Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is this parent who was banned and shunned a school board candidate? I'd really like to hear more about the A and B candidates. Are the C candidates a shoe in? They are running unopposed so they all get a spot? How does it work, the highest number of votes (high three) are elected? Who do you think will be elected? For A I think Rief, Greene, and Bailey. For B I think Baird, Ignacio, and Johnson. C is Alderton, Elnoubi, and Harris.

Thanks for getting this thread back on topic!
You are correct about C. I also think you are correct about A.
Your B prediction seems possible, but it also seems like it will have the most intense campaigning.

Sometimes I think DCUM and social media create a really distorted picture. If you had been reading DCUM before the primaries, you would have thought that folks were ready to burn Justin Wilson at the stake, and Allison Silberberg was the great savior. People insisted everyone hated what City Council had done, and primary would be this repudiation of all of them.

What happens? Wilson wins by significant margin, and the 6 who make the council ticket are every incumbent, and the two of the new candidates that the local paper described as most aligned with Wilson.

So, while I actually happen to think the quoted poster is making some reasonable predictions, just a general note to everyone that the rhetoric you read here and on social media

You are correct, PP.

The primary made clear that Alexandrians (at least the small segment that voted) are very happy with Wilson and the establishment. This includes Hutchings, central office and the current school board. So anyone aligned & affiliated with Wilson, the other incumbents and Hutchings will likely win the SB election in all the districts.

I think you may be right but I hope there are people who share my view that Alexandria city government generally and ACPS specifically should be evaluated differently.

pPersonally, I think the City handled the pandemic well and the City as a general matter is governed relatively well. Thus, I supported Wilson and establishment candidates for Mayor/City Council. On the other hand, I think ACPS handled the pandemic poorly (primarily by doing little creative to make virtual schooling bearable / more effective) and overall has major issues. While I understand retaining Hutchings, I think the school board needs to hold him much more accountable. Unfortunately, it looks like some or many of the outsiders and newcomers in the school board race have major flaws either being unlikely to change the status quo or are too radical in a different direction in what they want to do (ie Deborah Ash). So, I think for some races an incumbent may remain the best choice.

For example I may disagree with Rief in District A certain things but I doubt there are three candidates better than her in that District (I am interested in learning more about Willie Bailey’s thoughts on school issues since I liked him as a city Councilperson).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What are Ignacio and Johnson's current relationship with Hutchings? That is all I care about. They seem to have stellar resumes, but I want to know if they will hold the superintendent accountable. Communication is poor in ACPS and it seems like a game of telephone. It's really not as hard as they make it.

Ignacio’s resume isn’t stellar! She made it almost to the top, then got demoted back down to AP (and tried to get a Superintendent job elsewhere). She’d have been tossed long ago if her husband wasn’t loved in Alexandria.

The only people she cares about holding accountable are those she thinks crossed or failed to properly worship her.

Ignacio actually does a good job. The bullies don't like her and the reasons are many (she is more attractive which intimidates a lot of the wives, she speaks better, and she is a doer so she gets things done rather than just whine about the status quo). I have never worked with her directly; however, watching on the sidelines for many years she does a good job.

And Johnson is awesome. She doesn't cave to pressure and she stands up for the underdog and the undermined. She won't allow middle class mommy bullies to take advantage of the disadvantaged.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is this parent who was banned and shunned a school board candidate? I'd really like to hear more about the A and B candidates. Are the C candidates a shoe in? They are running unopposed so they all get a spot? How does it work, the highest number of votes (high three) are elected? Who do you think will be elected? For A I think Rief, Greene, and Bailey. For B I think Baird, Ignacio, and Johnson. C is Alderton, Elnoubi, and Harris.

Thanks for getting this thread back on topic!
You are correct about C. I also think you are correct about A.
Your B prediction seems possible, but it also seems like it will have the most intense campaigning.

Sometimes I think DCUM and social media create a really distorted picture. If you had been reading DCUM before the primaries, you would have thought that folks were ready to burn Justin Wilson at the stake, and Allison Silberberg was the great savior. People insisted everyone hated what City Council had done, and primary would be this repudiation of all of them.

What happens? Wilson wins by significant margin, and the 6 who make the council ticket are every incumbent, and the two of the new candidates that the local paper described as most aligned with Wilson.

So, while I actually happen to think the quoted poster is making some reasonable predictions, just a general note to everyone that the rhetoric you read here and on social media

You are correct, PP.

The primary made clear that Alexandrians (at least the small segment that voted) are very happy with Wilson and the establishment. This includes Hutchings, central office and the current school board. So anyone aligned & affiliated with Wilson, the other incumbents and Hutchings will likely win the SB election in all the districts.

Anonymous wrote:Is this parent who was banned and shunned a school board candidate? I'd really like to hear more about the A and B candidates. Are the C candidates a shoe in? They are running unopposed so they all get a spot? How does it work, the highest number of votes (high three) are elected? Who do you think will be elected? For A I think Rief, Greene, and Bailey. For B I think Baird, Ignacio, and Johnson. C is Alderton, Elnoubi, and Harris.

Thanks for getting this thread back on topic!
You are correct about C. I also think you are correct about A.
Your B prediction seems possible, but it also seems like it will have the most intense campaigning.

Sometimes I think DCUM and social media create a really distorted picture. If you had been reading DCUM before the primaries, you would have thought that folks were ready to burn Justin Wilson at the stake, and Allison Silberberg was the great savior. People insisted everyone hated what City Council had done, and primary would be this repudiation of all of them.

What happens? Wilson wins by significant margin, and the 6 who make the council ticket are every incumbent, and the two of the new candidates that the local paper described as most aligned with Wilson.

