APS Elementary Planning Mtg at Swanson - Option 1 in, Option 2 out, McKinley Moms out of contro

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They’re bringing the public in much later in the process, once the decision is all but made. Gone are the days of six different options for the community to rank and considering the community’s preference in selecting the ultimate recommendation, instead we now get one option that they’re going to go with, one alternative designed to push people to support the intended recommendation, and an explanation for why they chose the option they’ll be recommending.

Granted, I think this is better because the community showed it can’t handle having real input in the process, but it is different.

And thank goodness for that!
In some fairness, though, I really don't think they have a lot of options to seriously consider, let alone put forward. And this week's presentation helped illustrate that when they went through the various scenarios and explained why they didn't move them forward.

This 'process' is BS, seems like yesterday they were doing the Key / ASFS swap, before that the option school was moving to Nottingham and now McKinley is the target. Has the 'data' really changed that much?

Step right up to the APS Ouija Board, just don't disagree with Lisa - she is *always* right.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They’re bringing the public in much later in the process, once the decision is all but made. Gone are the days of six different options for the community to rank and considering the community’s preference in selecting the ultimate recommendation, instead we now get one option that they’re going to go with, one alternative designed to push people to support the intended recommendation, and an explanation for why they chose the option they’ll be recommending.

Granted, I think this is better because the community showed it can’t handle having real input in the process, but it is different.

And thank goodness for that!
In some fairness, though, I really don't think they have a lot of options to seriously consider, let alone put forward. And this week's presentation helped illustrate that when they went through the various scenarios and explained why they didn't move them forward.

This 'process' is BS, seems like yesterday they were doing the Key / ASFS swap, before that the option school was moving to Nottingham and now McKinley is the target. Has the 'data' really changed that much?

Step right up to the APS Ouija Board, just don't disagree with Lisa - she is *always* right.

Okay McKrazy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They’re bringing the public in much later in the process, once the decision is all but made. Gone are the days of six different options for the community to rank and considering the community’s preference in selecting the ultimate recommendation, instead we now get one option that they’re going to go with, one alternative designed to push people to support the intended recommendation, and an explanation for why they chose the option they’ll be recommending.

Granted, I think this is better because the community showed it can’t handle having real input in the process, but it is different.

And thank goodness for that!
In some fairness, though, I really don't think they have a lot of options to seriously consider, let alone put forward. And this week's presentation helped illustrate that when they went through the various scenarios and explained why they didn't move them forward.

This 'process' is BS, seems like yesterday they were doing the Key / ASFS swap, before that the option school was moving to Nottingham and now McKinley is the target. Has the 'data' really changed that much?

Step right up to the APS Ouija Board, just don't disagree with Lisa - she is *always* right.

The fact that they backed away from the Key/ASFS Swap and moving to Nottingham show that they ARE listening and ARE taking new data into account. The fundamental problems have not changed, though. Rosslyn and Courthouse have no where to go to school and there are too many seats in the west with the new Reed building. It's time for APS to finally make a strategic move. I'm sorry that it is inconvenient to you, personally.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The priority for border areas ( south Arlington), is not for the North. The North remembers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They’re bringing the public in much later in the process, once the decision is all but made. Gone are the days of six different options for the community to rank and considering the community’s preference in selecting the ultimate recommendation, instead we now get one option that they’re going to go with, one alternative designed to push people to support the intended recommendation, and an explanation for why they chose the option they’ll be recommending.

Granted, I think this is better because the community showed it can’t handle having real input in the process, but it is different.

And thank goodness for that!
In some fairness, though, I really don't think they have a lot of options to seriously consider, let alone put forward. And this week's presentation helped illustrate that when they went through the various scenarios and explained why they didn't move them forward.

This 'process' is BS, seems like yesterday they were doing the Key / ASFS swap, before that the option school was moving to Nottingham and now McKinley is the target. Has the 'data' really changed that much?

Step right up to the APS Ouija Board, just don't disagree with Lisa - she is *always* right.

The fact that they backed away from the Key/ASFS Swap and moving to Nottingham show that they ARE listening and ARE taking new data into account. The fundamental problems have not changed, though. Rosslyn and Courthouse have no where to go to school and there are too many seats in the west with the new Reed building. It's time for APS to finally make a strategic move. I'm sorry that it is inconvenient to you, personally.

What 'data' has really changed in the past year? Only hard data I have seen is enrollment is slowing down and new housing isn't coming online as quickly as the county predicts.

[Anonymous]

Current Ashlawn parent whose kids will remain at Ashlawn because we are very close. We absolutely love the school and don’t want families here who look down on it. If you so passionately hate the school, invest your energy in finding real estate in a school zone that you deem worthy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They’re bringing the public in much later in the process, once the decision is all but made. Gone are the days of six different options for the community to rank and considering the community’s preference in selecting the ultimate recommendation, instead we now get one option that they’re going to go with, one alternative designed to push people to support the intended recommendation, and an explanation for why they chose the option they’ll be recommending.

