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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is your reminder to write a quick email to Engage and the School Board if you want them to vote yes on school moves. You know these clowns are trying to snow them with fake info all day every day.

Um, no, I was told that this particular issue is one in which white parents in Arlington are called upon to amplify the voices of parents of color. Who are all in agreement that Key should stay, as that is best for the brown children of Arlington. ALL OF THEM.

Is this satire?

Has to be.

The bit about "white parents in Arlington are called upon" is a quote from AEM. The rest is presumed.

Also note that we are being asked to take the word of a bunch of white parents, and one minority teacher- all of whom have a personal stake in this- that they speak for 'families of color.' We should take this over the views of our black bilingual superintendent who has a system wide view, and who started an immersion school (Claremont.)

I wish we could hear directly from the different EL communities around the county.

+1 I think the only reference I've seen to actually asking the ESOL community what they want in regard to immersion was staff said at some point that they talked with Spanish-speakers about why they didn't apply to immersion and the main reasons were location and wanting their kids in an predominantly English school. The fact that Claremont apparently isn't having trouble filling their Spanish-first quota and Key is points to the importance of proximity. Key likes to complain that it's all because of poor outreach by APS in the switch from neighborhood preference + lottery to lottery only but Claremont did the same thing and doesn't have a problem. Clearly, Key's location is an issue but the "Key Key" group won't admit that.

Why is staff meeting in closed sessions with "some" groups and not others? Shouldn't the McKinley PTA get the same from the staff that the ESOL community is getting?

I think we've all heard plenty from McKinley PTA. Sit down.

I am still hopeful that McKrazy will make another appearance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is your reminder to write a quick email to Engage and the School Board if you want them to vote yes on school moves. You know these clowns are trying to snow them with fake info all day every day.

Um, no, I was told that this particular issue is one in which white parents in Arlington are called upon to amplify the voices of parents of color. Who are all in agreement that Key should stay, as that is best for the brown children of Arlington. ALL OF THEM.

Is this satire?

Has to be.

The bit about "white parents in Arlington are called upon" is a quote from AEM. The rest is presumed.

Also note that we are being asked to take the word of a bunch of white parents, and one minority teacher- all of whom have a personal stake in this- that they speak for 'families of color.' We should take this over the views of our black bilingual superintendent who has a system wide view, and who started an immersion school (Claremont.)

I wish we could hear directly from the different EL communities around the county.

+1 I think the only reference I've seen to actually asking the ESOL community what they want in regard to immersion was staff said at some point that they talked with Spanish-speakers about why they didn't apply to immersion and the main reasons were location and wanting their kids in an predominantly English school. The fact that Claremont apparently isn't having trouble filling their Spanish-first quota and Key is points to the importance of proximity. Key likes to complain that it's all because of poor outreach by APS in the switch from neighborhood preference + lottery to lottery only but Claremont did the same thing and doesn't have a problem. Clearly, Key's location is an issue but the "Key Key" group won't admit that.

Why is staff meeting in closed sessions with "some" groups and not others? Shouldn't the McKinley PTA get the same from the staff that the ESOL community is getting?

The comment on this I'm referring to was a while ago not specifically in reaction to the current moves but was mentioned as affecting thinking over the summer about school locations.

And, FWIW, they did have an open public meeting at Kenmore in Spanish to gather feedback on the current proposal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I emailed the board in support of option moves. It’s easy, so consider doing it if you haven’t!

+1 Give them the feedback they need to hold firm in support of the plan.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is your reminder to write a quick email to Engage and the School Board if you want them to vote yes on school moves. You know these clowns are trying to snow them with fake info all day every day.

Um, no, I was told that this particular issue is one in which white parents in Arlington are called upon to amplify the voices of parents of color. Who are all in agreement that Key should stay, as that is best for the brown children of Arlington. ALL OF THEM.

Is this satire?

Has to be.

The bit about "white parents in Arlington are called upon" is a quote from AEM. The rest is presumed.

Also note that we are being asked to take the word of a bunch of white parents, and one minority teacher- all of whom have a personal stake in this- that they speak for 'families of color.' We should take this over the views of our black bilingual superintendent who has a system wide view, and who started an immersion school (Claremont.)

I wish we could hear directly from the different EL communities around the county.

