APS elementary planning initiative called off

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Always punting. It's their MO.

After they accidentally published a spreadsheet specifying staff preferences for option locations, identifying staff members by name, I wouldn't be surprised to learn that was a factor in pulling the plug. It really cast doubt as to whether the whole engagement process was authentic or just a dog and pony show.

I would. They are staff. We pay them to make recommendations. We're not in charge of Staff. They are not our hired help. If we don't like their recommendations, we press the elected officials not to adopt their recommendations. If they are good and sound recommendations, hopefully the SB ignores self-interested parents and act for the greater good. I think they are going to be very busy collecting data to show that their recommendations do align with the new strategic plan, which is about to be adopted. I think that's what they decided to wait for, because the strategic plan calls for quite a bit of change.

The engagement processes are not meant to indicate that parents, and the loudest among them, make the final call.

I think you are missing pp's point. Of course it is the staff's job to make recommendations, and they should do that based on what the data shows to be the best plan for APS rather than which parents shout the loudest. When you compare what that spreadsheet showed with the results of their first round of analysis and then again to their second, though, it gives the impression that the staff was being dishonest about both the process itself and about the bases for their eventual recommendation. The spreadsheet undermined the integrity of the staff and their work, and when asked about it directly in open office hours, the school board struggled to explain or defend it.

To the extent the spreadsheet is part of why they suspended the process, I think it's because the school board is trying to make some really big course corrections in its planning on short notice (e.g., fourth high school at the Career Center; elementary seats to the Education Center; relocating elementary schools and changing boundaries accordingly), and they can only do that if the public trusts that they are making sound judgments based on a thorough analysis of the considerations and data. The spreadsheet destroyed their ability to make that claim on the elementary location review, and there was no way for them to continue with that process without it carrying the stain of dishonesty that would have tainted their other work going on at the same time. I'm sure they will come back to it in a year or two with the appearance of a complete restart in the hopes that the community forgets this round.

But they aren't doing this. They are showing us what compromises we'd have to make if we went down that road. And nobody likes the compromises. This is all illustrative. Are they really going to not repair hvac's and roofs for four years? And move HS students into an ES and ES onto a HS campus? No, they are not. They are showing us how this is not a real option.

And I do not believe Staff has some sort of hidden agenda. If anything, they took community feedback and that's how Nottingham wound up as the option school (it has to be one of you, and you didn't show up to say "not it.")

How in the world are last month's changes to the Career Center and the Education Center not major course-corrections? Those are not illustrations, the only possible "illustrations" at this point are those showing how the neighborhood seats that *will* be going in at the Career Center *might* get some amenities down the road.

And the elementary planning initiative was not a "illustration," it was an actual plan to move programs around until they were forced to suspend it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Always punting. It's their MO.

After they accidentally published a spreadsheet specifying staff preferences for option locations, identifying staff members by name, I wouldn't be surprised to learn that was a factor in pulling the plug. It really cast doubt as to whether the whole engagement process was authentic or just a dog and pony show.

I would. They are staff. We pay them to make recommendations. We're not in charge of Staff. They are not our hired help. If we don't like their recommendations, we press the elected officials not to adopt their recommendations. If they are good and sound recommendations, hopefully the SB ignores self-interested parents and act for the greater good. I think they are going to be very busy collecting data to show that their recommendations do align with the new strategic plan, which is about to be adopted. I think that's what they decided to wait for, because the strategic plan calls for quite a bit of change.

The engagement processes are not meant to indicate that parents, and the loudest among them, make the final call.

I think you are missing pp's point. Of course it is the staff's job to make recommendations, and they should do that based on what the data shows to be the best plan for APS rather than which parents shout the loudest. When you compare what that spreadsheet showed with the results of their first round of analysis and then again to their second, though, it gives the impression that the staff was being dishonest about both the process itself and about the bases for their eventual recommendation. The spreadsheet undermined the integrity of the staff and their work, and when asked about it directly in open office hours, the school board struggled to explain or defend it.

