Saturday, May 21, 2016

Support For Aisha Grows

Aisha Hiza (left), Vira Douangmany Cage (right)

Amherst School Committee member and candidate for Ellen Story's 3rd Hampshire District state legislature seat Vira Douangmany Cage has come out in full public support for Aisha Hiza, the single mom summarily banned from ALL Amherst Regional PUBLIC School property by Superintendent Maria Geryk for actively advocating on behalf of her bullied child.

 Click to enlarge/read

Ironically, and even more tellingly, Vira Douangmany Cage is Chair of the School Equity Task Force subcommittee.

And one thing for sure lacking in this deleterious debacle is "equity."

86 comments:

Anonymous said...

So what are you saying here larry? You seem to have an opinion but it is unclear to me.

Larry Kelley said...

That a stay order is unjustified.

I have watched hundreds of protective (209A) hearings in Eastern Hampshire District Court and about 40% of the time the Judge does not issue them because the facts presented do not rise to the level of a real threat.

And in EVERY hearing both sides get to present their side of the case.

Anonymous said...

Think about the busy and active final month of school- Aisha needs to be a part of it.

Concerts, class presentations, read aloud activities, field days, field trips, events to thank staff, checking the lost and found, returning library books and other materials, carting home files/ boxes of school work and projects.

With a focus on Family Engagement- The stay away order needs to be lifted so Aisha can participate!

Anonymous said...

Maybe if you knew all the facts you'd change your mind. We still only know one side of the story.

Larry Kelley said...

Maybe. Maybe not.

But once all the facts came out in the Dylan Akalis fiasco I sure as Hell did NOT change my mind.

http://onlyintherepublicofamherst.blogspot.com/2014/05/no-ceremony-for-you.html

Anonymous said...

I am glad Vira is showing support for Aisha....too bad the rest of the school committee cannot show leadership on this issue

Anonymous said...

The stay away order was issued by the superintendent. I have not heard anything anything being pursued against this parent through the courts -- has there been? If not, it makes me think that there may not be grounds for such an action... or perhaps even the stay away order in the first place.

Anonymous said...

In the ARPS lawyers' letter to Ms. Hiza, they wrote that in discussing this issue with the school committee, the superintendent had "identified her efforts to offer you a reasonable restorative process to facilitate better interaction between yourself and school administration, and which would create an environment in which [Geryk] would be able to lift the stay away order."

This sounds so parental and paternalistic to me. If you don't do what we say (engage in a ARPS-led "restorative" process with ARPS administrators), then we won't let you do what you want (bring your child to school & participate in school & class activities).

I can understand why Ms. Hiza rejected this offer.

Anonymous said...

To bad she's not on the Pelham SC, the body who has control over the situation. Also the one body who has heard all the facts and after hearing the facts advised Aisha to follow the protocol the Superintendent laid out for her to have the stay away order lifted. Vira is doing nothing but grandstanding. She has no standing in this case. This is a Pelham matter. I guarantee this grandstanding will do nothing to help her campaign.

Anonymous said...

The issuance of a stay away order is not an indication that some thing will be filed in the courts. Schools issue stay away orders all the time. It is not an unusual occurrence.

Larry Kelley said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Larry Kelley said...

So how many has Maria issued over the past five years?

Anonymous said...

Why doesn't this mother get a lawyer, (I'm sure her supporters would help fund) and bring her perceived injustice before a judge. Then both sides of the story will come out.

Anonymous said...

The pelham SC had no power to lift the stay away order. They didn't have all the facts thec only had the SI file. They had none of Aushas info. The SC has very little power in reality. I

Dr. Ed said...

"Maybe if you knew all the facts you'd change your mind. We still only know one side of the story."

FUCK YOU!

Sorry Larry, I've had enough of these schmucks, and yes, it is personal.

Sometime,I'll tell you why, and you'll like UMass even less than you do now....

Anonymous said...

Would the flurry of letters asking Vira to do a better job as a School Committee member be available via public documents request?

Anonymous said...

I agree anon 7:12. Vira is just grandstanding, it's so obvious. She is trying to get support from her base for her flagging state rep. run. She is using this situation in Pelham to advance her own agenda. And yes anon 8:04, we should get both sides of the story before we come to any conclusions.

