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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Right, EVERYONE should be doing that, not just the parents who support the moves. They didn't word it "help hold APS accountable", they said "hold APS accountable". Implying it wasn't their responsibility.

We will see what they actually do when it comes down to it. Will they be spiteful or constructive?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/arlington-makes-a-bad-move-on-elementary-schools/2020/02/09/e4812398-4a9d-11ea-8a1f-de1597be6cbc_story.html

I can’t access it. Who wrote it?

The McKinley PTA president. Her gotcha points are that they didn't follow the boundary procedure and that it hurts poor minority kids. Apparently she didn't see the inherent contradiction in this sentence: "One of these programs, Key Immersion, will be moved into a building where it will have to try to function at 152 percent capacity. Many Spanish-speaking families won’t be able to move with Key to its new location."

When I read it I couldn't believe she put those two things back to back. Um, you just solved the problem! Not everyone will move with the program, which solves the capacity issue. They can figure out future enrollment once they see how many Key Immersion families move.

I actually respected how she professionally handled the process and parents at McKinley - until now. This is lower than the trash that McKrazy and Data Dudes were spewing out.

I don't understand the statement that the boundary-only approach would have involved fewer buses and re-assigning fewer students. I assume she's probably counting all the ATS and Key kids moving en masse? Otherwise this statement makes no sense. And there is no way that community driven boundary option involved less busing. Just no way.

If London can utilize double decker buses, so can APS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Right, EVERYONE should be doing that, not just the parents who support the moves. They didn't word it "help hold APS accountable", they said "hold APS accountable". Implying it wasn't their responsibility.

We will see what they actually do when it comes down to it. Will they be spiteful or constructive?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/arlington-makes-a-bad-move-on-elementary-schools/2020/02/09/e4812398-4a9d-11ea-8a1f-de1597be6cbc_story.html

I can’t access it. Who wrote it?

The McKinley PTA president. Her gotcha points are that they didn't follow the boundary procedure and that it hurts poor minority kids. Apparently she didn't see the inherent contradiction in this sentence: "One of these programs, Key Immersion, will be moved into a building where it will have to try to function at 152 percent capacity. Many Spanish-speaking families won’t be able to move with Key to its new location."

When I read it I couldn't believe she put those two things back to back. Um, you just solved the problem! Not everyone will move with the program, which solves the capacity issue. They can figure out future enrollment once they see how many Key Immersion families move.

I actually respected how she professionally handled the process and parents at McKinley - until now. This is lower than the trash that McKrazy and Data Dudes were spewing out.

Eh...I felt very silenced as a pro-move McKinley parent and I know others felt exactly the same. Pretty much out of the gate, the emails were - here's what we think, here's your talking points, here's your chance to go tell the Board how anti-move you are. No balance AT ALL. Very uncomfortable. After a few of those emails, who is going to show up at a PTA meeting or a SB meeting and openly disagree? A total silencing effect.

I'm sure she'd say the people in the room at a first PTA meeting to discuss this issue all agreed with her. See: self-selection. You are representing a lot more people than the people who show up to one of your insular, clubby PTA meetings. Or you're supposed to at least.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Right, EVERYONE should be doing that, not just the parents who support the moves. They didn't word it "help hold APS accountable", they said "hold APS accountable". Implying it wasn't their responsibility.

We will see what they actually do when it comes down to it. Will they be spiteful or constructive?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/arlington-makes-a-bad-move-on-elementary-schools/2020/02/09/e4812398-4a9d-11ea-8a1f-de1597be6cbc_story.html

I can’t access it. Who wrote it?

The McKinley PTA president. Her gotcha points are that they didn't follow the boundary procedure and that it hurts poor minority kids. Apparently she didn't see the inherent contradiction in this sentence: "One of these programs, Key Immersion, will be moved into a building where it will have to try to function at 152 percent capacity. Many Spanish-speaking families won’t be able to move with Key to its new location."

When I read it I couldn't believe she put those two things back to back. Um, you just solved the problem! Not everyone will move with the program, which solves the capacity issue. They can figure out future enrollment once they see how many Key Immersion families move.

I actually respected how she professionally handled the process and parents at McKinley - until now. This is lower than the trash that McKrazy and Data Dudes were spewing out.