To the extent the spreadsheet is part of why they suspended the process, I think it's because the school board is trying to make some really big course corrections in its planning on short notice (e.g., fourth high school at the Career Center; elementary seats to the Education Center; relocating elementary schools and changing boundaries accordingly), and they can only do that if the public trusts that they are making sound judgments based on a thorough analysis of the considerations and data. The spreadsheet destroyed their ability to make that claim on the elementary location review, and there was no way for them to continue with that process without it carrying the stain of dishonesty that would have tainted their other work going on at the same time. I'm sure they will come back to it in a year or two with the appearance of a complete restart in the hopes that the community forgets this round.

But they aren't doing this. They are showing us what compromises we'd have to make if we went down that road. And nobody likes the compromises. This is all illustrative. Are they really going to not repair hvac's and roofs for four years? And move HS students into an ES and ES onto a HS campus? No, they are not. They are showing us how this is not a real option.

And I do not believe Staff has some sort of hidden agenda. If anything, they took community feedback and that's how Nottingham wound up as the option school (it has to be one of you, and you didn't show up to say "not it.")

You're welcome to your opinion, but that is absolutely not how Nottingham wound up as the option school. I don't care if you trust staff or not, but if you think that Nottingham was chosen because not enough people showed up at a particular meeting, you're suggesting that the loudest parents are the only ones who matter.

It's pretty clear pp doesn't have the vaguest clue how we got here.

[Anonymous]

It doesn't matter. Reed will be the option school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It doesn't matter. Reed will be the option school.

Based on what? The SB has stated again and again that Reed will be a neighborhood school. And sure, things change but if you're stating this outright, state your source.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It doesn't matter. Reed will be the option school.

Based on what? The SB has stated again and again that Reed will be a neighborhood school. And sure, things change but if you're stating this outright, state your source.

There is no source, pp is speculating to rile people up. Ignore him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Always punting. It's their MO.

After they accidentally published a spreadsheet specifying staff preferences for option locations, identifying staff members by name, I wouldn't be surprised to learn that was a factor in pulling the plug. It really cast doubt as to whether the whole engagement process was authentic or just a dog and pony show.

I would. They are staff. We pay them to make recommendations. We're not in charge of Staff. They are not our hired help. If we don't like their recommendations, we press the elected officials not to adopt their recommendations. If they are good and sound recommendations, hopefully the SB ignores self-interested parents and act for the greater good. I think they are going to be very busy collecting data to show that their recommendations do align with the new strategic plan, which is about to be adopted. I think that's what they decided to wait for, because the strategic plan calls for quite a bit of change.

The engagement processes are not meant to indicate that parents, and the loudest among them, make the final call.

I think you are missing pp's point. Of course it is the staff's job to make recommendations, and they should do that based on what the data shows to be the best plan for APS rather than which parents shout the loudest. When you compare what that spreadsheet showed with the results of their first round of analysis and then again to their second, though, it gives the impression that the staff was being dishonest about both the process itself and about the bases for their eventual recommendation. The spreadsheet undermined the integrity of the staff and their work, and when asked about it directly in open office hours, the school board struggled to explain or defend it.

To the extent the spreadsheet is part of why they suspended the process, I think it's because the school board is trying to make some really big course corrections in its planning on short notice (e.g., fourth high school at the Career Center; elementary seats to the Education Center; relocating elementary schools and changing boundaries accordingly), and they can only do that if the public trusts that they are making sound judgments based on a thorough analysis of the considerations and data. The spreadsheet destroyed their ability to make that claim on the elementary location review, and there was no way for them to continue with that process without it carrying the stain of dishonesty that would have tainted their other work going on at the same time. I'm sure they will come back to it in a year or two with the appearance of a complete restart in the hopes that the community forgets this round.

But they aren't doing this. They are showing us what compromises we'd have to make if we went down that road. And nobody likes the compromises. This is all illustrative. Are they really going to not repair hvac's and roofs for four years? And move HS students into an ES and ES onto a HS campus? No, they are not. They are showing us how this is not a real option.

And I do not believe Staff has some sort of hidden agenda. If anything, they took community feedback and that's how Nottingham wound up as the option school (it has to be one of you, and you didn't show up to say "not it.")