Anonymous said...

"Sorry Larry, I've had enough of these schmucks, and yes, it is personal.

Sometime,I'll tell you why, and you'll like UMass even less than you do now...."


Ed, not everything in the world is about you. My god you have a persecution complex.

Anonymous said...

Sorry, Ed. I seemed to have missed the part of this story that was about you.

Anonymous said...

Remember that two police depts. advised the Supt. to enact the stay away order. Many people weighed in on this situation. The Supt.took the advice of the police and others who had knowledge of all the facts.

Larry Kelley said...

Or Maria simply told the two police departments she was enacting the order.

Anonymous said...

The point is none of us know all the facts. Yet many seem ready to condemn the superintendent nonetheless. Shameful! You people need to get a life.

Dr. Ed said...

Team Maria is a product of Planet UMass, and she's using the same trident of propaganda that they use, that was used against me, and that is why it is personal, although I was/am discussing a Supt who should be fired if not indicted.

It's a variant oh Hitler's "Big Lie" -- that if you repeat any lie, no matter how outrageous, enough times -- and prevent anyone from contradicting it -- the lie will be believed. George Orwell understood this, that's what 1984 was about.

The trident consists of three things:

1: Fabricate some totally baseless and unfounded allegations against your victim.

2: Demand that your victim somehow disprove said allegations without ever telling the victim the basis of them (i.e. specifics) or even exactly what you are accusing her of (i.e. specific facts).

3: Announce that her inability/unwillingness to prove her innocence constitutes guilt. Smear her character and reputation with vague references to "confidential" information that only you have reference to, hint that she's crazy and/or dangerous, imply that your "confidential" information relates to that.

If you think about it, all of the people that Team Maria has attacked -- and a half dozen come to immediate mind -- have been attacked in just this manner. Now is it statistically likely that all of them were lying????

Now, anyone with a basic knowledge of US Civics understands how our entire system of government (including both the 14th Amendment and 42 USC 1983) was intended to prevent any governmental official from employing these "Star Chamber" tactics, but I digress...

There is a reason why you have a right to confront your accuser.

There is a reason why you are entitled to specific charges.

And if you are bound by confidentiality, you neither divulge the information nor derivatives thereof. THIS is what I think Geryk ought to go to jail for.

GERYK GOTTA GO!

Dr. Ed said...

Or Maria simply told the two police departments she was enacting the order.

It's actually more sinister than that, Larry -- and it's a violation of the state ethics laws because she did it as a governmental official.

She abused her authority as Supt and the post-Columbine police response protocols, particularly if she got two APD officers to stand guard duty during a meeting with Hiza. Geryk has the authority to order them to do that, but it's an ethics violation for her to do so.

Likewise she has the ability to report things to the police, but part of the sinister aspect of this is to simply build a paper trail and then cite the paper trail to justify it.

Anonymous said...

This whole thing is being turned upside down. The superintendent is not at the school. She's just responding to a request by the staff because they clearly felt harassed by this woman. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that she wasn't coming to the school with a smile and a fresh baked basket of warm muffins. She was angry, and the staff felt threatened by her behaviour.

Larry Kelley said...

Did they call the police? Or Maria?

Dr. Ed said...

Larry, I just realized something: It's been stated that Aisha Hiza is an ARHS grad, my guess is that Miss. Maria's "release" includes all of her own school records from her 13 years in the Amherst schools, including all of her medical records.

People need to know that school medical records, either those generated in school or given to the school by parents, are NOT protevted by HIPPA -- they come under the looser standard of FERPA, a waiver of which is being demanded here.

As Geryk's MO is to "Smear & Cheer", and as a teacher who has seen some very questionable stuff in student records, I'm wondering what Maria might be threatening to smear Aisha with.

NB: Parents, you want to know what is in your child's school records, FERPA gives you the right to see them, and you ought to. Even if you trust Team Maria, you ought to and here's why: One year, I had five students named "Jason" and the principal confused two of them, with an incident in my classroom involving one being attributed to the other.

Anonymous said...

Lots of drama in this town someone should make a movie.