Eh...I felt very silenced as a pro-move McKinley parent and I know others felt exactly the same. Pretty much out of the gate, the emails were - here's what we think, here's your talking points, here's your chance to go tell the Board how anti-move you are. No balance AT ALL. Very uncomfortable. After a few of those emails, who is going to show up at a PTA meeting or a SB meeting and openly disagree? A total silencing effect.

I'm sure she'd say the people in the room at a first PTA meeting to discuss this issue all agreed with her. See: self-selection. You are representing a lot more people than the people who show up to one of your insular, clubby PTA meetings. Or you're supposed to at least.

Didn't several other PTA Presidents speak up as pro-move? She is acting like a puppet for a small minority who are more concerned with property values than the realities that our county is facing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Right, EVERYONE should be doing that, not just the parents who support the moves. They didn't word it "help hold APS accountable", they said "hold APS accountable". Implying it wasn't their responsibility.

We will see what they actually do when it comes down to it. Will they be spiteful or constructive?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/arlington-makes-a-bad-move-on-elementary-schools/2020/02/09/e4812398-4a9d-11ea-8a1f-de1597be6cbc_story.html

I can’t access it. Who wrote it?

The McKinley PTA president. Her gotcha points are that they didn't follow the boundary procedure and that it hurts poor minority kids. Apparently she didn't see the inherent contradiction in this sentence: "One of these programs, Key Immersion, will be moved into a building where it will have to try to function at 152 percent capacity. Many Spanish-speaking families won’t be able to move with Key to its new location."

When I read it I couldn't believe she put those two things back to back. Um, you just solved the problem! Not everyone will move with the program, which solves the capacity issue. They can figure out future enrollment once they see how many Key Immersion families move.

I actually respected how she professionally handled the process and parents at McKinley - until now. This is lower than the trash that McKrazy and Data Dudes were spewing out.

Can we nickname you “ad hominem poster”?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Key did this all wrong. They should have accepted that they were moving early on and spent their efforts advocating for a move to a building that meets their needs.

They really aren't in a bad position right now all things considered. They got THE central location in the county and there is already a feasibility study underway for an addition. All they have to do is advocate hard for the addition to be done as quickly as possible (preferably without being jerks) and they are golden.

If 40% of the current Key isn't going to move, why do they need an addition?
But seriously, if they can't get more Spanish speaking applicants, than they probably don't need an addition. I think they only got 35 Spanish speaking applicants last year, it will be interesting to see how many they get this year. If the number doesn't go up, than they need to reduce the number of Kindergarten classrooms.


If there is room for more seats there we should build them. (Since we need seats and all)

They can change to a different model (not 50/50) if the current one isn’t working.

Question - are there enough Spanish language students near the ATS site to make an expanded Key work? Is the move + potentially building more seats going to lead to the collapse of Key just like they feared but for different reasons? In following this board it seems like:

1. Spanish language community is not all that into immersion.

2. English language families were only using Key for location/metro proximity and may not want to move. Plus many parents pulled their kids out in later years anyway due to immersion causing them falling behind in math & other core competencies.

3. Alot of potential english language families who were in the Key zone and paying attention to all of this were turned off by the behavior of parents and teachers there and are no longer interested in sending their kid to such a toxic community.

Who does that leave to go to new Key? Looking at the geographic eligibility - most of the Key zone are people who Key tried to throw under the bus in their many many maps. There aren't even any South Arlington "bad" School refugees to opt in purely to escape there neighborhood schools. Key only pulls from Fleet which has some of the best demographics south of 50. Maybe they zone Barcroft into new Key eligibility and thats who opts in?

[Anonymous]

“Apparently Claremont is running a "50:50" model program with 28% Spanish speakers, so it shouldn't be too much of a problem to keep it.”

Where did you pull these numbers from? Looks like Claremont is 51.8% Hispanic according to the APS Stats.

Yes, not all Hispanics are Spanish speakers. But I highly doubt there is that much of a drop off.

https://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Civil-Rights-Table-1-2019-12-13-web-002.pdf

[Anonymous]

Some Key families—rich or not rich- are there to escape from their neighborhood school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Some Key families—rich or not rich- are there to escape from their neighborhood school.

