Hot off the presses - Arlington Parents for Education New Newsletter

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Lunch lady. Not going the way you expected is it???

Lunch lady be like.


And I bet she’s wondering why you nitwits think everyone is her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s really weird that APE comes to DCUM to share their newsletter.

People need to stop assuming people posting are in APE or SR or anything. There are a couple of people obsessed with ape here and wouldn’t be surprised if they post bs claiming to be them. I’m more sick of the anti ape rhetoric than I ever was at ape at this point.

[Anonymous]

I see my big mistake here. I was trying to have a rational exchange with someone unhampered by reason. Or logic. Or truth.

My bad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If this were my first exposure to APE this would all be very interesting but knowing that the same organization that now seems to be asking for increased teacher salaries was last year complaining that teachers were overly concerned about their health during covid and weren't working hard enough with remote learning tells me something about where the group really stands when it comes to teachers.

I'm at the point where APE says anything and I feel like I need to fact check it three different ways before I actually trust that it's true and not the product of some right-ish (for NOVA) wing spin machine. Beware.

Agreed!

+1

It’s a shame they didn’t just stick with the section about the testing. They didn’t even *lead* with that.

Instead, they started with that Northam/VDOE nonsense.

Tell me you didn’t read the newsletter without telling me you didn’t read the newsletter.

Which section do you think they led with? Wasn’t testing…

Hint: Go re-read the OP.

Troll.

School closures / SOLs / VMPI. All BS related to the current election. And apparently the #1 priority.

Section 2 was advocating for more testing. That was the only substantial section relevant to APS. Rest of newsletter was political filler.

You think public school closure regulations, standardized testing in public schools, and math curriculum in public schools have nothing to do with our public schools? That’s a new theory.

Yes, they started with a bunch of BS faux issues about “State-Level Education-Related Proposals and Legislation” because of the election.

They should have stuck with advocating for more testing. An actual issue with an actual solution that can help kids stay in the school.

The rest is BS, misinformation, or filler.

What part was misinformation? I am still confused about how public school regulation doesn’t relate to public schools. Do you think that just because the group’s focus is on APS they can’t advocate at all any level of public education regulation?

VMPI was misinformation. School closures is 100% political BS (explained on other thread). Aside from the testing section, the rest was filler.

Weak sauce.

Weakening SOL passing standards is filler?

[Anonymous]

Honest question from a newcomer here...just moved into the area a few months ago and have just started getting acquainted with APE and AEM. I don't understand how someone can be "in" either of these groups? They're just raising two separate collections of ideas/concerns, and everyone is free to disagree or agree with them, right? Why the animosity for debating policy? I would think that's a good thing. So far, both groups have brought up reasonable things I thought - this isn't the case of deranged right-wingers at school boards.....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Honest question from a newcomer here...just moved into the area a few months ago and have just started getting acquainted with APE and AEM. I don't understand how someone can be "in" either of these groups? They're just raising two separate collections of ideas/concerns, and everyone is free to disagree or agree with them, right? Why the animosity for debating policy? I would think that's a good thing. So far, both groups have brought up reasonable things I thought - this isn't the case of deranged right-wingers at school boards.....

Most of us are with u PP. But then you have the crazies on each side controlling the dialogue…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honest question from a newcomer here...just moved into the area a few months ago and have just started getting acquainted with APE and AEM. I don't understand how someone can be "in" either of these groups? They're just raising two separate collections of ideas/concerns, and everyone is free to disagree or agree with them, right? Why the animosity for debating policy? I would think that's a good thing. So far, both groups have brought up reasonable things I thought - this isn't the case of deranged right-wingers at school boards.....

Most of us are with u PP. But then you have the crazies on each side controlling the dialogue…

+1. It’s better to ignore any posters who try to wholly shut down any discussion coming from one group or another. Giving them oxygen only encourages them, and their fights are more about personal grudges than actual policy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s really weird that APE comes to DCUM to share their newsletter.

People need to stop assuming people posting are in APE or SR or anything. There are a couple of people obsessed with ape here and wouldn’t be surprised if they post bs claiming to be them. I’m more sick of the anti ape rhetoric than I ever was at ape at this point.

So someone not in APE came to DCUM to post their newsletter “hot off the presses” with a outline of the sections? Uh, ok 🙄🙄🙄

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s really weird that APE comes to DCUM to share their newsletter.

People need to stop assuming people posting are in APE or SR or anything. There are a couple of people obsessed with ape here and wouldn’t be surprised if they post bs claiming to be them. I’m more sick of the anti ape rhetoric than I ever was at ape at this point.