+1 I think the only reference I've seen to actually asking the ESOL community what they want in regard to immersion was staff said at some point that they talked with Spanish-speakers about why they didn't apply to immersion and the main reasons were location and wanting their kids in an predominantly English school. The fact that Claremont apparently isn't having trouble filling their Spanish-first quota and Key is points to the importance of proximity. Key likes to complain that it's all because of poor outreach by APS in the switch from neighborhood preference + lottery to lottery only but Claremont did the same thing and doesn't have a problem. Clearly, Key's location is an issue but the "Key Key" group won't admit that.

Why is staff meeting in closed sessions with "some" groups and not others? Shouldn't the McKinley PTA get the same from the staff that the ESOL community is getting?

The above mentioned meeting regarding immersion sounds like it happened before the current process, and had a very specific purpose- to get information from the Spanish speaking community about why they don’t apply to immersion. That “group” wasn’t banging down staff doors to ask for special favors.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is your reminder to write a quick email to Engage and the School Board if you want them to vote yes on school moves. You know these clowns are trying to snow them with fake info all day every day.

Um, no, I was told that this particular issue is one in which white parents in Arlington are called upon to amplify the voices of parents of color. Who are all in agreement that Key should stay, as that is best for the brown children of Arlington. ALL OF THEM.

Is this satire?

Has to be.

The bit about "white parents in Arlington are called upon" is a quote from AEM. The rest is presumed.

Also note that we are being asked to take the word of a bunch of white parents, and one minority teacher- all of whom have a personal stake in this- that they speak for 'families of color.' We should take this over the views of our black bilingual superintendent who has a system wide view, and who started an immersion school (Claremont.)

I wish we could hear directly from the different EL communities around the county.

+1 I think the only reference I've seen to actually asking the ESOL community what they want in regard to immersion was staff said at some point that they talked with Spanish-speakers about why they didn't apply to immersion and the main reasons were location and wanting their kids in an predominantly English school. The fact that Claremont apparently isn't having trouble filling their Spanish-first quota and Key is points to the importance of proximity. Key likes to complain that it's all because of poor outreach by APS in the switch from neighborhood preference + lottery to lottery only but Claremont did the same thing and doesn't have a problem. Clearly, Key's location is an issue but the "Key Key" group won't admit that.

Why is staff meeting in closed sessions with "some" groups and not others? Shouldn't the McKinley PTA get the same from the staff that the ESOL community is getting?

The comment on this I'm referring to was a while ago not specifically in reaction to the current moves but was mentioned as affecting thinking over the summer about school locations.

And, FWIW, they did have an open public meeting at Kenmore in Spanish to gather feedback on the current proposal.

And what about the other EL communities? I know there were translators at some events. Was anyone from those communities able to attend? Did they even know about them?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There are some very good questions being asked in those AEM posts, I’ll be interested to see if the McKinley people have responses.

Seems they are unable to respond when confronted with their data errors.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is your reminder to write a quick email to Engage and the School Board if you want them to vote yes on school moves. You know these clowns are trying to snow them with fake info all day every day.

Um, no, I was told that this particular issue is one in which white parents in Arlington are called upon to amplify the voices of parents of color. Who are all in agreement that Key should stay, as that is best for the brown children of Arlington. ALL OF THEM.

Is this satire?

Has to be.

The bit about "white parents in Arlington are called upon" is a quote from AEM. The rest is presumed.

Also note that we are being asked to take the word of a bunch of white parents, and one minority teacher- all of whom have a personal stake in this- that they speak for 'families of color.' We should take this over the views of our black bilingual superintendent who has a system wide view, and who started an immersion school (Claremont.)

I wish we could hear directly from the different EL communities around the county.

+1 I think the only reference I've seen to actually asking the ESOL community what they want in regard to immersion was staff said at some point that they talked with Spanish-speakers about why they didn't apply to immersion and the main reasons were location and wanting their kids in an predominantly English school. The fact that Claremont apparently isn't having trouble filling their Spanish-first quota and Key is points to the importance of proximity. Key likes to complain that it's all because of poor outreach by APS in the switch from neighborhood preference + lottery to lottery only but Claremont did the same thing and doesn't have a problem. Clearly, Key's location is an issue but the "Key Key" group won't admit that.

Why is staff meeting in closed sessions with "some" groups and not others? Shouldn't the McKinley PTA get the same from the staff that the ESOL community is getting?

The comment on this I'm referring to was a while ago not specifically in reaction to the current moves but was mentioned as affecting thinking over the summer about school locations.

