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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I"m assuming y'all saw this;
https://wjla.com/news/local/youre-ignoring-us-arlington-families-speak-out-against-proposed-school-reassignments

That's gold. I see one angry parent, a number of parents with neutral expressions, and a whole lot of empty seats. Option 1 is not as terrible and controversial as a few people would like you to believe.[/quote
Do you see the armed officer standing watch.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I"m assuming y'all saw this;
https://wjla.com/news/local/youre-ignoring-us-arlington-families-speak-out-against-proposed-school-reassignments

That's gold. I see one angry parent, a number of parents with neutral expressions, and a whole lot of empty seats. Option 1 is not as terrible and controversial as a few people would like you to believe.[/quote
Do you see the armed officer standing watch.

Slow news day.

[Anonymous]

Not getting the outcome you want for your family =/= staff isn’t listening to you or doing their jobs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The Staff can't win here. If they produce a well thought out plan and defend it, they are accused of not listening to community feedback and having a predetermined outcome.
If they put out their initial thoughts as plans they are accused of coming up with half baked plans without doing the work to back it up.
Here- they clearly spent the summer working on the best plans they could get to. They are 'showing their work' in that in the engagement sessions they are showing some other plans they thought about and why they discarded them.

But here's the problem -- they're not "showing their work". They're saying, we see the work and you need to trust us that it'll all work out -- and McK got burned the last time they did this. I think "showing their work" would alleviate a lot of the concerns many parents have. Clearly they know which planning units they're planning to send to each school: they couldn't have formulated this plan without it. But they're NOT showing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Staff can't win here. If they produce a well thought out plan and defend it, they are accused of not listening to community feedback and having a predetermined outcome.
If they put out their initial thoughts as plans they are accused of coming up with half baked plans without doing the work to back it up.
Here- they clearly spent the summer working on the best plans they could get to. They are 'showing their work' in that in the engagement sessions they are showing some other plans they thought about and why they discarded them.

But here's the problem -- they're not "showing their work". They're saying, we see the work and you need to trust us that it'll all work out -- and McK got burned the last time they did this. I think "showing their work" would alleviate a lot of the concerns many parents have. Clearly they know which planning units they're planning to send to each school: they couldn't have formulated this plan without it. But they're NOT showing.

Huh? That data has been available for a while on the engage website. It’s there if you want it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Staff can't win here. If they produce a well thought out plan and defend it, they are accused of not listening to community feedback and having a predetermined outcome.
If they put out their initial thoughts as plans they are accused of coming up with half baked plans without doing the work to back it up.
Here- they clearly spent the summer working on the best plans they could get to. They are 'showing their work' in that in the engagement sessions they are showing some other plans they thought about and why they discarded them.

But here's the problem -- they're not "showing their work". They're saying, we see the work and you need to trust us that it'll all work out -- and McK got burned the last time they did this. I think "showing their work" would alleviate a lot of the concerns many parents have. Clearly they know which planning units they're planning to send to each school: they couldn't have formulated this plan without it. But they're NOT showing.

So what? They don’t owe you anything.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Staff can't win here. If they produce a well thought out plan and defend it, they are accused of not listening to community feedback and having a predetermined outcome.
If they put out their initial thoughts as plans they are accused of coming up with half baked plans without doing the work to back it up.
Here- they clearly spent the summer working on the best plans they could get to. They are 'showing their work' in that in the engagement sessions they are showing some other plans they thought about and why they discarded them.

But here's the problem -- they're not "showing their work". They're saying, we see the work and you need to trust us that it'll all work out -- and McK got burned the last time they did this. I think "showing their work" would alleviate a lot of the concerns many parents have. Clearly they know which planning units they're planning to send to each school: they couldn't have formulated this plan without it. But they're NOT showing.

If they issued a full boundary map, people would start fighting micro battles about their individual planning unit. Look at how many people saw the representative boundary map and wanted to know which streets the lines were on so they could decide whether or not they cared. I think it's pretty clear from the maps and information presented that more people will be better off with program moves than without. Not EVERYONE will be better off but more people than if they left all buildings in place. Haven't people been asking them to stop making piecemeal decisions and to think strategically? That's what is finally happening. We can have the boundary thunderdome later.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Staff can't win here. If they produce a well thought out plan and defend it, they are accused of not listening to community feedback and having a predetermined outcome.
If they put out their initial thoughts as plans they are accused of coming up with half baked plans without doing the work to back it up.
Here- they clearly spent the summer working on the best plans they could get to. They are 'showing their work' in that in the engagement sessions they are showing some other plans they thought about and why they discarded them.