So someone not in APE came to DCUM to post their newsletter “hot off the presses” with a outline of the sections? Uh, ok 🙄🙄🙄

DP. Do you have anything of substance to add, or are you just trying to derail discussion?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If this were my first exposure to APE this would all be very interesting but knowing that the same organization that now seems to be asking for increased teacher salaries was last year complaining that teachers were overly concerned about their health during covid and weren't working hard enough with remote learning tells me something about where the group really stands when it comes to teachers.

I'm at the point where APE says anything and I feel like I need to fact check it three different ways before I actually trust that it's true and not the product of some right-ish (for NOVA) wing spin machine. Beware.

Agreed!

+1

It’s a shame they didn’t just stick with the section about the testing. They didn’t even *lead* with that.

Instead, they started with that Northam/VDOE nonsense.

Tell me you didn’t read the newsletter without telling me you didn’t read the newsletter.

Which section do you think they led with? Wasn’t testing…

Hint: Go re-read the OP.

Troll.

School closures / SOLs / VMPI. All BS related to the current election. And apparently the #1 priority.

Section 2 was advocating for more testing. That was the only substantial section relevant to APS. Rest of newsletter was political filler.

You think public school closure regulations, standardized testing in public schools, and math curriculum in public schools have nothing to do with our public schools? That’s a new theory.

Yes, they started with a bunch of BS faux issues about “State-Level Education-Related Proposals and Legislation” because of the election.

They should have stuck with advocating for more testing. An actual issue with an actual solution that can help kids stay in the school.

The rest is BS, misinformation, or filler.

What part was misinformation? I am still confused about how public school regulation doesn’t relate to public schools. Do you think that just because the group’s focus is on APS they can’t advocate at all any level of public education regulation?

VMPI was misinformation. School closures is 100% political BS (explained on other thread). Aside from the testing section, the rest was filler.

Weak sauce.

Weakening SOL passing standards is filler?

Pretty much. What’s the point of focusing on an assessment from last year? It was a crazy year with so many atypical factors that certainly affected test scores? They may have adjusted it last year simply because kids couldn’t retake as they normally do. Or there were challenges with how it was given that skewed results.

The actual issue is the learning gap and how to push this year to get kids back on track. That would have been a meaningful topic instead of the filler to rag on VDOE/Northam during a gubernatorial election.

So transparent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If this were my first exposure to APE this would all be very interesting but knowing that the same organization that now seems to be asking for increased teacher salaries was last year complaining that teachers were overly concerned about their health during covid and weren't working hard enough with remote learning tells me something about where the group really stands when it comes to teachers.

I'm at the point where APE says anything and I feel like I need to fact check it three different ways before I actually trust that it's true and not the product of some right-ish (for NOVA) wing spin machine. Beware.

Agreed!

+1

It’s a shame they didn’t just stick with the section about the testing. They didn’t even *lead* with that.

Instead, they started with that Northam/VDOE nonsense.

Tell me you didn’t read the newsletter without telling me you didn’t read the newsletter.

Which section do you think they led with? Wasn’t testing…

Hint: Go re-read the OP.

Troll.

School closures / SOLs / VMPI. All BS related to the current election. And apparently the #1 priority.

Section 2 was advocating for more testing. That was the only substantial section relevant to APS. Rest of newsletter was political filler.

You think public school closure regulations, standardized testing in public schools, and math curriculum in public schools have nothing to do with our public schools? That’s a new theory.

Yes, they started with a bunch of BS faux issues about “State-Level Education-Related Proposals and Legislation” because of the election.

They should have stuck with advocating for more testing. An actual issue with an actual solution that can help kids stay in the school.

The rest is BS, misinformation, or filler.

What part was misinformation? I am still confused about how public school regulation doesn’t relate to public schools. Do you think that just because the group’s focus is on APS they can’t advocate at all any level of public education regulation?

VMPI was misinformation. School closures is 100% political BS (explained on other thread). Aside from the testing section, the rest was filler.

Weak sauce.

Weakening SOL passing standards is filler?

Pretty much. What’s the point of focusing on an assessment from last year? It was a crazy year with so many atypical factors that certainly affected test scores? They may have adjusted it last year simply because kids couldn’t retake as they normally do. Or there were challenges with how it was given that skewed results.

The actual issue is the learning gap and how to push this year to get kids back on track. That would have been a meaningful topic instead of the filler to rag on VDOE/Northam during a gubernatorial election.