And, FWIW, they did have an open public meeting at Kenmore in Spanish to gather feedback on the current proposal.

And what about the other EL communities? I know there were translators at some events. Was anyone from those communities able to attend? Did they even know about them?

It was an open meeting. What do you mean by other EL communities?

[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:This is your reminder to write a quick email to Engage and the School Board if you want them to vote yes on school moves. You know these clowns are trying to snow them with fake info all day every day.

Um, no, I was told that this particular issue is one in which white parents in Arlington are called upon to amplify the voices of parents of color. Who are all in agreement that Key should stay, as that is best for the brown children of Arlington. ALL OF THEM.

Is this satire?

Has to be.

The bit about "white parents in Arlington are called upon" is a quote from AEM. The rest is presumed.

Also note that we are being asked to take the word of a bunch of white parents, and one minority teacher- all of whom have a personal stake in this- that they speak for 'families of color.' We should take this over the views of our black bilingual superintendent who has a system wide view, and who started an immersion school (Claremont.)

I wish we could hear directly from the different EL communities around the county.

+1 I think the only reference I've seen to actually asking the ESOL community what they want in regard to immersion was staff said at some point that they talked with Spanish-speakers about why they didn't apply to immersion and the main reasons were location and wanting their kids in an predominantly English school. The fact that Claremont apparently isn't having trouble filling their Spanish-first quota and Key is points to the importance of proximity. Key likes to complain that it's all because of poor outreach by APS in the switch from neighborhood preference + lottery to lottery only but Claremont did the same thing and doesn't have a problem. Clearly, Key's location is an issue but the "Key Key" group won't admit that.

Why is staff meeting in closed sessions with "some" groups and not others? Shouldn't the McKinley PTA get the same from the staff that the ESOL community is getting?

The comment on this I'm referring to was a while ago not specifically in reaction to the current moves but was mentioned as affecting thinking over the summer about school locations.

And, FWIW, they did have an open public meeting at Kenmore in Spanish to gather feedback on the current proposal.

And what about the other EL communities? I know there were translators at some events. Was anyone from those communities able to attend? Did they even know about them?

It was an open meeting. What do you mean by other EL communities?

That open public meeting was in Spanish. What about other non-Spanish EL communities? Were they able to use the translators at any of the public events?

[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:This is your reminder to write a quick email to Engage and the School Board if you want them to vote yes on school moves. You know these clowns are trying to snow them with fake info all day every day.

Um, no, I was told that this particular issue is one in which white parents in Arlington are called upon to amplify the voices of parents of color. Who are all in agreement that Key should stay, as that is best for the brown children of Arlington. ALL OF THEM.

Is this satire?

Has to be.

The bit about "white parents in Arlington are called upon" is a quote from AEM. The rest is presumed.

Also note that we are being asked to take the word of a bunch of white parents, and one minority teacher- all of whom have a personal stake in this- that they speak for 'families of color.' We should take this over the views of our black bilingual superintendent who has a system wide view, and who started an immersion school (Claremont.)

I wish we could hear directly from the different EL communities around the county.

+1 I think the only reference I've seen to actually asking the ESOL community what they want in regard to immersion was staff said at some point that they talked with Spanish-speakers about why they didn't apply to immersion and the main reasons were location and wanting their kids in an predominantly English school. The fact that Claremont apparently isn't having trouble filling their Spanish-first quota and Key is points to the importance of proximity. Key likes to complain that it's all because of poor outreach by APS in the switch from neighborhood preference + lottery to lottery only but Claremont did the same thing and doesn't have a problem. Clearly, Key's location is an issue but the "Key Key" group won't admit that.

Why is staff meeting in closed sessions with "some" groups and not others? Shouldn't the McKinley PTA get the same from the staff that the ESOL community is getting?

The comment on this I'm referring to was a while ago not specifically in reaction to the current moves but was mentioned as affecting thinking over the summer about school locations.

And, FWIW, they did have an open public meeting at Kenmore in Spanish to gather feedback on the current proposal.

And what about the other EL communities? I know there were translators at some events. Was anyone from those communities able to attend? Did they even know about them?

It was an open meeting. What do you mean by other EL communities?

That open public meeting was in Spanish. What about other non-Spanish EL communities? Were they able to use the translators at any of the public events?

https://www.apsva.us/lsrc/translation-guidelines/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are some very good questions being asked in those AEM posts, I’ll be interested to see if the McKinley people have responses.