Granted, I think this is better because the community showed it can’t handle having real input in the process, but it is different.

And thank goodness for that!
In some fairness, though, I really don't think they have a lot of options to seriously consider, let alone put forward. And this week's presentation helped illustrate that when they went through the various scenarios and explained why they didn't move them forward.

This 'process' is BS, seems like yesterday they were doing the Key / ASFS swap, before that the option school was moving to Nottingham and now McKinley is the target. Has the 'data' really changed that much?

Step right up to the APS Ouija Board, just don't disagree with Lisa - she is *always* right.

The fact that they backed away from the Key/ASFS Swap and moving to Nottingham show that they ARE listening and ARE taking new data into account. The fundamental problems have not changed, though. Rosslyn and Courthouse have no where to go to school and there are too many seats in the west with the new Reed building. It's time for APS to finally make a strategic move. I'm sorry that it is inconvenient to you, personally.

What 'data' has really changed in the past year? Only hard data I have seen is enrollment is slowing down and new housing isn't coming online as quickly as the county predicts.

I take it you are speaking for Key on Key? You need to answer the fundamental question of why it's a travesty to move an option program that isn't even attracting Spanish speakers 2.5 miles but it's perfectly ok to send neighborhood kids over 3 miles to Taylor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They’re bringing the public in much later in the process, once the decision is all but made. Gone are the days of six different options for the community to rank and considering the community’s preference in selecting the ultimate recommendation, instead we now get one option that they’re going to go with, one alternative designed to push people to support the intended recommendation, and an explanation for why they chose the option they’ll be recommending.

Granted, I think this is better because the community showed it can’t handle having real input in the process, but it is different.

And thank goodness for that!
In some fairness, though, I really don't think they have a lot of options to seriously consider, let alone put forward. And this week's presentation helped illustrate that when they went through the various scenarios and explained why they didn't move them forward.

This 'process' is BS, seems like yesterday they were doing the Key / ASFS swap, before that the option school was moving to Nottingham and now McKinley is the target. Has the 'data' really changed that much?

Step right up to the APS Ouija Board, just don't disagree with Lisa - she is *always* right.

The fact that they backed away from the Key/ASFS Swap and moving to Nottingham show that they ARE listening and ARE taking new data into account. The fundamental problems have not changed, though. Rosslyn and Courthouse have no where to go to school and there are too many seats in the west with the new Reed building. It's time for APS to finally make a strategic move. I'm sorry that it is inconvenient to you, personally.

What 'data' has really changed in the past year? Only hard data I have seen is enrollment is slowing down and new housing isn't coming online as quickly as the county predicts.

I take it you are speaking for Key on Key? You need to answer the fundamental question of why it's a travesty to move an option program that isn't even attracting Spanish speakers 2.5 miles but it's perfectly ok to send neighborhood kids over 3 miles to Taylor.

What I am saying is that APS is playing a game of musical chairs with the *same* data - and we are running out of chairs. FYI I am not speaking for Key on Key - I am just talking about this process that feels like APS keeps throwing ideas against a wall to see what sticks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They’re bringing the public in much later in the process, once the decision is all but made. Gone are the days of six different options for the community to rank and considering the community’s preference in selecting the ultimate recommendation, instead we now get one option that they’re going to go with, one alternative designed to push people to support the intended recommendation, and an explanation for why they chose the option they’ll be recommending.

Granted, I think this is better because the community showed it can’t handle having real input in the process, but it is different.

And thank goodness for that!
In some fairness, though, I really don't think they have a lot of options to seriously consider, let alone put forward. And this week's presentation helped illustrate that when they went through the various scenarios and explained why they didn't move them forward.

This 'process' is BS, seems like yesterday they were doing the Key / ASFS swap, before that the option school was moving to Nottingham and now McKinley is the target. Has the 'data' really changed that much?

Step right up to the APS Ouija Board, just don't disagree with Lisa - she is *always* right.

The fact that they backed away from the Key/ASFS Swap and moving to Nottingham show that they ARE listening and ARE taking new data into account. The fundamental problems have not changed, though. Rosslyn and Courthouse have no where to go to school and there are too many seats in the west with the new Reed building. It's time for APS to finally make a strategic move. I'm sorry that it is inconvenient to you, personally.

What 'data' has really changed in the past year? Only hard data I have seen is enrollment is slowing down and new housing isn't coming online as quickly as the county predicts.

I take it you are speaking for Key on Key? You need to answer the fundamental question of why it's a travesty to move an option program that isn't even attracting Spanish speakers 2.5 miles but it's perfectly ok to send neighborhood kids over 3 miles to Taylor.

What I am saying is that APS is playing a game of musical chairs with the *same* data - and we are running out of chairs. FYI I am not speaking for Key on Key - I am just talking about this process that feels like APS keeps throwing ideas against a wall to see what sticks.

