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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I thought the School Board said they were not going to meet privately with schools any more.

So why does the letter say: "Yesterday evening several parents from McKinley Elementary school, including myself, met with
Barbara Kanninen and Tannia Talento to discuss the 2 proposals regarding elementary school moves."

Shame on BK and TT.

STAFF isn't meeting with individual PTA interest groups. Board members are elected officials and can meet with whomever they want.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The move is happening, Key. Sorry.

Can we look at the swap with ASFS? That seems like the best solution at this point.

Lol, no.

You don’t know what you have until it is gone!

Got played by asfs.

Nope. Key was the driving force behind "Stop the Swap".

And were played as useful idiots by ASFS.

[Anonymous]

I am sensing a slight shift away from the move now momentum.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am sensing a slight shift away from the move now momentum.

who is shifting? staff? Board members?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s so interesting that McKinley only advertised their no-move scenario on their website and tried to keep their Nottingham and Tuckahoe proposals secret.

Where else would they have posted it?

McKinley published their no-moves scenario on their publicly available website, but not the scenarios where Tuckahoe and Nottingham became option schools. Apparently they wanted to keep it a secret that they were also suggesting that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am sensing a slight shift away from the move now momentum.

who is shifting? staff? Board members?

The voices in pp’s head.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Anyone want to bet on how many pages this thread will go on before it finally dies? I'm going with 18 pages.

OP here: I thought it would get to maybe 5 or 6 but it's going strong.

Wish more haiku were published.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The move is happening, Key. Sorry.

Can we look at the swap with ASFS? That seems like the best solution at this point.

Lol, no.

You don’t know what you have until it is gone!

Got played by asfs.

It was actually set in motion by the change in the option and transfer policy. Ending neighborhood preference was actually pushed by S Arlington immersion parents, sooo.....

I wasn’t paying close attention then. Why was that group in favor of ending neighborhood preference?

People were moving into the attendance zone for guaranteed admission; so the school became very overcrowded and essentially nobody outside the preferred neighborhoods could get in. Some zoned for Claremont immersion were able to go to Key immersion when Key had space available. It had essentially become a neighborhood school. And, it's only right for an option program to be accessible by everyone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wonder if Erica Hewitt, Mac Mirchandani, Carly Kelly, Tamara McFadden, Emily Kahoe Chen, Kim Dam, Amanda Batchelet, Kendra Ervin, Kathleen Clark and Nathan McQueen knew that their names would be released publicly when they tried to throw Tuckahoe and Nottingham under the bus?

I am not a McKinley but I know some of those people on that list. The were cc:Ed on the email. That does not mean all of them were in support of the proposals. Some of them were at the meeting or on the email because of their volunteer roles for local civic associations.

What is up with the Ashlawn boundary they are proposing? This team of data "experts" must be laughed at by APS Staff. They didn't even deserve a response.

I'm confused - which Ashlawn boundary are you talking about?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am sensing a slight shift away from the move now momentum.

who is shifting? staff? Board members?

Not sure what PP is referring to but it looks like the AEM crowd hasn’t given up yet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The move is happening, Key. Sorry.

Can we look at the swap with ASFS? That seems like the best solution at this point.

Lol, no.

You don’t know what you have until it is gone!

Got played by asfs.

Nope. Key was the driving force behind "Stop the Swap".

And were played as useful idiots by ASFS.

How exactly were they “played”?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am sensing a slight shift away from the move now momentum.

who is shifting? staff? Board members?

Not sure what PP is referring to but it looks like the AEM crowd hasn’t given up yet.

They’re not exactly the brightest bulbs in the box.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wonder if Erica Hewitt, Mac Mirchandani, Carly Kelly, Tamara McFadden, Emily Kahoe Chen, Kim Dam, Amanda Batchelet, Kendra Ervin, Kathleen Clark and Nathan McQueen knew that their names would be released publicly when they tried to throw Tuckahoe and Nottingham under the bus?

I am not a McKinley but I know some of those people on that list. The were cc:Ed on the email. That does not mean all of them were in support of the proposals. Some of them were at the meeting or on the email because of their volunteer roles for local civic associations.

What is up with the Ashlawn boundary they are proposing? This team of data "experts" must be laughed at by APS Staff. They didn't even deserve a response.

I'm confused - which Ashlawn boundary are you talking about?

DP, but I think they mean Mckinleys salamander boundary suggestion https://mckinleypta.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Boundary-Only-Scenario-Map.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am sensing a slight shift away from the move now momentum.

who is shifting? staff? Board members?

Not sure what PP is referring to but it looks like the AEM crowd hasn’t given up yet.

They’re not exactly the brightest bulbs in the box.

They still have zero concern for neighborhood kids going to Taylor. They don’t even know their own FARMS rate (39.41 doesn’t sound as good as “over 43” I guess).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wonder if Erica Hewitt, Mac Mirchandani, Carly Kelly, Tamara McFadden, Emily Kahoe Chen, Kim Dam, Amanda Batchelet, Kendra Ervin, Kathleen Clark and Nathan McQueen knew that their names would be released publicly when they tried to throw Tuckahoe and Nottingham under the bus?

I am not a McKinley but I know some of those people on that list. The were cc:Ed on the email. That does not mean all of them were in support of the proposals. Some of them were at the meeting or on the email because of their volunteer roles for local civic associations.

What is up with the Ashlawn boundary they are proposing? This team of data "experts" must be laughed at by APS Staff. They didn't even deserve a response.

I'm confused - which Ashlawn boundary are you talking about?

DP, but I think they mean Mckinleys salamander boundary suggestion https://mckinleypta.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Boundary-Only-Scenario-Map.pdf

Only slightly better is the Ashlawn boundary in their Nottingham/Tuckahoe as option school scenarios. Both are worse than the current tail.