Seems they are unable to respond when confronted with their data errors.

I’m pretty disappointed in their (lack of) substantive response. They’ve supposedly spent over a month on this, yet it took mere hours for people to identify a host of fundamental flaws that they have no answer for. Did they actually sanity check this before sharing, or did they see it get the result they wanted and just ignore all other considerations?

[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:This is your reminder to write a quick email to Engage and the School Board if you want them to vote yes on school moves. You know these clowns are trying to snow them with fake info all day every day.

Um, no, I was told that this particular issue is one in which white parents in Arlington are called upon to amplify the voices of parents of color. Who are all in agreement that Key should stay, as that is best for the brown children of Arlington. ALL OF THEM.

Is this satire?

Has to be.

The bit about "white parents in Arlington are called upon" is a quote from AEM. The rest is presumed.

Also note that we are being asked to take the word of a bunch of white parents, and one minority teacher- all of whom have a personal stake in this- that they speak for 'families of color.' We should take this over the views of our black bilingual superintendent who has a system wide view, and who started an immersion school (Claremont.)

I wish we could hear directly from the different EL communities around the county.

+1 I think the only reference I've seen to actually asking the ESOL community what they want in regard to immersion was staff said at some point that they talked with Spanish-speakers about why they didn't apply to immersion and the main reasons were location and wanting their kids in an predominantly English school. The fact that Claremont apparently isn't having trouble filling their Spanish-first quota and Key is points to the importance of proximity. Key likes to complain that it's all because of poor outreach by APS in the switch from neighborhood preference + lottery to lottery only but Claremont did the same thing and doesn't have a problem. Clearly, Key's location is an issue but the "Key Key" group won't admit that.

Why is staff meeting in closed sessions with "some" groups and not others? Shouldn't the McKinley PTA get the same from the staff that the ESOL community is getting?

The comment on this I'm referring to was a while ago not specifically in reaction to the current moves but was mentioned as affecting thinking over the summer about school locations.

And, FWIW, they did have an open public meeting at Kenmore in Spanish to gather feedback on the current proposal.

And what about the other EL communities? I know there were translators at some events. Was anyone from those communities able to attend? Did they even know about them?

It was an open meeting. What do you mean by other EL communities?

That open public meeting was in Spanish. What about other non-Spanish EL communities? Were they able to use the translators at any of the public events?

They had meetings translated into 4 different languages. I don't recall which ones. APS' community engagement outreach efforts to under-represented groups has continued to increase and this process has probably been the most-encompassing to date. They also meet with groups in schools throughout the year for various reasons, not just during a proposal feedback period.

[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:This is your reminder to write a quick email to Engage and the School Board if you want them to vote yes on school moves. You know these clowns are trying to snow them with fake info all day every day.

Um, no, I was told that this particular issue is one in which white parents in Arlington are called upon to amplify the voices of parents of color. Who are all in agreement that Key should stay, as that is best for the brown children of Arlington. ALL OF THEM.

Is this satire?

Has to be.

The bit about "white parents in Arlington are called upon" is a quote from AEM. The rest is presumed.

Also note that we are being asked to take the word of a bunch of white parents, and one minority teacher- all of whom have a personal stake in this- that they speak for 'families of color.' We should take this over the views of our black bilingual superintendent who has a system wide view, and who started an immersion school (Claremont.)

I wish we could hear directly from the different EL communities around the county.

+1 I think the only reference I've seen to actually asking the ESOL community what they want in regard to immersion was staff said at some point that they talked with Spanish-speakers about why they didn't apply to immersion and the main reasons were location and wanting their kids in an predominantly English school. The fact that Claremont apparently isn't having trouble filling their Spanish-first quota and Key is points to the importance of proximity. Key likes to complain that it's all because of poor outreach by APS in the switch from neighborhood preference + lottery to lottery only but Claremont did the same thing and doesn't have a problem. Clearly, Key's location is an issue but the "Key Key" group won't admit that.

Why is staff meeting in closed sessions with "some" groups and not others? Shouldn't the McKinley PTA get the same from the staff that the ESOL community is getting?

The comment on this I'm referring to was a while ago not specifically in reaction to the current moves but was mentioned as affecting thinking over the summer about school locations.

And, FWIW, they did have an open public meeting at Kenmore in Spanish to gather feedback on the current proposal.

And what about the other EL communities? I know there were translators at some events. Was anyone from those communities able to attend? Did they even know about them?