So transparent.

If that’s your view, then you actually should be really concerned about the changes to reading passing standards. The point of those passing standards isn’t to set a curve that ensures a certain number of students pass every year, it’s supposed to be to identify students and schools who aren’t meeting grade level standards for reading ability. Dropping the minimum score to pass that dramatically conceals how many children are not reading at the level they should be, which only reinforces the learning gap because it allows schools to pretend it doesn’t exist, or at least not to the extent it does.

Look what it’s done in practical terms - math scores weren’t adjusted he same way, we saw a massive drop in pass rates, and everyone is focused on how to address learning loss in math. We should be doing the same for reading but we’re not because this manipulation of passing scores let’s everyone pretend reading is going just fine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Honest question from a newcomer here...just moved into the area a few months ago and have just started getting acquainted with APE and AEM. I don't understand how someone can be "in" either of these groups? They're just raising two separate collections of ideas/concerns, and everyone is free to disagree or agree with them, right? Why the animosity for debating policy? I would think that's a good thing. So far, both groups have brought up reasonable things I thought - this isn't the case of deranged right-wingers at school boards.....

There is a lot of history with APE behaving poorly last year. They *did* have crazies yelling at the SB meeting. Very irrational and angry. Teacher bashing, aggressive attacks of other parents, etc.

They are trying to reinvent themselves now as a political lobbying entity. While discussion and advocacy are certainly great for everyone, it’s important to understand their positions and call out when they push misinformation or try to skew the conversation.

We shall see how much they help - or hurt - the conversation as the election nears.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If this were my first exposure to APE this would all be very interesting but knowing that the same organization that now seems to be asking for increased teacher salaries was last year complaining that teachers were overly concerned about their health during covid and weren't working hard enough with remote learning tells me something about where the group really stands when it comes to teachers.

I'm at the point where APE says anything and I feel like I need to fact check it three different ways before I actually trust that it's true and not the product of some right-ish (for NOVA) wing spin machine. Beware.

Agreed!

+1

It’s a shame they didn’t just stick with the section about the testing. They didn’t even *lead* with that.

Instead, they started with that Northam/VDOE nonsense.

Tell me you didn’t read the newsletter without telling me you didn’t read the newsletter.

Which section do you think they led with? Wasn’t testing…

Hint: Go re-read the OP.

Troll.

School closures / SOLs / VMPI. All BS related to the current election. And apparently the #1 priority.

Section 2 was advocating for more testing. That was the only substantial section relevant to APS. Rest of newsletter was political filler.

You think public school closure regulations, standardized testing in public schools, and math curriculum in public schools have nothing to do with our public schools? That’s a new theory.

Yes, they started with a bunch of BS faux issues about “State-Level Education-Related Proposals and Legislation” because of the election.

They should have stuck with advocating for more testing. An actual issue with an actual solution that can help kids stay in the school.

The rest is BS, misinformation, or filler.

What part was misinformation? I am still confused about how public school regulation doesn’t relate to public schools. Do you think that just because the group’s focus is on APS they can’t advocate at all any level of public education regulation?

VMPI was misinformation. School closures is 100% political BS (explained on other thread). Aside from the testing section, the rest was filler.

Weak sauce.

Weakening SOL passing standards is filler?

Pretty much. What’s the point of focusing on an assessment from last year? It was a crazy year with so many atypical factors that certainly affected test scores? They may have adjusted it last year simply because kids couldn’t retake as they normally do. Or there were challenges with how it was given that skewed results.

The actual issue is the learning gap and how to push this year to get kids back on track. That would have been a meaningful topic instead of the filler to rag on VDOE/Northam during a gubernatorial election.

So transparent.

If that’s your view, then you actually should be really concerned about the changes to reading passing standards. The point of those passing standards isn’t to set a curve that ensures a certain number of students pass every year, it’s supposed to be to identify students and schools who aren’t meeting grade level standards for reading ability. Dropping the minimum score to pass that dramatically conceals how many children are not reading at the level they should be, which only reinforces the learning gap because it allows schools to pretend it doesn’t exist, or at least not to the extent it does.

Look what it’s done in practical terms - math scores weren’t adjusted he same way, we saw a massive drop in pass rates, and everyone is focused on how to address learning loss in math. We should be doing the same for reading but we’re not because this manipulation of passing scores let’s everyone pretend reading is going just fine.