But here's the problem -- they're not "showing their work". They're saying, we see the work and you need to trust us that it'll all work out -- and McK got burned the last time they did this. I think "showing their work" would alleviate a lot of the concerns many parents have. Clearly they know which planning units they're planning to send to each school: they couldn't have formulated this plan without it. But they're NOT showing.

Ugh. Deliver us from a county full of wannabe micro managers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Staff can't win here. If they produce a well thought out plan and defend it, they are accused of not listening to community feedback and having a predetermined outcome.
If they put out their initial thoughts as plans they are accused of coming up with half baked plans without doing the work to back it up.
Here- they clearly spent the summer working on the best plans they could get to. They are 'showing their work' in that in the engagement sessions they are showing some other plans they thought about and why they discarded them.

But here's the problem -- they're not "showing their work". They're saying, we see the work and you need to trust us that it'll all work out -- and McK got burned the last time they did this. I think "showing their work" would alleviate a lot of the concerns many parents have. Clearly they know which planning units they're planning to send to each school: they couldn't have formulated this plan without it. But they're NOT showing.

How is it they couldn’t have formed this plan without knowing which specific PUs will be moved in the boundary process?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Staff can't win here. If they produce a well thought out plan and defend it, they are accused of not listening to community feedback and having a predetermined outcome.
If they put out their initial thoughts as plans they are accused of coming up with half baked plans without doing the work to back it up.
Here- they clearly spent the summer working on the best plans they could get to. They are 'showing their work' in that in the engagement sessions they are showing some other plans they thought about and why they discarded them.

But here's the problem -- they're not "showing their work". They're saying, we see the work and you need to trust us that it'll all work out -- and McK got burned the last time they did this. I think "showing their work" would alleviate a lot of the concerns many parents have. Clearly they know which planning units they're planning to send to each school: they couldn't have formulated this plan without it. But they're NOT showing.

If they issued a full boundary map, people would start fighting micro battles about their individual planning unit. Look at how many people saw the representative boundary map and wanted to know which streets the lines were on so they could decide whether or not they cared. I think it's pretty clear from the maps and information presented that more people will be better off with program moves than without. Not EVERYONE will be better off but more people than if they left all buildings in place. Haven't people been asking them to stop making piecemeal decisions and to think strategically? That's what is finally happening. We can have the boundary thunderdome later.

+100 It's bad enough they have to deal with the freaking out of the McKinley/Key communities. Put the whole boundary change out there and then you are dealing with the entire district of complaining micromanagers. One thing at a time. I wouldn't blame them if they just make a boundary decision and don't even put it up for community comment, other than the couple weeks before presenting to the board and the board approval vote. The community has shown that they are incapable of being good-faith contributors to the process.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Staff can't win here. If they produce a well thought out plan and defend it, they are accused of not listening to community feedback and having a predetermined outcome.
If they put out their initial thoughts as plans they are accused of coming up with half baked plans without doing the work to back it up.
Here- they clearly spent the summer working on the best plans they could get to. They are 'showing their work' in that in the engagement sessions they are showing some other plans they thought about and why they discarded them.

But here's the problem -- they're not "showing their work". They're saying, we see the work and you need to trust us that it'll all work out -- and McK got burned the last time they did this. I think "showing their work" would alleviate a lot of the concerns many parents have. Clearly they know which planning units they're planning to send to each school: they couldn't have formulated this plan without it. But they're NOT showing.

If they issued a full boundary map, people would start fighting micro battles about their individual planning unit. Look at how many people saw the representative boundary map and wanted to know which streets the lines were on so they could decide whether or not they cared. I think it's pretty clear from the maps and information presented that more people will be better off with program moves than without. Not EVERYONE will be better off but more people than if they left all buildings in place. Haven't people been asking them to stop making piecemeal decisions and to think strategically? That's what is finally happening. We can have the boundary thunderdome later.

+100 It's bad enough they have to deal with the freaking out of the McKinley/Key communities. Put the whole boundary change out there and then you are dealing with the entire district of complaining micromanagers. One thing at a time. I wouldn't blame them if they just make a boundary decision and don't even put it up for community comment, other than the couple weeks before presenting to the board and the board approval vote. The community has shown that they are incapable of being good-faith contributors to the process.