Anonymous said...

"Did they call the police? Or Maria?"

They called Maria, obviously. How did you miss that?

Larry Kelley said...

Because that's the first question a Judge asks someone who is seeking a protective 209A order.

You must have fear of imminent body harm or death, and in that case most sane people call the police first and then later seek a court order.

Dr. Ed said...

"It doesn't take a genius to figure out that she wasn't coming to the school with a smile and a fresh baked basket of warm muffins."

So only smiling parents bearing gifts (bribes) are permitted to interact with the staff? Done any customer service work in the private sector?

Or even in a non-fascist district where they actually care about parents? I once had a father come in drunk to "back to school night" with things going downhill from there.

She was angry,

Did she have a "right" to be angry? Was her anger a rational response to the stimuli? Was her anger "culturally appropriate?" Would a rational person, in the same situation, been angry?

Jason's mother was angry, particularly since her Jason was in the 9th grade and hence not in my "11th Grade English Class" (the other Jason was).

and the staff felt threatened by her behaviour.

This is bullshyte -- threatened how?!?!?

There is "reasonably feared for their physical safety" and nothing else that should be relevant. Threatening to sue, to call Channel 40 or to "hope they die" may be inappropriate but not "threatening."

There is this mentality that anyone who is upset with you, regardless of why and/or how egregious your own behavior has been, is inevitably escalating to violence unless restrained via the full force of the state. (Didn't Miss Muffett drag out the MSP Bomb Squad on another parent a while back?)

And Larry, this is where I think it relevant that the Principal came out of the Mental Health field -- that is where this crap comes from. They fail to understand thge difference between coincidence and causality, and because Virginia Tech escalated from earlier incidents (or, I argue, was more likely caused by earlier incidents*), the presumption is that anyone who is upset will inevitably return with a gun.

OK, every auto accident I ever assisted at involved licensed vehicles operated by licensed drivers -- so by the same logic, licensed drivers & vehicles are inherently unsafe? Is one really safer riding in an unlicensed car driven by someone without a valid driver's license?

*Which V/T is still refusing to discuss.

Dr. Ed said...

Lots of drama in this town someone should make a movie.

Peyton Place comes to mind.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous 12:33 wrote..."Remember that two police depts. advised the Supt. to enact the stay away order. Many people weighed in on this situation. The Supt.took the advice of the police and others who had knowledge of all the facts."

Have you seen the Stay Away email? Your post is not supported.

The Amherst Police Department is not included in the list of email addresses receiving a copy of the stay away order email.
and Maria's wording
"this decision by me to restrict your access to Pelham School and its staff was made with the cooperation of representatives of both Amherst and Pelham Police Departments"

https://www.scribd.com/doc/308658644/Parent-Banned-Pelham-School

Anonymous said...

FUCK YOU!.....sorry larry...I can't tell you why I said that....maybe another day...

Dr. Ed said...

"this decision by me to restrict your access to Pelham School and its staff was made with the cooperation of representatives of both Amherst and Pelham Police Departments"

"Cooperation" does not mean "support" and "representatives of" does not mean the department.

It's made to make people think otherwise, but what does it SAY?

Anonymous said...

Oh yea. We really needed to see this post. Sheesh Larry. I thought you were moderating this blog.

Larry Kelley said...

It's actually protected speech (but only by a 5-4 decision).

I think he/she was trying to be clever. Although cleverness could use its own special font.

Anonymous said...

Protected speech my ass. You know you don't post everything sent to you. That post didn't contribute anything to the conversation.

Larry Kelley said...

Yet "ass" is okay.

Anonymous said...

Ass is ok. It's a donkey.

Larry Kelley said...

And you own a donkey?

Anonymous said...