How in the world are last month's changes to the Career Center and the Education Center not major course-corrections? Those are not illustrations, the only possible "illustrations" at this point are those showing how the neighborhood seats that *will* be going in at the Career Center *might* get some amenities down the road.

And the elementary planning initiative was not a "illustration," it was an actual plan to move programs around until they were forced to suspend it.

They are not actually changing anything with the CC and the Ed Center. They are still putting HS seats at both locations, unless you really think the SB is going to go forward with the second proposal? No way, because it still leaves the neighborhood furious, costs more, and we don't get that many more seats.

Finally, my point was that you can't have it both ways. Either Staff has some hidden agenda and has targeted Nottingham from day one and will not be moved for some unknown reason -OR- they took feedback from those who engaged early on and formulated their proposals with some of that feedback incorporated.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Always punting. It's their MO.

After they accidentally published a spreadsheet specifying staff preferences for option locations, identifying staff members by name, I wouldn't be surprised to learn that was a factor in pulling the plug. It really cast doubt as to whether the whole engagement process was authentic or just a dog and pony show.

I would. They are staff. We pay them to make recommendations. We're not in charge of Staff. They are not our hired help. If we don't like their recommendations, we press the elected officials not to adopt their recommendations. If they are good and sound recommendations, hopefully the SB ignores self-interested parents and act for the greater good. I think they are going to be very busy collecting data to show that their recommendations do align with the new strategic plan, which is about to be adopted. I think that's what they decided to wait for, because the strategic plan calls for quite a bit of change.

The engagement processes are not meant to indicate that parents, and the loudest among them, make the final call.

I think you are missing pp's point. Of course it is the staff's job to make recommendations, and they should do that based on what the data shows to be the best plan for APS rather than which parents shout the loudest. When you compare what that spreadsheet showed with the results of their first round of analysis and then again to their second, though, it gives the impression that the staff was being dishonest about both the process itself and about the bases for their eventual recommendation. The spreadsheet undermined the integrity of the staff and their work, and when asked about it directly in open office hours, the school board struggled to explain or defend it.

To the extent the spreadsheet is part of why they suspended the process, I think it's because the school board is trying to make some really big course corrections in its planning on short notice (e.g., fourth high school at the Career Center; elementary seats to the Education Center; relocating elementary schools and changing boundaries accordingly), and they can only do that if the public trusts that they are making sound judgments based on a thorough analysis of the considerations and data. The spreadsheet destroyed their ability to make that claim on the elementary location review, and there was no way for them to continue with that process without it carrying the stain of dishonesty that would have tainted their other work going on at the same time. I'm sure they will come back to it in a year or two with the appearance of a complete restart in the hopes that the community forgets this round.

But they aren't doing this. They are showing us what compromises we'd have to make if we went down that road. And nobody likes the compromises. This is all illustrative. Are they really going to not repair hvac's and roofs for four years? And move HS students into an ES and ES onto a HS campus? No, they are not. They are showing us how this is not a real option.

And I do not believe Staff has some sort of hidden agenda. If anything, they took community feedback and that's how Nottingham wound up as the option school (it has to be one of you, and you didn't show up to say "not it.")

How in the world are last month's changes to the Career Center and the Education Center not major course-corrections? Those are not illustrations, the only possible "illustrations" at this point are those showing how the neighborhood seats that *will* be going in at the Career Center *might* get some amenities down the road.

And the elementary planning initiative was not a "illustration," it was an actual plan to move programs around until they were forced to suspend it.

They are not actually changing anything with the CC and the Ed Center. They are still putting HS seats at both locations, unless you really think the SB is going to go forward with the second proposal? No way, because it still leaves the neighborhood furious, costs more, and we don't get that many more seats.

Finally, my point was that you can't have it both ways. Either Staff has some hidden agenda and has targeted Nottingham from day one and will not be moved for some unknown reason -OR- they took feedback from those who engaged early on and formulated their proposals with some of that feedback incorporated.

You don't think there's a difference between a neighborhood school and an option school? Um, okay.