Just a side note. I’m pretty sure state law requires school districts to give notice and opportunity to comment if a boundary change will impact a certain percentage of residents. So no, even if they wanted to just push it through, they’re probably required to suffer through a lot of public bickering. I honestly don’t remember the particulars of the law - I’m sure someone out there can pull the citation. I wonder if the broken record comment from staff about the location decision not constituting a boundary decision somehow ties into what is and is not required under that law.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Staff can't win here. If they produce a well thought out plan and defend it, they are accused of not listening to community feedback and having a predetermined outcome.
If they put out their initial thoughts as plans they are accused of coming up with half baked plans without doing the work to back it up.
Here- they clearly spent the summer working on the best plans they could get to. They are 'showing their work' in that in the engagement sessions they are showing some other plans they thought about and why they discarded them.

But here's the problem -- they're not "showing their work". They're saying, we see the work and you need to trust us that it'll all work out -- and McK got burned the last time they did this. I think "showing their work" would alleviate a lot of the concerns many parents have. Clearly they know which planning units they're planning to send to each school: they couldn't have formulated this plan without it. But they're NOT showing.

If they issued a full boundary map, people would start fighting micro battles about their individual planning unit. Look at how many people saw the representative boundary map and wanted to know which streets the lines were on so they could decide whether or not they cared. I think it's pretty clear from the maps and information presented that more people will be better off with program moves than without. Not EVERYONE will be better off but more people than if they left all buildings in place. Haven't people been asking them to stop making piecemeal decisions and to think strategically? That's what is finally happening. We can have the boundary thunderdome later.

+100 It's bad enough they have to deal with the freaking out of the McKinley/Key communities. Put the whole boundary change out there and then you are dealing with the entire district of complaining micromanagers. One thing at a time. I wouldn't blame them if they just make a boundary decision and don't even put it up for community comment, other than the couple weeks before presenting to the board and the board approval vote. The community has shown that they are incapable of being good-faith contributors to the process.

I wholeheartedly agree with this.

In other school districts, staff makes decisions and notifies parents about what changes to expect. So far Arlington has gone to the other extreme in soliciting round after round of community feedback. Parents have abused staff and each other when the outcome isn’t what they want. The community is the problem here, demanding more with each initiative. Some people will never be happy unless their butt is in a staff chair, making the decisions that they want to see, that will benefit them personally.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Staff can't win here. If they produce a well thought out plan and defend it, they are accused of not listening to community feedback and having a predetermined outcome.
If they put out their initial thoughts as plans they are accused of coming up with half baked plans without doing the work to back it up.
Here- they clearly spent the summer working on the best plans they could get to. They are 'showing their work' in that in the engagement sessions they are showing some other plans they thought about and why they discarded them.

But here's the problem -- they're not "showing their work". They're saying, we see the work and you need to trust us that it'll all work out -- and McK got burned the last time they did this. I think "showing their work" would alleviate a lot of the concerns many parents have. Clearly they know which planning units they're planning to send to each school: they couldn't have formulated this plan without it. But they're NOT showing.

Huh? That data has been available for a while on the engage website. It’s there if you want it.

It does not show which planning unit is moving where.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If what the PP said is true, Save McKinley needs to distance itself from the McKrazies who obviously only care about themselves and are willing to make sure everyone else suffers because of their own entitlement. However, the queen of screamers was wearing a SaveMcK shirt on tv, so.........

The #SaveMcKinley crew is a self-created group of parents who got pissed at the McKinley PTA for not being aggressive enough to advocate for their family's interests. Emilie Heller-- aka McKrazy-- has yelled at our PTA leadership the same way she has yelled at APS staff. She yelled at our PTA president for being "too nice" during two of the recent PTA meetings. (And yes, I mean yelled.) Note, our PTA president is a 5th grade parent who got stuck in this role for a 2nd year in a row because no other parents volunteered to take over for her last year. Emilie should be thanking her, but instead she just throws insults. Most of the more vocal #SaveMcKinley crew are parents who never show up for PTA meetings and never volunteer. I don't think closing McKinley is the right decision because we can't open Reed with 830 students (see Proposal #1) but I am so horrified at the way some of these parents are acting.

Where is this 830 number coming from? From what I can see, proposal #1 puts an estimated 702 at Reed (and that's without boundary refinements).

https://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Analsysis-of-Students-Moving-rev_2019_Nov_16.pdf

[Anonymous]

830 is made up. You are shocked. I’m sure