A few facts you readers ought to know. No judge has heard this stay-away order nor has s/he been a part in its issuance. No record of this stay-away order is on file at either police stations Amherst or Pelham. Numerous requests by Aisha have been made to know-- 1. what are the accusations to justify this 2. who are the accusers 3. how long is it in effect and 4. most importantly--how does she get it lifted? All school committees of all Amherst/Pelham districts--Pelham School, Amherst Elementary Schools and ARMS/ARHS school committee members are involved and ought to be embarrassed, to say the least, by the idiocy of this order. It involves all school committee members because the order is for Pelham School and all Amherst schools and grounds. This is an outrage-and each of you should be outraged if you have one particle of a conscious.
For this to go on for sixty-eight days, without resolution, is inexcusable! For a child to have to suffer not being able to contact her Mother--or have her Mother enter her school is unconscionable. Not only is this administration all party to abusing one of its own graduates and students of color--it is responsible for breaking many laws as well. Terrible--just terrible--and yet those who can stop this nonsense just sit back and watch while Aisha and her child continue to suffer. What the hell are people afraid of?!

Anonymous said...

They are afraid of accountability. It is far easier to kill someone (figuratively if not literally) than to have to answer for what you did to the person.

Anonymous said...

The outrage about what this mom has suffered doesn't ring true. If this is really about what is best for her child she would do what is asked ( which doesn't seem to be that much) to get the order lifted. And for others to believe that the administration is singling this family out, it's ridiculous. Mom has had ( by her own admission) several offers and ways to lift the stay away order, which she is refusing! If in fact this is about what is best for her child, then she would sit down with administrators and try to work this out. The fact that she has allowed her young daughter to twice be on the front page of the newspaper tells you all you need to know about how protective this mom feels about her child. Privacy for a first grader- forget about it. the child's name and picture has been used repeatedly by the mother. Not a good sign.

Anonymous said...

The pelham sc didnt have all the facts they only had SI info. They had no info from Aisha. THEY HAVE NO CONTROL they cant luft the stay order. They will at some point evaluating SI performance which is the only tall per they have. They can discuss and set policy.. But they were never going to be able to lift the order. Its like having a sictTor. Whatever Maria wants to do she can. The question is is she boarding or has she crossed into conduct unbecoming.

Anonymous said...

The flueryvof letters are telling the sc they are upset by the Stay away order Nd bullyimg in school system. I don't think its about Vira doing a better job.

Anonymous said...

Not true. Btw... PD RECEIVED AN EMAIL telling them this had happened... That is what the C.o.P Scotty told Aisha and her friend..

Anonymous said...

I know the facts because I have talked with the school equity teM members that were present at all meetings.. So when it does get released there will be witnesses that the file info was exageratted

Anonymous said...

She is not going to sit down with the principal of the school and the teacher and the counselor and the others from team maria who have escalted this situation. She has agreed to sitting down with paul wiley And her advocate and they are working the restorative process differently. The fact is.. Legally admin has made mistakes... aised $25,158 So Far
$124,842 To Go.
Support investigative reporting in Vermont.
SUPPORT VTDIGGER


SEARCH
Submit
CATEGORIES

RUTLAND COUNTY PARENT AWARDED $147,500 TO SETTLE FREE SPEECH CASE
JAN. 5, 2015, 2:33 PM BY VTD STAFF LEAVE A COMMENT
A Rutland County parent who was barred from attending school board meetings has received a $147,500 settlement from the Addison-Rutland Supervisory Union.

Marcel Cyr, who with his wife, Valerie Cyr, had been critical of the quality of the education his child received at Benson Village School, was issued a no-trespass order and told that he could be arrested if he came onto district property.

A federal court in September ruled that the district violated Cyr’s rights by barring his participation in board meetings without explanation and without recourse.

The settlement was reached through mediation, according to a news release from the Vermont chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, which helped to represent Cyr in the case. The Vermont ACLU contended that the board’s ban infringed upon Cyr’s due process and free speech rights.

“The message to government agencies is simple: You can’t treat the interested public like trespassers,” ACLU of Vermont Executive Director Allen Gilbert said in a news release Monday. “The federal court has ruled that doing so violates the constitution, and now, the supervisory union has paid for infringing on a concerned parent’s rights.”

Anonymous said...