Can’t that be said for most Option school families? Have you ever looked at how many families opt out of title I neighborhood schools for Option schools?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Key did this all wrong. They should have accepted that they were moving early on and spent their efforts advocating for a move to a building that meets their needs.

They really aren't in a bad position right now all things considered. They got THE central location in the county and there is already a feasibility study underway for an addition. All they have to do is advocate hard for the addition to be done as quickly as possible (preferably without being jerks) and they are golden.

If 40% of the current Key isn't going to move, why do they need an addition?
But seriously, if they can't get more Spanish speaking applicants, than they probably don't need an addition. I think they only got 35 Spanish speaking applicants last year, it will be interesting to see how many they get this year. If the number doesn't go up, than they need to reduce the number of Kindergarten classrooms.

If there is room for more seats there we should build them. (Since we need seats and all)

+1. Even without more students enrolling in the immersion program, those extra seats can be used for Pre-K, Special Ed, etc.

Yes! And I like the K-8 immersion suggestion from earlier.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Right, EVERYONE should be doing that, not just the parents who support the moves. They didn't word it "help hold APS accountable", they said "hold APS accountable". Implying it wasn't their responsibility.

We will see what they actually do when it comes down to it. Will they be spiteful or constructive?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/arlington-makes-a-bad-move-on-elementary-schools/2020/02/09/e4812398-4a9d-11ea-8a1f-de1597be6cbc_story.html

I can’t access it. Who wrote it?

The McKinley PTA president. Her gotcha points are that they didn't follow the boundary procedure and that it hurts poor minority kids. Apparently she didn't see the inherent contradiction in this sentence: "One of these programs, Key Immersion, will be moved into a building where it will have to try to function at 152 percent capacity. Many Spanish-speaking families won’t be able to move with Key to its new location."

When I read it I couldn't believe she put those two things back to back. Um, you just solved the problem! Not everyone will move with the program, which solves the capacity issue. They can figure out future enrollment once they see how many Key Immersion families move.

I actually respected how she professionally handled the process and parents at McKinley - until now. This is lower than the trash that McKrazy and Data Dudes were spewing out.

Yes, the op-ed was slimy. Very misleading and such an obvious ploy for sympathy. She is exploiting those at-risk families.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Right, EVERYONE should be doing that, not just the parents who support the moves. They didn't word it "help hold APS accountable", they said "hold APS accountable". Implying it wasn't their responsibility.

We will see what they actually do when it comes down to it. Will they be spiteful or constructive?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/arlington-makes-a-bad-move-on-elementary-schools/2020/02/09/e4812398-4a9d-11ea-8a1f-de1597be6cbc_story.html

I can’t access it. Who wrote it?

The McKinley PTA president. Her gotcha points are that they didn't follow the boundary procedure and that it hurts poor minority kids. Apparently she didn't see the inherent contradiction in this sentence: "One of these programs, Key Immersion, will be moved into a building where it will have to try to function at 152 percent capacity. Many Spanish-speaking families won’t be able to move with Key to its new location."

When I read it I couldn't believe she put those two things back to back. Um, you just solved the problem! Not everyone will move with the program, which solves the capacity issue. They can figure out future enrollment once they see how many Key Immersion families move.

I actually respected how she professionally handled the process and parents at McKinley - until now. This is lower than the trash that McKrazy and Data Dudes were spewing out.

Yes, the op-ed was slimy. Very misleading and such an obvious ploy for sympathy. She is exploiting those at-risk families.

IMO a good letter and well reasoned.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Right, EVERYONE should be doing that, not just the parents who support the moves. They didn't word it "help hold APS accountable", they said "hold APS accountable". Implying it wasn't their responsibility.

We will see what they actually do when it comes down to it. Will they be spiteful or constructive?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/arlington-makes-a-bad-move-on-elementary-schools/2020/02/09/e4812398-4a9d-11ea-8a1f-de1597be6cbc_story.html

I can’t access it. Who wrote it?

The McKinley PTA president. Her gotcha points are that they didn't follow the boundary procedure and that it hurts poor minority kids. Apparently she didn't see the inherent contradiction in this sentence: "One of these programs, Key Immersion, will be moved into a building where it will have to try to function at 152 percent capacity. Many Spanish-speaking families won’t be able to move with Key to its new location."

