APS: Think the "no move" campaign is going to work?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would be impacted by the rezoning and really do not care either way. Ashlawn is a nice school but way, way over crowded.

All schools are overcrowded - this is Arlington. Well, not Drew because we can't have both poor and crowded and well not Fleet because we can't have new and crowded. Will be interesting how they fix the SA boundary s$&*$show from the last process. If folks the moves process is a mess, just wait until a county-wide boundary process starts.

ATS does not have trailers.
Nor spanish immersion schools. They are under attended.

All three of those schools have trailers. Do you even live in Arlington?

ATS has two full grades in trailers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:McKinley PTA is now shamelessly sending out personalized emails to other PTAs to lobby for a no vote. The emails have very official-looking stats for each school to compare the impact of the APS scenarios against their 3 alternative scenarios. I have news - nice formatting can’t hide flawed analysis. But they are not lobbying...

Hahahahahaha!!! They are so dumb.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:McKinley PTA is now shamelessly sending out personalized emails to other PTAs to lobby for a no vote. The emails have very official-looking stats for each school to compare the impact of the APS scenarios against their 3 alternative scenarios. I have news - nice formatting can’t hide flawed analysis. But they are not lobbying...

Hahahahahaha!!! They are so dumb.

And so condescending and arrogant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:McKinley PTA is now shamelessly sending out personalized emails to other PTAs to lobby for a no vote. The emails have very official-looking stats for each school to compare the impact of the APS scenarios against their 3 alternative scenarios. I have news - nice formatting can’t hide flawed analysis. But they are not lobbying...

Do the scenarios in the McKinley PTA emails include the ones where Nottingham or Tuckahoe closes? Or are they just the moves and some no-moves proposals?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:McKinley PTA is now shamelessly sending out personalized emails to other PTAs to lobby for a no vote. The emails have very official-looking stats for each school to compare the impact of the APS scenarios against their 3 alternative scenarios. I have news - nice formatting can’t hide flawed analysis. But they are not lobbying...

Do the scenarios in the McKinley PTA emails include the ones where Nottingham or Tuckahoe closes? Or are they just the moves and some no-moves proposals?

It is the three No Moves proposals.

[Anonymous]

It’s a bit rich that McKinley thinks it can get support from other PTAs after its whole “we will not get involved, we trust the staff to make good choices” nonsense when Nottingham was proposed for an option site. They have no shame

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would be impacted by the rezoning and really do not care either way. Ashlawn is a nice school but way, way over crowded.

All schools are overcrowded - this is Arlington. Well, not Drew because we can't have both poor and crowded and well not Fleet because we can't have new and crowded. Will be interesting how they fix the SA boundary s$&*$show from the last process. If folks the moves process is a mess, just wait until a county-wide boundary process starts.

ATS does not have trailers.
Nor spanish immersion schools. They are under attended.

What? Claremont has the entire first grade (6 classes) in trailers. The building holds 400 something kids and has almost 800.

[Anonymous]

Yes. McKinley PTA (which started out presenting itself as a reasonable and calm player) has gone completely off the rails. Appeals to PTAs and personal rebukes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes. McKinley PTA (which started out presenting itself as a reasonable and calm player) has gone completely off the rails. Appeals to PTAs and personal rebukes.

This just shows how desperate they are. They KNOW more people support the moves than don't. My heavens, if they haven't convinced people by now with all their lettering and AEM-ing and forum-dominating, what makes them think they can persuade PTAs now 2 days before the public hearing and a week before the vote? Desperation. For those who support proposal 1, that's a good thing.

[Anonymous]

Where did the McKinley people get the maps they attached? Were those released by APS?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes. McKinley PTA (which started out presenting itself as a reasonable and calm player) has gone completely off the rails. Appeals to PTAs and personal rebukes.

This just shows how desperate they are. They KNOW more people support the moves than don't. My heavens, if they haven't convinced people by now with all their lettering and AEM-ing and forum-dominating, what makes them think they can persuade PTAs now 2 days before the public hearing and a week before the vote? Desperation. For those who support proposal 1, that's a good thing.

Don't count those chickens. For those who support 1, now is the time to make your voices heard.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Where did the McKinley people get the maps they attached? Were those released by APS?

APS released the planning unit data for proposal 1 & 2 back at the beginning of the process.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Where did the McKinley people get the maps they attached? Were those released by APS?

Those are parent generated. Please tell me they sent those maps to Long Branch, Ashlawn, and Barrett to show how much “better” they would be with no moves.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes. McKinley PTA (which started out presenting itself as a reasonable and calm player) has gone completely off the rails. Appeals to PTAs and personal rebukes.

This just shows how desperate they are. They KNOW more people support the moves than don't. My heavens, if they haven't convinced people by now with all their lettering and AEM-ing and forum-dominating, what makes them think they can persuade PTAs now 2 days before the public hearing and a week before the vote? Desperation. For those who support proposal 1, that's a good thing.

Don't count those chickens. For those who support 1, now is the time to make your voices heard.

Yes. The opposition is mounting a furious effort.

[Anonymous]

I sure hope those PTAs are critical thinkers and digest the implications for their families of the "no move" McKinley maps.