RUTLAND COURT DISMISSES SUIT AGAINST PARENT WHO REQUESTED PUBLIC RECORDS FROM SCHOOL DISTRICT
NOV. 9, 2012, 4:39 AM BY NAT RUDARAKANCHANA 17 COMMENTS
ACLU Vermont Executive Director Allen Gilbert. VTD/Josh Larkin
ACLU Vermont Executive Director Allen Gilbert. VTD/Josh Larkin

A lawsuit filed by a school supervisory union district against a student parent and vocal policy critic was dismissed by Rutland superior court on Tuesday. The district sued Marcel Cyr, a parent, for placing a public records request.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Vermont hailed the dismissal as a victory for government transparency. Dan Barrett, an attorney for the ACLU, says the decision makes it clear that only a citizen can sue a public agency over a records request, not the other way around concerns for the safety of the tipster, Barrett said the document should be released. He said the court questioned whether the tipster had been asked by the district to write up a record portraying Cyr as a danger
“It’s really important for government agencies in Vermont to understand that criticism is normal and healthy,” Barrett said. “Someone comes to a government meeting and criticizes a school board in public comments: he can’t be frozen out. That’s just part of democracy, and something that school boards and select boards sometimes don’t understand.”

Anonymous said...

Shechas sat with them they had monthly meetings constantly cancelled.. Do you understand her child was getting hurt at school and she wasn't being told.. That ex was at the school multuple days a week... For hours and she wasn't told. That they overreacted abd over emphasized her danger.. And banned her.. While recently another parent at our school walked unto school grounds.. And threatened the bullier of her child.. and she wasnt banned from school property.. That was over a week ago.. That parent did stuff way worse than Aisha.. Another parent screamed and yelled at the principal and told her she sucked at her job.. He wasn't baNned... Aisha never screamed orc yelled.. Never threatened the bullier..

Dr. Ed said...

Do you understand her child was getting hurt at school and she wasn't being told..

That's a 51A, filed against the school, and I HIGHLY recommend that anyone with actual knowledge of this file what I tell my students is a "CYA 51A." When you write it up, the first paragraph should say that you believe this may be redundant, as you are a mandated reporter, you are reporting -- and your last paragraph is a polite request they confirm receipt of this for your files.

I can't imagine not telling a custodial parent about any injury to a child.

That ex was at the school multuple days a week... For hours and she wasn't told.

Does the divorce decree state she is the custodial parent? then the school is in contempt of court.

"While recently another parent at our school walked unto school grounds.. And threatened the bullier of her child.. and she wasn't banned from school property.. That was over a week ago.. That parent did stuff way worse than Aisha.."

If that parent is not Black, this just became an open & shut racial discrimination case. Think about this boys 'n' girls, that is the textbook example of de-facto discrimination.

"Another parent screamed and yelled at the principal and told her she sucked at her job.. He wasn't banned..."

And sex discrimination...

And if you have three parents that upset with the principal, in a school that small, I'm starting to thing that maybe she does suck at her job....

Notwithstanding that, unless Little Miss Muffett can PROVE that she treated non-Black & non-female custodial parents as badly as she treated Aisha, the district looses. And with the ban being the whole district, the whole district is liable.

Remember, with discrimination, the accused has the burden of proof.

"Aisha never screamed orc yelled.. Never threatened the bullier.."

Larry, how much insurance does the district have? Little Miss Muffett is f****d...

Sckened by admin in Pelham said...

Both the other parents were white.. but I wasn't going to bring up the races.. There are a lot more parents than 3.. but did I mention... that all three of these parents are also from the same classroom..

Anonymous said...

This was a case where the mother of an elementary school student was indefinitely banned from school grounds, or “trespassed,” from her son’s elementary school in the Kent School District after she repeatedly asked pointed questions about curriculum, district policies, textbooks, and lesson plans at a “Curriculum Night” event held for parents. The District denied her request for a hearing to challenge the trespass order, and she ended up being cited and criminally prosecuted for going back to the school twice – once to try to attend a parent-teacher conference and a book fair, and once to pick up her son from a Science Fair.

No one questions schools’ authority to regulate access to school grounds in order to ensure a safe and productive educational environment. The ACLU’s brief in this case explains why a school cannot simply banish a parent from her child’s school indefinitely without any opportunity for a hearing to challenge the allegation that was causing a disruption.
Laws are decided on precedents.. former case decisions.. Someone above named VT.. Here's the case from WA state
Rebecca C

Anonymous said...