[Anonymous]

The big mystery to me is which choice school they would realistically move to either Nottingham or Reed. They’ve made clear that they want immersion programs close to Spanish speaking communities, so it’s hard to see how either Nottingham or Reed would fit the bill. The central location of ATS makes it a great place for a choice school to stay. So what option programs is anyone even imagining for schools like Reed and Nottingham?

[Anonymous]

I believe it will be an IB choice program at Reed. I am not sure how much an IB school's curriculum will differ from a neighborhood school, but it will sound great on press releases. Form over substance - and that is what the board cares about, really. I heard rumors long ago that there was some talk about moving the science focus program to Reed, but the flight simulator cannot possibly be moved.

[Anonymous]

I'll see your flight simulator and raise you a slide (says Discovery parent).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'll see your flight simulator and raise you a slide (says Discovery parent).

Hmmm, that slide sounds like a good fit for Expeditionary Learning

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The big mystery to me is which choice school they would realistically move to either Nottingham or Reed. They’ve made clear that they want immersion programs close to Spanish speaking communities, so it’s hard to see how either Nottingham or Reed would fit the bill. The central location of ATS makes it a great place for a choice school to stay. So what option programs is anyone even imagining for schools like Reed and Nottingham?

The staff said in round two that if an option program were to go to Nottingham, it would be ATS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Always punting. It's their MO.

After they accidentally published a spreadsheet specifying staff preferences for option locations, identifying staff members by name, I wouldn't be surprised to learn that was a factor in pulling the plug. It really cast doubt as to whether the whole engagement process was authentic or just a dog and pony show.

I would. They are staff. We pay them to make recommendations. We're not in charge of Staff. They are not our hired help. If we don't like their recommendations, we press the elected officials not to adopt their recommendations. If they are good and sound recommendations, hopefully the SB ignores self-interested parents and act for the greater good. I think they are going to be very busy collecting data to show that their recommendations do align with the new strategic plan, which is about to be adopted. I think that's what they decided to wait for, because the strategic plan calls for quite a bit of change.

The engagement processes are not meant to indicate that parents, and the loudest among them, make the final call.

I think you are missing pp's point. Of course it is the staff's job to make recommendations, and they should do that based on what the data shows to be the best plan for APS rather than which parents shout the loudest. When you compare what that spreadsheet showed with the results of their first round of analysis and then again to their second, though, it gives the impression that the staff was being dishonest about both the process itself and about the bases for their eventual recommendation. The spreadsheet undermined the integrity of the staff and their work, and when asked about it directly in open office hours, the school board struggled to explain or defend it.

To the extent the spreadsheet is part of why they suspended the process, I think it's because the school board is trying to make some really big course corrections in its planning on short notice (e.g., fourth high school at the Career Center; elementary seats to the Education Center; relocating elementary schools and changing boundaries accordingly), and they can only do that if the public trusts that they are making sound judgments based on a thorough analysis of the considerations and data. The spreadsheet destroyed their ability to make that claim on the elementary location review, and there was no way for them to continue with that process without it carrying the stain of dishonesty that would have tainted their other work going on at the same time. I'm sure they will come back to it in a year or two with the appearance of a complete restart in the hopes that the community forgets this round.

But they aren't doing this. They are showing us what compromises we'd have to make if we went down that road. And nobody likes the compromises. This is all illustrative. Are they really going to not repair hvac's and roofs for four years? And move HS students into an ES and ES onto a HS campus? No, they are not. They are showing us how this is not a real option.

And I do not believe Staff has some sort of hidden agenda. If anything, they took community feedback and that's how Nottingham wound up as the option school (it has to be one of you, and you didn't show up to say "not it.")

How in the world are last month's changes to the Career Center and the Education Center not major course-corrections? Those are not illustrations, the only possible "illustrations" at this point are those showing how the neighborhood seats that *will* be going in at the Career Center *might* get some amenities down the road.

And the elementary planning initiative was not a "illustration," it was an actual plan to move programs around until they were forced to suspend it.

They are not actually changing anything with the CC and the Ed Center. They are still putting HS seats at both locations, unless you really think the SB is going to go forward with the second proposal? No way, because it still leaves the neighborhood furious, costs more, and we don't get that many more seats.

