrue things.
We’ll keep teaching kids and doing a great job. You keep doing you

I agree. It is fun to not engage and to instead exude toxic positivity.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:any post about a certain organization must be worded very precisely so that your post doesn't get deleted and you don't get blocked.

v true

I mean, I'm right.

e.g. https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/982140.page

https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/989690.page#20497151

I need to keep justifying myself so here’s some links where I posted more untrue things.
We’ll keep teaching kids and doing a great job. You keep doing you

Avoid the point, but great! Glad you are teaching kids again!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:any post about a certain organization must be worded very precisely so that your post doesn't get deleted and you don't get blocked.

v true

I mean, I'm right.

e.g. https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/982140.page

https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/989690.page#20497151

I need to keep justifying myself so here’s some links where I posted more untrue things.
We’ll keep teaching kids and doing a great job. You keep doing you

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:any post about a certain organization must be worded very precisely so that your post doesn't get deleted and you don't get blocked.

v true

I mean, I'm right.

e.g. https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/982140.page

https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/989690.page#20497151

Anonymous wrote:any post about a certain organization must be worded very precisely so that your post doesn't get deleted and you don't get blocked.

v true

Anonymous wrote:any post about a certain organization must be worded very precisely so that your post doesn't get deleted and you don't get blocked.

Rent free in your head

any post about a certain organization must be worded very precisely so that your post doesn't get deleted and you don't get blocked.

My strategy has been to just stop engaging in the language quibbling when I see it happening. It never leads to any sort of new insights, or agreement, or anything.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If we call it a "sick out" and not a strike can we stop arguing about what happened?

I don’t really care - they are both illegal concerted actions that were specifically intended to keep SN kids out of school. The only reason the terminology argument matters is because it shows how dumb certain people are to think calling it a “sick out” somehow changes the labor law or political implications.

Oh, I was wondering if that's what the "incorrect" person was quibbling with. Also, the "intention" I doubt was specifically to keep SN kids out of school -- that was the impact, certainly. But again I can see the quibbling being about "intent".

Any quibbling about intention seems pretty weak. Yes I realize they weren't specifically targeting my kid, and they don't hate SN kids, blah blah blah. Doesn't change the fact that they went on strike and kept SN kids out of school.

I agree -- I think that all of the language quibbling is pretty weak. It's just a smokescreen, and sidetracks from meaningful discussion.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If we call it a "sick out" and not a strike can we stop arguing about what happened?

I don’t really care - they are both illegal concerted actions that were specifically intended to keep SN kids out of school. The only reason the terminology argument matters is because it shows how dumb certain people are to think calling it a “sick out” somehow changes the labor law or political implications.

Oh, I was wondering if that's what the "incorrect" person was quibbling with. Also, the "intention" I doubt was specifically to keep SN kids out of school -- that was the impact, certainly. But again I can see the quibbling being about "intent".

Any quibbling about intention seems pretty weak. Yes I realize they weren't specifically targeting my kid, and they don't hate SN kids, blah blah blah. Doesn't change the fact that they went on strike and kept SN kids out of school.

And as to why this is all pertinent to the thread: the issue with one of the bills before the council is that it puts OSSE under SBOE. The concern is that having this type of school control under SBOE is that the school decisions would be more likely to be influence by the union, which in multiple people's minds is not good. And the reason it isn't good is that the union serves its members, not children's best interests first. That's what they do, so no use arguing that. But we want schools to serve children's interests first.

Mostly, I see the arguments on DCUM about a certain organization often devolve in VERY SPECIFIC interpretations of language (strike/sick-out). It seems like we can't just agree that 1) teachers didn't go back into buildings under a plan to get high-needs kicks back into buildings, and 2) this hurt (at least some, maybe many, maybe most) high needs kids. Those are at least facts that seem obvious.