Ed...you have students?

Anonymous said...

Please! I'm beggin' ya.

Anonymous said...

Butcha Did bring up the races, dintcha, Blanche?

Anonymous said...

Anon 8:22 there is no way an equity task force committee member has "all the facts". Those were only presented in executive meeting. That's what all the flap is about. The equity task force member has the mom's facts. Why is that so hard for people to understand. Of course there are two sides to this story. People just itch for controversy concerning the schools, if it's not there, they'll just make it up!

Anonymous said...

There is no way a Gazette reporter knows what was talked about in executive session, either, and that doesn't stop her. She reports to us on what it was about, but she can't possibly know. I'm pretty sure she printed a completely fabricated story about why the ex session was called. That is the definition of hack journalism.

Anonymous said...

Agreed. This new reporter, Amanda Drane, is awful. I miss Dave Eisenstadter. He was the real deal. A very good reporter. An award - winning reporter. Ms. Drane needs to be replaced. Not sure why the Gazette hired her. I'm also at a loss as to why the editor is not doing his job and over - seeing her articles. He must know that she has no clue what was discussed at the Regional SC executive session.

Anonymous said...

I support and applaud Aisha for her courage, and for responsibly speaking out against the bullying of her child at school and for filing good faith complaints against the Principal and Superintendent. The Superintendent has not yet provided Aisha any meaningful opportunity to contest the stay away order. Therefore, the stay away order violates Aisha's 1st amendment (free speech) and 14th amendment (due process) liberty rights as decided by the US District Court of Vermont in Cyr v. Addison Rutland Supervisory Union (D. Vt., 2014).

Anonymous said...

Drane wrote and the Gazette published:

"(Hiza's) complaint was aired in executive session by the Pelham School Committee on May 5, and the issue was raised again in executive session by the Amherst-Pelham Regional School Committee on May 10."

I speculate she's 100% wrong about what they discussed in executive session on May 10th. Drane: cite your source or retract.

Anonymous said...

Geryk wasn't in the portion of the executive session on May 10th that has been reported on by the Gazette, nor was an attorney for Geryk there. An attorney for the SC was there, or for an individual member of the SC possibly. If the SI or the stay-away order became a topic during that session, wouldn't that be a no-no on the SC's part?

Dr. Ed said...

Not necessarily, 10:35. Law says must be permitted to attend, with counsel, but no requirement either show up.

Anonymous said...

Larry aren't you going to cover the Hampshire college commencement? It has become a real raciSt hell hole!

Anonymous said...

Hampshire is more a cesspool of rich spoilt brats.

Anonymous said...

Animal Farm has already been made.

Anonymous said...

How so? Do tell.

Sckened by admin in Pelham said...

The equity task force member wasx present at all meetings and has seen all emails. Im not sure what other facts there are .. Other than the crazy ex lying. Please fill me in

Sckened by admin in Pelham said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Sckened by admin in Pelham said...

Both of these parents did things worse than Aisha. If an adult theeatens a child they should be banned or arrested regardless of the child's actions and regardless of race. I have been supporting Aisha from the beginning because I have seen every email exchange and watched her ask over and over for help. I have also said both sides, made mistakes unfortunately the school system has the power so there wrongs are worse. Speaking with AH personally about this matter of other parents defending their children and not having consequences was good enough. As far as your comment goes it seems your the one with the problem.

Sckened by admin in Pelham said...

Obviously not at closed door exec session meetings. However she has been a witness to moms demeanor. Honestly both sides are hearday even marias both parties can write anything they want on paper just because it's written down in the SI office doesn't make it any more/less factual than what Aisha wrote down. And the SI has alot more to lose than Aisha does. Chances are if a side were exagerated it would be the schools side.

Sckened by admin in Pelham said...

I was asked. I answered. Odds are the parents were white. It almost goes unspoken. SUPPORTS Aisha's case tremendously.

Dr. Ed said...


From what I've been hearing about that teacher in Pelham, I was surprised to see the Worcester byline.

http://wfla.com/2016/05/20/witnesses-teacher-runs-naked-through-school/

Anonymous said...

