RCS Connections

The latest post by those who share are name is a beautiful creative writing exercise. We hope Dr. Wynn Perdue would be pleased if one of her students submitted such creativity (though she may be appalled that it was so AI heavy. Who can know. She certainly does not seem to be a principled individual).

They assert with zero facts to back it up that Dr. Wynn Perdue was criticized for sharing their post because those who criticized it don't like the facts.

While their post about Dr. Wynn Perdue the other day was remarkably factual (especially compared to most of their "art"), it doesn't change the fact that she was criticized because most of their posts are, to be frank, poor fan fiction. Even a broken clock is right twice per day.

They claim, laughably, that their posts are able to be fact checked. Only, it would appear that those who fact check them find their comments deleted and their profiles blocked.

As candidate Laurin Gracey-Parker said a few years ago "If you're sharing something to potentially influence elections, it should be vetted. Media literacy is not a large ask, and should be practiced diligently. It's irresponsible at best and propaganda at worst..... It's an anonymous page that seeks to influence an election. I don't think that can be stressed enough." Only, she doesn't have a problem with the anonymous page that shares our name, but is a rather active participant there (or was until she filed for office). Rather, she was speaking out against an anonymous page that didn't agree with her preferred candidates.

It would seem Laurin Gracey-Parker's morality is as fluid as Dr. Wynn-Perdue's standards of collaboration.

We would urge the community to shun those who participate on a page filled with lies, hate, and division and focus on the matter at hand - truly moving Rochester Community Schools' into the future by more than just a poorly designed slogan and AI slop art.

Send a message to learn more

If you need a reason not to support the new slate of lies (calling themselves Rochester Forward), look no further.

They have the support of former Deputy Superintendent Debi Fragomeni.

Fragomeni, who served directly under Shaner.

Fragomeni, who called a district parent’s employer to get them fired for being critical of the district.

Fragomeni, who tried saying “no comment” in a deposition when the questions were not favorable to her.

You are the company you keep.

Avoid the Rochester Forward slate. They will go to any length to silence dissenters with supporters like Fragomeni and the page that shares our name.

We would like to remind everyone that less than a month ago, a parent advocating for their child with special needs was publicly accused by Blake of “having an axe to grind.”

It has come to our attention that we have not been posting pictures of people with John James as often as the other page that shares our name. Our apologies. Let us correct it here.

We are horrified that Trustee Blake made the discriminatory comments he did and then doubled down on them.

When they come so close to the point and yet miss it completely....

Former RCS teacher Cara Lougheed has weighed in on the other RCS Connections' latest nonsense which criticizes candidate Nick Blaszczyk for his idea of wanting to talk to teachers. She explains his idea is bad because of the retaliation the staff would face.

Even more bizarre, REA President Liz Schroeck liked her comment.

What is Liz Schroeck doing if she admits she isn't supportive of teachers being able to give feedback because of retaliation? One would think she would be concerned that the teachers that her whole job is to advocate for are silenced by administrators. You would think this comment, liked by several RCS staff, would clue her in that she should spend less time on a page of lies and more time doing her actual job.

Lougheed and Schroeck come so close to seeing the problem (district retaliation) but decide the best course of action is to allow teachers to feel silenced rather than risk the status quo.

We don't know Mr. Blaszczyk. But we do know that if the RCS Con page is this opposed to him, he's likely worth getting to know.

The other RCS Connections have manufactured yet another controversy out of routine, everyday business.

This week’s “scandal du jour”? Candidates paying filing fees to appear on the ballot.

This is a long-accepted and entirely commonplace practice. But to them, everything must have a sinister motive.

Maybe it’s worth asking: why do they assume that?

Consider the record. This is the same group that has:

• supported the district maintaining a dossier on parents who questioned leadership
• defended the firing of a parent who spoke up for students
• had a supporter attempt to gather information by posing as a reference check for a non-existent company
• publicized where a trustee’s young children attend school

We could go on, but the pattern is clear.

So when they push to identify who signed petitions for certain candidates, it’s fair to ask: what is the real goal?

If history is any guide, it’s not transparency; it’s targeting those who challenge the status quo.