It was an open meeting. What do you mean by other EL communities?

That open public meeting was in Spanish. What about other non-Spanish EL communities? Were they able to use the translators at any of the public events?

They had meetings translated into 4 different languages. I don't recall which ones. APS' community engagement outreach efforts to under-represented groups has continued to increase and this process has probably been the most-encompassing to date. They also meet with groups in schools throughout the year for various reasons, not just during a proposal feedback period.

Yes, I was asking how effective the outreach was for this specific effort.

How many different communities are now engaged and what are their thoughts?

[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:

Anonymous wrote:This is your reminder to write a quick email to Engage and the School Board if you want them to vote yes on school moves. You know these clowns are trying to snow them with fake info all day every day.

Um, no, I was told that this particular issue is one in which white parents in Arlington are called upon to amplify the voices of parents of color. Who are all in agreement that Key should stay, as that is best for the brown children of Arlington. ALL OF THEM.

Is this satire?

Has to be.

The bit about "white parents in Arlington are called upon" is a quote from AEM. The rest is presumed.

Also note that we are being asked to take the word of a bunch of white parents, and one minority teacher- all of whom have a personal stake in this- that they speak for 'families of color.' We should take this over the views of our black bilingual superintendent who has a system wide view, and who started an immersion school (Claremont.)

I wish we could hear directly from the different EL communities around the county.

+1 I think the only reference I've seen to actually asking the ESOL community what they want in regard to immersion was staff said at some point that they talked with Spanish-speakers about why they didn't apply to immersion and the main reasons were location and wanting their kids in an predominantly English school. The fact that Claremont apparently isn't having trouble filling their Spanish-first quota and Key is points to the importance of proximity. Key likes to complain that it's all because of poor outreach by APS in the switch from neighborhood preference + lottery to lottery only but Claremont did the same thing and doesn't have a problem. Clearly, Key's location is an issue but the "Key Key" group won't admit that.

Why is staff meeting in closed sessions with "some" groups and not others? Shouldn't the McKinley PTA get the same from the staff that the ESOL community is getting?

The comment on this I'm referring to was a while ago not specifically in reaction to the current moves but was mentioned as affecting thinking over the summer about school locations.

And, FWIW, they did have an open public meeting at Kenmore in Spanish to gather feedback on the current proposal.

And what about the other EL communities? I know there were translators at some events. Was anyone from those communities able to attend? Did they even know about them?

It was an open meeting. What do you mean by other EL communities?

That open public meeting was in Spanish. What about other non-Spanish EL communities? Were they able to use the translators at any of the public events?

They had meetings translated into 4 different languages. I don't recall which ones. APS' community engagement outreach efforts to under-represented groups has continued to increase and this process has probably been the most-encompassing to date. They also meet with groups in schools throughout the year for various reasons, not just during a proposal feedback period.

Yes, I was asking how effective the outreach was for this specific effort.

How many different communities are now engaged and what are their thoughts?

Do you really expect someone on DCUM to answer that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

They had meetings translated into 4 different languages. I don't recall which ones. APS' community engagement outreach efforts to under-represented groups has continued to increase and this process has probably been the most-encompassing to date. They also meet with groups in schools throughout the year for various reasons, not just during a proposal feedback period.

Yes, I was asking how effective the outreach was for this specific effort.

How many different communities are now engaged and what are their thoughts?

Do people not realize that things cost money? And that money doesn't grow on trees?

Translators in a dozen languages for every public meeting costs money. Buses to immersion schools and dual-certified teachers cost money. Maternity leave for teachers costs money. Surveys cost money. Summer school costs money. Small class sizes cost money. More counselors costs money.

APS has added the equivalent of two elementary schools, or a whole middle school, or half a high school EVERY YEAR for the last 8 years, and the cost of those students is cumulative, and people keep acting like we can spend money on any administrative or supportive activity we want.

I don't know what planet (or what rich city with neverending resources) these people came here from, but I wish they'd go back.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are some very good questions being asked in those AEM posts, I’ll be interested to see if the McKinley people have responses.

Seems they are unable to respond when confronted with their data errors.

I’m pretty disappointed in their (lack of) substantive response. They’ve supposedly spent over a month on this, yet it took mere hours for people to identify a host of fundamental flaws that they have no answer for. Did they actually sanity check this before sharing, or did they see it get the result they wanted and just ignore all other considerations?

Great question. Guess we will see if/when they ever respond.