Finally, my point was that you can't have it both ways. Either Staff has some hidden agenda and has targeted Nottingham from day one and will not be moved for some unknown reason -OR- they took feedback from those who engaged early on and formulated their proposals with some of that feedback incorporated.

You don't think there's a difference between a neighborhood school and an option school? Um, okay.

I'm confused. Are you still talking about HS? Because, the vote for what the HS seats would be was officially TBD since last year, but the location was locked in. Neighbors began advocating almost immediately that the seats be changed to neighborhood, and it has been talked about at many meetings and work sessions as possibly having a neighborhood boundary. The neighborhood thought that by asking for a neighborhood school, it would force APS to revisit where they were placing seats and make the CC a real comprehensive HS. But it won't, because you can't fit a square peg in a round hole. The current proposals will just force some kids into a school with many fewer extracurricular activities. So now the neighborhood has to decide which idea they like less: a non-comprehensive neighborhood HS, or an option school that they are not zoned compelled to attend. Nobody has officially decided whether the seats will be option or neighborhood yet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I believe it will be an IB choice program at Reed. I am not sure how much an IB school's curriculum will differ from a neighborhood school, but it will sound great on press releases. Form over substance - and that is what the board cares about, really. I heard rumors long ago that there was some talk about moving the science focus program to Reed, but the flight simulator cannot possibly be moved.

Science Focus is not a program any longer, it's just a regular neighborhood school. It will get a neighborhood boundary.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Always punting. It's their MO.

After they accidentally published a spreadsheet specifying staff preferences for option locations, identifying staff members by name, I wouldn't be surprised to learn that was a factor in pulling the plug. It really cast doubt as to whether the whole engagement process was authentic or just a dog and pony show.

I would. They are staff. We pay them to make recommendations. We're not in charge of Staff. They are not our hired help. If we don't like their recommendations, we press the elected officials not to adopt their recommendations. If they are good and sound recommendations, hopefully the SB ignores self-interested parents and act for the greater good. I think they are going to be very busy collecting data to show that their recommendations do align with the new strategic plan, which is about to be adopted. I think that's what they decided to wait for, because the strategic plan calls for quite a bit of change.

The engagement processes are not meant to indicate that parents, and the loudest among them, make the final call.

I think you are missing pp's point. Of course it is the staff's job to make recommendations, and they should do that based on what the data shows to be the best plan for APS rather than which parents shout the loudest. When you compare what that spreadsheet showed with the results of their first round of analysis and then again to their second, though, it gives the impression that the staff was being dishonest about both the process itself and about the bases for their eventual recommendation. The spreadsheet undermined the integrity of the staff and their work, and when asked about it directly in open office hours, the school board struggled to explain or defend it.

To the extent the spreadsheet is part of why they suspended the process, I think it's because the school board is trying to make some really big course corrections in its planning on short notice (e.g., fourth high school at the Career Center; elementary seats to the Education Center; relocating elementary schools and changing boundaries accordingly), and they can only do that if the public trusts that they are making sound judgments based on a thorough analysis of the considerations and data. The spreadsheet destroyed their ability to make that claim on the elementary location review, and there was no way for them to continue with that process without it carrying the stain of dishonesty that would have tainted their other work going on at the same time. I'm sure they will come back to it in a year or two with the appearance of a complete restart in the hopes that the community forgets this round.

But they aren't doing this. They are showing us what compromises we'd have to make if we went down that road. And nobody likes the compromises. This is all illustrative. Are they really going to not repair hvac's and roofs for four years? And move HS students into an ES and ES onto a HS campus? No, they are not. They are showing us how this is not a real option.

And I do not believe Staff has some sort of hidden agenda. If anything, they took community feedback and that's how Nottingham wound up as the option school (it has to be one of you, and you didn't show up to say "not it.")

That's not how Nottingham ended up on the short list of potential option sites. It ended up there because the staff knew they should move a school to NW and Nottingham was a prime choice to make their job of drawing boundaries easier. Once they came to that conclusion, they went back and tried to create the data to justify it. They have already basically acknowledged this in small-group meetings.