As usual, Ed, you stray off topic for sensationalism. Nothing to do with our town at all. Not even close to the issues here.

Anonymous said...

Maybe Ed doesn't know the difference. After all, he doesn't even live in Massachusetts.

Sckened by admin in Pelham said...

So did the staff in the Vermont case nut school lost.. because he was,granted access tovhis recirds and was banned from talking to officials. Maybe if they werent laughing about her she wouldnt have reminded them so loudly that she could hear them

Anonymous said...

It is so nauseating reading this the umpteenth post and comments about that woman and her supporters. She is wrong to position her child publicly in the news for her own agenda. Parents know it is our job to protect children especially one so young. That alone says a lot about her poor judgement. She threatened staff - enough said - she had options to resolve the matter early on but acted out of control with her gaggle of "everything is racist" supporters. Enough said. Many of whom are white I might add, have no real jobs, and are a bit wacky themselves - look at who is in that group! Vira is useless now and should never be elected to replace Ellen Story.

Sckened by admin in Pelham said...

Not true.. It was,obvious at the 4 16? Reg school committee that Vira was supporting Aisha,before supporting Aisha was the right thing. WATCH IT YOURSELF.. To confirm. VIRA is the one who shiws Trevor the email from Gina Tate, also asks about policy regarding stay away orders. SND REFOCUSSES the committee back to the fact that there isn't a written policy.. Shes,been there all, along. Glad she had the guts to come forward

Sckened by admin in Pelham said...

Chances are we will have three parents suing school.. One set is upset with 3rd grade.. Not sure the exact issue, Aisha,of course, and possibly bulliers,parents as their child was just threatened on school grounds by a parent .. And that parent was not banned.. also habe three to four 1st grade, parents pulling their children out of first grade and leaving district.. So it begins we, already list two school choice students earlier this year ..because things weren't handled for them..pretty bad for such a small school itc makes, me really sad. Do we have to keep the same superintendent as Amherst does ? Does anyone know ? Can she be fired from pelham and stay in amherst ?-

Dr. Ed said...

The Amherst/Pelham union predates the Quabbin, when Pelham had a lot more people/land and before UMass expanded in the 1960's. You could, in theory, dissolve it, not sure how.

Pelham really shouldn't be a town anymore, but with the fight over eliminating four, I guess they didn't want to fight it.

The rumor about making the school nonviable may well be true.

Anonymous said...

" Do we have to keep the same superintendent as Amherst does ? Does anyone know ? Can she be fired from pelham and stay in amherst?"

Is the principal effective in handling school issues?- It seems a timely response to parental concerns could've have prevented the current status!

Does the first grade bully need a para for their behavior?

Anonymous said...

Under the Amherst/Pelham superintendency union, the Amherst & Pelham schools share a superintendent & district-wide staff such as the people based at the ARPS central offices, the transportation dept, etc.

Pelham could at some point decide to leave the current union, & join another union with other towns or just go it on their own. But in doing so, they wouldn't need another superintendent but other district staff as well.

Anonymous said...

I have a job that is not useless.. As does my husband.I think you need to be careful of the stereotypes your throwing around. There are a lot v of people that have lost faith in our leader. Sry to say but she needs to go. Pelham should be town wec pay more taxes than you guys to in Amherst for few services. My suspicion is if weren't on the payroll or being supported by your queen wife im sure touc would be singing a different story. IS THIS How MARIA FEELS AS WELL.. Wouldnt surprise me after all the v c parents she had c pushed out of the district if she wants to run a orivate school she should go to Bement if they would have her.

Sckened by admin in Pelham said...

But we are protecting the bullier aren't we.. becausev the school failed the bullier , the victims, and aishas daughter..The school failed almost every first grader and the SI failed the Pelham community

Anonymous said...

THE question of the hour... does Maria just not like people from Pelham,? Does she not like black parents ? Does she not like parents who stand their ground? Or is it that she doesn't like black people from Pelham that stand their ground ? So the good news I guess ...Is we have no more black parents from Pelham for her to bully around. Is maria going to use the town comouter guy to find out who all of us anon posters are ?? She missed her opportunity to prove shes fair when she midsed the boat on the white parent who threatened a child that last week on school grounds .