Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Okay, Davis isn’t a reasonable person. Just saw her nutso public comments at the board meeting.

Anyone who uses the offensive term "special needs" is not getting my vote.

Yes, we have gone full circle and are now back to disabled. That will certainly make a child with special needs feel better about themselves.

Not every child with special needs is necessarily disabled.

Is “special needs” offensive?

Yes. Nearly everyone in the disability community opposes the use of that term as it just stigmatizes the word disability. I don't say that people using the term "special needs" have malicious intent, but if a school board candidate claims to be fighting for students with disabilities, they should at least learn the correct terminology.

How are you able to speak for "nearly everyone" in the disability community?

All of the disability rights organizations oppose using that term.

Hmmm.

Political advocates often don't reflect their actual constituents. If you speak with parents, most use the term "special needs" rather than "disability community"

"Disability community" sounds very limiting and negative, in my humble opinion, compared to "special needs".

But honestly, the term used matters far less than the kindness and understanding, or in the case of fcps, the neglect of that community over pandemic. Trying to make things political by nitpicking over terminology is far worse than someone using last month's preferred terminology.

I'm a parent of three kids with disabilities and disabled myself. While many parents may use the term "special needs," their kids generally don't use the term once they become old enough to advocate for themselves. I don't say this to offend anyone, but many parents still hold some kind of stigma when talking about disabilities, even if their own kids are disabled, so while they have the best intentions, they use phrases like "special needs" to avoid stigmatized terms like disability. But disability shouldn't be a word that we're afraid to say.

Thanks for the context, but what happened here was someone trying to cancel a well-intentioned SB candidate for using a term that some rabid advocates in the “disability community” have now decided is outdated. And that’s simply absurd.

I don't think that's absurd at all. My son who has several disabilities and just started college dropped a class because a professor used the term "adjustments for special needs," in the syllabus to refer to accommodations. His position was that if the professor couldn't even use the correct terminology, they didn't actually care for disabled students. And I'm proud of him for taking that stand for himself.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Okay, Davis isn’t a reasonable person. Just saw her nutso public comments at the board meeting.

Anyone who uses the offensive term "special needs" is not getting my vote.

Yes, we have gone full circle and are now back to disabled. That will certainly make a child with special needs feel better about themselves.

Not every child with special needs is necessarily disabled.

Is “special needs” offensive?

Yes. Nearly everyone in the disability community opposes the use of that term as it just stigmatizes the word disability. I don't say that people using the term "special needs" have malicious intent, but if a school board candidate claims to be fighting for students with disabilities, they should at least learn the correct terminology.

How are you able to speak for "nearly everyone" in the disability community?

All of the disability rights organizations oppose using that term.

Hmmm.

Political advocates often don't reflect their actual constituents. If you speak with parents, most use the term "special needs" rather than "disability community"

"Disability community" sounds very limiting and negative, in my humble opinion, compared to "special needs".

But honestly, the term used matters far less than the kindness and understanding, or in the case of fcps, the neglect of that community over pandemic. Trying to make things political by nitpicking over terminology is far worse than someone using last month's preferred terminology.

I'm a parent of three kids with disabilities and disabled myself. While many parents may use the term "special needs," their kids generally don't use the term once they become old enough to advocate for themselves. I don't say this to offend anyone, but many parents still hold some kind of stigma when talking about disabilities, even if their own kids are disabled, so while they have the best intentions, they use phrases like "special needs" to avoid stigmatized terms like disability. But disability shouldn't be a word that we're afraid to say.

Thanks for the context, but what happened here was someone trying to cancel a well-intentioned SB candidate for using a term that some rabid advocates in the “disability community” have now decided is outdated. And that’s simply absurd.

I don't think that's absurd at all. My son who has several disabilities and just started college dropped a class because a professor used the term "adjustments for special needs," in the syllabus to refer to accommodations. His position was that if the professor couldn't even use the correct terminology, they didn't actually care for disabled students. And I'm proud of him for taking that stand for himself.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Okay, Davis isn’t a reasonable person. Just saw her nutso public comments at the board meeting.

Anyone who uses the offensive term "special needs" is not getting my vote.

Yes, we have gone full circle and are now back to disabled. That will certainly make a child with special needs feel better about themselves.

Not every child with special needs is necessarily disabled.

Is “special needs” offensive?

Yes. Nearly everyone in the disability community opposes the use of that term as it just stigmatizes the word disability. I don't say that people using the term "special needs" have malicious intent, but if a school board candidate claims to be fighting for students with disabilities, they should at least learn the correct terminology.

How are you able to speak for "nearly everyone" in the disability community?

All of the disability rights organizations oppose using that term.

Hmmm.

Political advocates often don't reflect their actual constituents. If you speak with parents, most use the term "special needs" rather than "disability community"

"Disability community" sounds very limiting and negative, in my humble opinion, compared to "special needs".

But honestly, the term used matters far less than the kindness and understanding, or in the case of fcps, the neglect of that community over pandemic. Trying to make things political by nitpicking over terminology is far worse than someone using last month's preferred terminology.

I'm a parent of three kids with disabilities and disabled myself. While many parents may use the term "special needs," their kids generally don't use the term once they become old enough to advocate for themselves. I don't say this to offend anyone, but many parents still hold some kind of stigma when talking about disabilities, even if their own kids are disabled, so while they have the best intentions, they use phrases like "special needs" to avoid stigmatized terms like disability. But disability shouldn't be a word that we're afraid to say.