Ok... What is your proposal, then? Do nothing and draw boundaries around current locations? Something else? I just don't see a better option, but maybe you do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:She's has the right to be pissed, the school isn't going to compensate her for the 30% drop in education quality and house value.

Give it a rest, troll.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Guessing that several DWs are yelling at their DHs that “we should have bought in the 22207! They’re always safe!”

The writing’s been on the wall since the Kenmore scare of 5 years ago.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Current Ashlawn parent whose kids will remain at Ashlawn because we are very close. We absolutely love the school and don’t want families here who look down on it. If you so passionately hate the school, invest your energy in finding real estate in a school zone that you deem worthy.

Same boat as you. All I can say is I'm glad her kids' grades dont overlap with mine, I figure that will help minimize exposure to that toxicity

[Anonymous]

You guys on DCUM restore in me the hope that AEM takes away.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They’re bringing the public in much later in the process, once the decision is all but made. Gone are the days of six different options for the community to rank and considering the community’s preference in selecting the ultimate recommendation, instead we now get one option that they’re going to go with, one alternative designed to push people to support the intended recommendation, and an explanation for why they chose the option they’ll be recommending.

Granted, I think this is better because the community showed it can’t handle having real input in the process, but it is different.

And thank goodness for that!
In some fairness, though, I really don't think they have a lot of options to seriously consider, let alone put forward. And this week's presentation helped illustrate that when they went through the various scenarios and explained why they didn't move them forward.

This 'process' is BS, seems like yesterday they were doing the Key / ASFS swap, before that the option school was moving to Nottingham and now McKinley is the target. Has the 'data' really changed that much?

Step right up to the APS Ouija Board, just don't disagree with Lisa - she is *always* right.

The fact that they backed away from the Key/ASFS Swap and moving to Nottingham show that they ARE listening and ARE taking new data into account. The fundamental problems have not changed, though. Rosslyn and Courthouse have no where to go to school and there are too many seats in the west with the new Reed building. It's time for APS to finally make a strategic move. I'm sorry that it is inconvenient to you, personally.

What 'data' has really changed in the past year? Only hard data I have seen is enrollment is slowing down and new housing isn't coming online as quickly as the county predicts.

I take it you are speaking for Key on Key? You need to answer the fundamental question of why it's a travesty to move an option program that isn't even attracting Spanish speakers 2.5 miles but it's perfectly ok to send neighborhood kids over 3 miles to Taylor.

What I am saying is that APS is playing a game of musical chairs with the *same* data - and we are running out of chairs. FYI I am not speaking for Key on Key - I am just talking about this process that feels like APS keeps throwing ideas against a wall to see what sticks.

Ok... What is your proposal, then? Do nothing and draw boundaries around current locations? Something else? I just don't see a better option, but maybe you do.

APS has the *experts* - what they need to do is hire decisive men to work there, not the wet noodles they seem to get. The current team of APS administrators act like a bunch of chickens running around with no heads.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They’re bringing the public in much later in the process, once the decision is all but made. Gone are the days of six different options for the community to rank and considering the community’s preference in selecting the ultimate recommendation, instead we now get one option that they’re going to go with, one alternative designed to push people to support the intended recommendation, and an explanation for why they chose the option they’ll be recommending.

Granted, I think this is better because the community showed it can’t handle having real input in the process, but it is different.

And thank goodness for that!
In some fairness, though, I really don't think they have a lot of options to seriously consider, let alone put forward. And this week's presentation helped illustrate that when they went through the various scenarios and explained why they didn't move them forward.

This 'process' is BS, seems like yesterday they were doing the Key / ASFS swap, before that the option school was moving to Nottingham and now McKinley is the target. Has the 'data' really changed that much?

Step right up to the APS Ouija Board, just don't disagree with Lisa - she is *always* right.

The fact that they backed away from the Key/ASFS Swap and moving to Nottingham show that they ARE listening and ARE taking new data into account. The fundamental problems have not changed, though. Rosslyn and Courthouse have no where to go to school and there are too many seats in the west with the new Reed building. It's time for APS to finally make a strategic move. I'm sorry that it is inconvenient to you, personally.

What 'data' has really changed in the past year? Only hard data I have seen is enrollment is slowing down and new housing isn't coming online as quickly as the county predicts.

I take it you are speaking for Key on Key? You need to answer the fundamental question of why it's a travesty to move an option program that isn't even attracting Spanish speakers 2.5 miles but it's perfectly ok to send neighborhood kids over 3 miles to Taylor.

What I am saying is that APS is playing a game of musical chairs with the *same* data - and we are running out of chairs. FYI I am not speaking for Key on Key - I am just talking about this process that feels like APS keeps throwing ideas against a wall to see what sticks.

Ok... What is your proposal, then? Do nothing and draw boundaries around current locations? Something else? I just don't see a better option, but maybe you do.

APS has the *experts* - what they need to do is hire decisive men to work there, not the wet noodles they seem to get. The current team of APS administrators act like a bunch of chickens running around with no heads.

“Decisive men”? Lol. Thanks but no thanks.