Schools and teachers should absolutely assess and determine where to focus efforts on remediation this year. The SOL assessments from last year may not be the best tool to accomplish that. Focusing on that now (Oct 2021) is distracting from practical efforts to get kids back on track.

APE has an opportunity to advocate for meaningful things here for our kids (like they did pushing for more covid testing). It’s a shame they would rather play politics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If this were my first exposure to APE this would all be very interesting but knowing that the same organization that now seems to be asking for increased teacher salaries was last year complaining that teachers were overly concerned about their health during covid and weren't working hard enough with remote learning tells me something about where the group really stands when it comes to teachers.

I'm at the point where APE says anything and I feel like I need to fact check it three different ways before I actually trust that it's true and not the product of some right-ish (for NOVA) wing spin machine. Beware.

Agreed!

+1

It’s a shame they didn’t just stick with the section about the testing. They didn’t even *lead* with that.

Instead, they started with that Northam/VDOE nonsense.

Tell me you didn’t read the newsletter without telling me you didn’t read the newsletter.

Which section do you think they led with? Wasn’t testing…

Hint: Go re-read the OP.

Troll.

School closures / SOLs / VMPI. All BS related to the current election. And apparently the #1 priority.

Section 2 was advocating for more testing. That was the only substantial section relevant to APS. Rest of newsletter was political filler.

You think public school closure regulations, standardized testing in public schools, and math curriculum in public schools have nothing to do with our public schools? That’s a new theory.

Yes, they started with a bunch of BS faux issues about “State-Level Education-Related Proposals and Legislation” because of the election.

They should have stuck with advocating for more testing. An actual issue with an actual solution that can help kids stay in the school.

The rest is BS, misinformation, or filler.

What part was misinformation? I am still confused about how public school regulation doesn’t relate to public schools. Do you think that just because the group’s focus is on APS they can’t advocate at all any level of public education regulation?

VMPI was misinformation. School closures is 100% political BS (explained on other thread). Aside from the testing section, the rest was filler.

Weak sauce.

Weakening SOL passing standards is filler?

Pretty much. What’s the point of focusing on an assessment from last year? It was a crazy year with so many atypical factors that certainly affected test scores? They may have adjusted it last year simply because kids couldn’t retake as they normally do. Or there were challenges with how it was given that skewed results.

The actual issue is the learning gap and how to push this year to get kids back on track. That would have been a meaningful topic instead of the filler to rag on VDOE/Northam during a gubernatorial election.

So transparent.

If that’s your view, then you actually should be really concerned about the changes to reading passing standards. The point of those passing standards isn’t to set a curve that ensures a certain number of students pass every year, it’s supposed to be to identify students and schools who aren’t meeting grade level standards for reading ability. Dropping the minimum score to pass that dramatically conceals how many children are not reading at the level they should be, which only reinforces the learning gap because it allows schools to pretend it doesn’t exist, or at least not to the extent it does.

Look what it’s done in practical terms - math scores weren’t adjusted he same way, we saw a massive drop in pass rates, and everyone is focused on how to address learning loss in math. We should be doing the same for reading but we’re not because this manipulation of passing scores let’s everyone pretend reading is going just fine.

Schools and teachers should absolutely assess and determine where to focus efforts on remediation this year. The SOL assessments from last year may not be the best tool to accomplish that. Focusing on that now (Oct 2021) is distracting from practical efforts to get kids back on track.

APE has an opportunity to advocate for meaningful things here for our kids (like they did pushing for more covid testing). It’s a shame they would rather play politics.

I don’t think you really understand the issue, because there are huge disconnects in your reasoning. You agree that schools should be addressing learning loss and providing remediation to students who are falling behind, right? So why are you fighting against efforts to highlight to extent of learning loss when it comes to reading, thereby enabling APS ignore the needs of students who are falling behind?

This is such a weird hill to choose to die on just because you don’t like APE.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Honest question from a newcomer here...just moved into the area a few months ago and have just started getting acquainted with APE and AEM. I don't understand how someone can be "in" either of these groups? They're just raising two separate collections of ideas/concerns, and everyone is free to disagree or agree with them, right? Why the animosity for debating policy? I would think that's a good thing. So far, both groups have brought up reasonable things I thought - this isn't the case of deranged right-wingers at school boards.....

AEM is just a Facebook group for discussion of all views. No agenda.

APE is an agenda oriented group that just incorporated as a 5041c4 and who ran a candidate for school board last year. Many people have a negative viewpoint of APE because of the way they have comported themselves and their attacks on teachers, the School board, staff and other parents.