So, while I actually happen to think the quoted poster is making some reasonable predictions, just a general note to everyone that the rhetoric you read here and on social media

Anonymous wrote:What are Ignacio and Johnson's current relationship with Hutchings? That is all I care about. They seem to have stellar resumes, but I want to know if they will hold the superintendent accountable. Communication is poor in ACPS and it seems like a game of telephone. It's really not as hard as they make it.

Ignacio’s resume isn’t stellar! She made it almost to the top, then got demoted back down to AP (and tried to get a Superintendent job elsewhere). She’d have been tossed long ago if her husband wasn’t loved in Alexandria.

The only people she cares about holding accountable are those she thinks crossed or failed to properly worship her.

Anonymous wrote:What are Ignacio and Johnson's current relationship with Hutchings? That is all I care about. They seem to have stellar resumes, but I want to know if they will hold the superintendent accountable. Communication is poor in ACPS and it seems like a game of telephone. It's really not as hard as they make it.

Neither of them will hold Hutchings accountable. I doubt that any of the candidates will (Baird may be the exception to that). I'm curious, why do you think the two of them have stellar resumes? Is it because they've worked in the district for so long (this is exactly why I won't vote for them) or is it something else that I'm not seeing?

But as someone else posted above - I'm sure in B it will be Baird, Johnson and Ignacio.

Anonymous wrote:What are Ignacio and Johnson's current relationship with Hutchings? That is all I care about. They seem to have stellar resumes, but I want to know if they will hold the superintendent accountable. Communication is poor in ACPS and it seems like a game of telephone. It's really not as hard as they make it.

I don’t know why you think Johnson’s resume is “stellar.” She worked for ACPS for 30 plus years; many of those years as an administrator when the system had major problems. Her communications skills are worse than Hutchings’ and she has given no indication that she would hold Hutchings accountable rather than push for the status quo.

So the person who was banned from an ACPS school is a school board candidate? What district?

What are Ignacio and Johnson's current relationship with Hutchings? That is all I care about. They seem to have stellar resumes, but I want to know if they will hold the superintendent accountable. Communication is poor in ACPS and it seems like a game of telephone. It's really not as hard as they make it.

Is this parent who was banned and shunned a school board candidate? I'd really like to hear more about the A and B candidates. Are the C candidates a shoe in? They are running unopposed so they all get a spot? How does it work, the highest number of votes (high three) are elected? Who do you think will be elected? For A I think Rief, Greene, and Bailey. For B I think Baird, Ignacio, and Johnson. C is Alderton, Elnoubi, and Harris.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All you need to know about the PTAC is that they allowed on a parent who had been literally banned from their own kid's school for celebrating violence against a child.

Was she actually banned? Like, she wasn't allowed in the door at all or she wasn't allowed volunteer status?

BANNED.

FOIA it. Incredbly humilating for the person. Totaly shunned in the community now.

LOL at you with the shunning bit. It is like you are 2. I am sure she views it as a small mercy that YOU of all people are shunning her.

Oh look here she is.

The entire lot of them are utter cringe-inducing phonies.

NOPE, you idiot. I'm just an interested party calling you out for being a fool. But keep on keeping on. You're doing a great job at it!!!

First of all, I wasn’t the poster who said someone had been “shunned.” So you’re conflating two posters. And your response is as mature as I would expect from anyone who would defend that person’s behavior.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All you need to know about the PTAC is that they allowed on a parent who had been literally banned from their own kid's school for celebrating violence against a child.

Was she actually banned? Like, she wasn't allowed in the door at all or she wasn't allowed volunteer status?

BANNED.

FOIA it. Incredbly humilating for the person. Totaly shunned in the community now.

LOL at you with the shunning bit. It is like you are 2. I am sure she views it as a small mercy that YOU of all people are shunning her.

Oh look here she is.

The entire lot of them are utter cringe-inducing phonies.

NOPE, you idiot. I'm just an interested party calling you out for being a fool. But keep on keeping on. You're doing a great job at it!!!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All you need to know about the PTAC is that they allowed on a parent who had been literally banned from their own kid's school for celebrating violence against a child.

Was she actually banned? Like, she wasn't allowed in the door at all or she wasn't allowed volunteer status?

BANNED.

FOIA it. Incredbly humilating for the person. Totaly shunned in the community now.

LOL at you with the shunning bit. It is like you are 2. I am sure she views it as a small mercy that YOU of all people are shunning her.

Oh look here she is.

The entire lot of them are utter cringe-inducing phonies.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All you need to know about the PTAC is that they allowed on a parent who had been literally banned from their own kid's school for celebrating violence against a child.

Was she actually banned? Like, she wasn't allowed in the door at all or she wasn't allowed volunteer status?

BANNED.

FOIA it. Incredbly humilating for the person. Totaly shunned in the community now.

LOL at you with the shunning bit. It is like you are 2. I am sure she views it as a small mercy that YOU of all people are shunning her.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All you need to know about the PTAC is that they allowed on a parent who had been literally banned from their own kid's school for celebrating violence against a child.

Was she actually banned? Like, she wasn't allowed in the door at all or she wasn't allowed volunteer status?

BANNED.

FOIA it. Incredbly humilating for the person. Totaly shunned in the community now.

I know this person, she lives around the corner from me. The issue was a fb post she made several years ago. It was in extremely poor judgment of her and she should have known better. I saw the post as we are “friends”. I thought she was eventually allowed back on campus though, because I thought I saw posts of her volunteering in the classroom or on field trips pre-COVID. She is an uber parent.