Thanks for the context, but what happened here was someone trying to cancel a well-intentioned SB candidate for using a term that some rabid advocates in the “disability community” have now decided is outdated. And that’s simply absurd.

Anonymous wrote:

But disability shouldn't be a word that we're afraid to say.

So, why did they change it from "disability" to "special needs?"

Sorry, but "disabled" brings a very clear vision of someone who is not capable. I taught many kids with learning issues--but all of them were capable of learning.

A totally new term is needed. Disabled conjures up "handicapped."

There is a vast range of kids who have "special needs." Some need a little assistance and some need constant assistance. I don't have the answer, by the way--but I don't like "disabled."

Thanks for the context, but what happened here was someone trying to cancel a well-intentioned SB candidate for using a term that some rabid advocates in the “disability community” have now decided is outdated. And that’s simply absurd.

But disability shouldn't be a word that we're afraid to say.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Okay, Davis isn’t a reasonable person. Just saw her nutso public comments at the board meeting.

Anyone who uses the offensive term "special needs" is not getting my vote.

Yes, we have gone full circle and are now back to disabled. That will certainly make a child with special needs feel better about themselves.

Not every child with special needs is necessarily disabled.

Is “special needs” offensive?

Yes. Nearly everyone in the disability community opposes the use of that term as it just stigmatizes the word disability. I don't say that people using the term "special needs" have malicious intent, but if a school board candidate claims to be fighting for students with disabilities, they should at least learn the correct terminology.

How are you able to speak for "nearly everyone" in the disability community?

All of the disability rights organizations oppose using that term.

Hmmm.

Political advocates often don't reflect their actual constituents. If you speak with parents, most use the term "special needs" rather than "disability community"

"Disability community" sounds very limiting and negative, in my humble opinion, compared to "special needs".

But honestly, the term used matters far less than the kindness and understanding, or in the case of fcps, the neglect of that community over pandemic. Trying to make things political by nitpicking over terminology is far worse than someone using last month's preferred terminology.

I'm a parent of three kids with disabilities and disabled myself. While many parents may use the term "special needs," their kids generally don't use the term once they become old enough to advocate for themselves. I don't say this to offend anyone, but many parents still hold some kind of stigma when talking about disabilities, even if their own kids are disabled, so while they have the best intentions, they use phrases like "special needs" to avoid stigmatized terms like disability. But disability shouldn't be a word that we're afraid to say.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Okay, Davis isn’t a reasonable person. Just saw her nutso public comments at the board meeting.

Anyone who uses the offensive term "special needs" is not getting my vote.

Yes, we have gone full circle and are now back to disabled. That will certainly make a child with special needs feel better about themselves.

Not every child with special needs is necessarily disabled.

Is “special needs” offensive?

Yes. Nearly everyone in the disability community opposes the use of that term as it just stigmatizes the word disability. I don't say that people using the term "special needs" have malicious intent, but if a school board candidate claims to be fighting for students with disabilities, they should at least learn the correct terminology.

How are you able to speak for "nearly everyone" in the disability community?

All of the disability rights organizations oppose using that term.

Hmmm.

Political advocates often don't reflect their actual constituents. If you speak with parents, most use the term "special needs" rather than "disability community"

"Disability community" sounds very limiting and negative, in my humble opinion, compared to "special needs".

But honestly, the term used matters far less than the kindness and understanding, or in the case of fcps, the neglect of that community over pandemic. Trying to make things political by nitpicking over terminology is far worse than someone using last month's preferred terminology.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I met Saundra at a community event over the weekend, checked out her website, and just listened to her remarks to the board. I thought she made some great points about the need for reconciliation. We now know many of the Board's decisions were a mistake and it's definitely time to work on healing the community and moving forward in the best interest of students.

The Board shortened the community participation segment of the meetings to two minutes per speaker last year. So now every speaker is forced to rush through their points and speed read. It's hard to make a serious comment with supporting points and evidence in two minutes. Meanwhile, the Board members continue take as much time as they like -- frequently approaching two hours -- on meaningless drivel, proclamations and resolutions before the serious business of the board is ever conducted. That's why many of their votes (e.g. approving the $3.5B budget) occur after 11pm on very serious matters, when most of the community has tuned out. The best part is when the board members complain that it's getting late when they've literally wasted hours of the meeting earlier in the night. Or when they make jokes about not being good at math or not understanding basic budget/accounting terms when voting on how to spend billions of dollars. It's really pathetic. I watched a meeting earlier this year because I was trying to understand if my children's school that has serious issues would be considered for capital improvements. It was the most poorly managed, unserious meeting of any kind I've ever seen.

I really encourage everyone in our community to research candidates and vote for a change in direction for our schools. I think we can all agree that the current track is not serving our children, teachers and school administrators well.

After meeting her and looking over what she stands for, I'm looking forward to voting for Saundra for at-large because we need someone who isn't tied to party politics and will be solely focused on making our schools a better place for students to learn and teachers to work. Maybe she could even help the meetings stay on task.

+1 more

Before voting for a SB member, every Fairfax County voter should watch a School Board meeting from the beginning.

Another thing--and I have mentioned this before--in the past, the Community Participation speaker spoke from the front side of the auditorium. Both the audience and the School Board could see their faces. When did they start this dehumanizing policy?