When I read it I couldn't believe she put those two things back to back. Um, you just solved the problem! Not everyone will move with the program, which solves the capacity issue. They can figure out future enrollment once they see how many Key Immersion families move.

I actually respected how she professionally handled the process and parents at McKinley - until now. This is lower than the trash that McKrazy and Data Dudes were spewing out.

Yes, the op-ed was slimy. Very misleading and such an obvious ploy for sympathy. She is exploiting those at-risk families.

IMO a good letter and well reasoned.

Thanks Mary for joining the conversation - please move along.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

“Apparently Claremont is running a "50:50" model program with 28% Spanish speakers, so it shouldn't be too much of a problem to keep it.”

Where did you pull these numbers from? Looks like Claremont is 51.8% Hispanic according to the APS Stats.

Yes, not all Hispanics are Spanish speakers. But I highly doubt there is that much of a drop off.

https://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Civil-Rights-Table-1-2019-12-13-web-002.pdf

Questions 12 and 13 have different percentages, 39% and 28%, not sure what the difference is

https://www.apsva.us/engage/planning-for-2020-elementary-school-boundary-process/faqs-elementary-school-planning-for-2021-boundary/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Right, EVERYONE should be doing that, not just the parents who support the moves. They didn't word it "help hold APS accountable", they said "hold APS accountable". Implying it wasn't their responsibility.

We will see what they actually do when it comes down to it. Will they be spiteful or constructive?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/arlington-makes-a-bad-move-on-elementary-schools/2020/02/09/e4812398-4a9d-11ea-8a1f-de1597be6cbc_story.html

I can’t access it. Who wrote it?

The McKinley PTA president. Her gotcha points are that they didn't follow the boundary procedure and that it hurts poor minority kids. Apparently she didn't see the inherent contradiction in this sentence: "One of these programs, Key Immersion, will be moved into a building where it will have to try to function at 152 percent capacity. Many Spanish-speaking families won’t be able to move with Key to its new location."

When I read it I couldn't believe she put those two things back to back. Um, you just solved the problem! Not everyone will move with the program, which solves the capacity issue. They can figure out future enrollment once they see how many Key Immersion families move.

I actually respected how she professionally handled the process and parents at McKinley - until now. This is lower than the trash that McKrazy and Data Dudes were spewing out.

Yes, the op-ed was slimy. Very misleading and such an obvious ploy for sympathy. She is exploiting those at-risk families.

IMO a good letter and well reasoned.

Giving conflicting “facts” to support your cause does not make for either a good or well reasoned letter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Right, EVERYONE should be doing that, not just the parents who support the moves. They didn't word it "help hold APS accountable", they said "hold APS accountable". Implying it wasn't their responsibility.

We will see what they actually do when it comes down to it. Will they be spiteful or constructive?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/arlington-makes-a-bad-move-on-elementary-schools/2020/02/09/e4812398-4a9d-11ea-8a1f-de1597be6cbc_story.html

I can’t access it. Who wrote it?

The McKinley PTA president. Her gotcha points are that they didn't follow the boundary procedure and that it hurts poor minority kids. Apparently she didn't see the inherent contradiction in this sentence: "One of these programs, Key Immersion, will be moved into a building where it will have to try to function at 152 percent capacity. Many Spanish-speaking families won’t be able to move with Key to its new location."

When I read it I couldn't believe she put those two things back to back. Um, you just solved the problem! Not everyone will move with the program, which solves the capacity issue. They can figure out future enrollment once they see how many Key Immersion families move.

I actually respected how she professionally handled the process and parents at McKinley - until now. This is lower than the trash that McKrazy and Data Dudes were spewing out.

Yes, the op-ed was slimy. Very misleading and such an obvious ploy for sympathy. She is exploiting those at-risk families.

IMO a good letter and well reasoned.

Nope. It was full of lies.

None of the community-generated scenarios worked - they certainly didn’t take 6 factors into consideration.
The community-generated scenarios did not result in fewer buses.
Key won’t need to function at 152%.
Key families can move if they are supported (and want to stick with immersion). Key families are willing to set up carpools to all school events, meetings, enrichment, etc.

She has fallen short on just about every claim she made.