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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:FWIW, I was at the meeting at Central Library and there were a bunch of Mongolian-speakers there, availing themselves of the translation services. I don't think the Spanish and Amharic translators were needed, but I saw them there.

Thank you for sharing. Glad to hear that another EL community (beyond Key) is engaged. Hopefully they have been able to provide feedback.

[Anonymous]

I'm in a planning unit that is at McK but is so far away that it might be at Reed but will probably not be. People here are all "save McK" and all I can think is how it is totally illogical and I can't even being to engage with them. these freaks sometimes worry me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Seriously, there are some deafening crickets in response to the number-crunching posts.

And apparently only care about their low income population. No response to the question about the low income population who live near key but don’t attend the school and how this will impact them.


Just bitching about “why are choice programs always the ones getting the short end of the stick”

Also no response on what their proposal would do to Barrett.

Oh wait now we are going back to attacking the people asking reasonable questions! Good times! I for one can’t wait until we have a presidential election and boundary change process at the same time. I’m already stocking up on wine and popcorn for that one.

There is no data that would make that woman happy. She’s nuts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm in a planning unit that is at McK but is so far away that it might be at Reed but will probably not be. People here are all "save McK" and all I can think is how it is totally illogical and I can't even being to engage with them. these freaks sometimes worry me.

Right. The SaveMcK's who live near the school just want to keep walking and created the nutso map. The McK's who live near Reed are keeping quiet b/c they know they won't be going to McK no matter what and don't want to be associated with the SaveMcKs. The far away from everything McK's are stupid to try to "saveMcK" b/c it won't be the same NO MATTER WHAT. All those people who live above 66 are leaving and the staff will completely change. I don't know why they would want to keep bussing their kid past other schools just to go a school that won't be the same as old McK.

[Anonymous]

Q: What about the non-immersion low income families around Key that get bused elsewhere?

Key No-Movers: Uh.......well.......they could have gone to Key.

Translation: We aren't really concerned about low-income, we are concerned about not having to change.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm in a planning unit that is at McK but is so far away that it might be at Reed but will probably not be. People here are all "save McK" and all I can think is how it is totally illogical and I can't even being to engage with them. these freaks sometimes worry me.

Right. The SaveMcK's who live near the school just want to keep walking and created the nutso map. The McK's who live near Reed are keeping quiet b/c they know they won't be going to McK no matter what and don't want to be associated with the SaveMcKs. The far away from everything McK's are stupid to try to "saveMcK" b/c it won't be the same NO MATTER WHAT. All those people who live above 66 are leaving and the staff will completely change. I don't know why they would want to keep bussing their kid past other schools just to go a school that won't be the same as old McK.

So the principal; where's they going? I just want to avoid them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Q: What about the non-immersion low income families around Key that get bused elsewhere?

Key No-Movers: Uh.......well.......they could have gone to Key.

Translation: We aren't really concerned about low-income, we are concerned about not having to change.

Even better - just try to imply they wont be in the neighborhood much longer anyway.

[Anonymous]

Most of McK staff will move to Reed. The numbers will be different, so there will be some changes, but it will be mostly the same (with usually annual turnover).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm in a planning unit that is at McK but is so far away that it might be at Reed but will probably not be. People here are all "save McK" and all I can think is how it is totally illogical and I can't even being to engage with them. these freaks sometimes worry me.

Right. The SaveMcK's who live near the school just want to keep walking and created the nutso map. The McK's who live near Reed are keeping quiet b/c they know they won't be going to McK no matter what and don't want to be associated with the SaveMcKs. The far away from everything McK's are stupid to try to "saveMcK" b/c it won't be the same NO MATTER WHAT. All those people who live above 66 are leaving and the staff will completely change. I don't know why they would want to keep bussing their kid past other schools just to go a school that won't be the same as old McK.

So the principal; where's they going? I just want to avoid them.

Yes! I can’t get behind the Save McKinley movement. We look forward to moving to another school (even if kids can no longer walk to school) and parting ways CB. Good riddance!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Seriously, there are some deafening crickets in response to the number-crunching posts.

And apparently only care about their low income population. No response to the question about the low income population who live near key but don’t attend the school and how this will impact them.


Just bitching about “why are choice programs always the ones getting the short end of the stick”

Also no response on what their proposal would do to Barrett.

Oh wait now we are going back to attacking the people asking reasonable questions! Good times! I for one can’t wait until we have a presidential election and boundary change process at the same time. I’m already stocking up on wine and popcorn for that one.

Huh? People asking about Barrett and non-Key low-income families are asking very reasonable questions - and the Key advocates refuse to provide any responses other than insinuations that one population is expendable for another, or you need to read all of our posts more closely because what we've been saying is of greater importance than any concerns of anyone else, or you're anti-immersion and racist, or on and on. Yet WE'RE the ones who are attacking????? Quite evident what side you fall on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:FWIW, I was at the meeting at Central Library and there were a bunch of Mongolian-speakers there, availing themselves of the translation services. I don't think the Spanish and Amharic translators were needed, but I saw them there.

Thank you for sharing. Glad to hear that another EL community (beyond Key) is engaged. Hopefully they have been able to provide feedback.

They have indeed. And once staff clarified their misunderstandings about the proposal - like they would not be joining the existing students at the school they're moving to, that those students will have moved elsewhere - they were comfortable with the proposal. Makes one wonder what these loudest advocates are telling the communities they proclaim to be concerned about, if they have such basic misunderstandings like that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Seriously, there are some deafening crickets in response to the number-crunching posts.

And apparently only care about their low income population. No response to the question about the low income population who live near key but don’t attend the school and how this will impact them.


Just bitching about “why are choice programs always the ones getting the short end of the stick”

Also no response on what their proposal would do to Barrett.

Oh wait now we are going back to attacking the people asking reasonable questions! Good times! I for one can’t wait until we have a presidential election and boundary change process at the same time. I’m already stocking up on wine and popcorn for that one.

Huh? People asking about Barrett and non-Key low-income families are asking very reasonable questions - and the Key advocates refuse to provide any responses other than insinuations that one population is expendable for another, or you need to read all of our posts more closely because what we've been saying is of greater importance than any concerns of anyone else, or you're anti-immersion and racist, or on and on. Yet WE'RE the ones who are attacking????? Quite evident what side you fall on.

I think this person may have meant AEM is attacking people for asking reasonable questions. Some post on this thread are almost a live stream response to AEM responses.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Q: What about the non-immersion low income families around Key that get bused elsewhere?

Key No-Movers: Uh.......well.......they could have gone to Key.

Translation: We aren't really concerned about low-income, we are concerned about not having to change.

+1000
And we'll use these vulnerable, less informed and less engaged people as pawns in our fight.

[Anonymous]

Just whoever is organizing a protest and or speeches at the SB meeting, please leave the kids out of this. March all you want. Make signs, whatever. But it’s beyond selfish and cruel to expose the kids to this. They don’t need to know anything about it unless it actually happens. Parents and teachers, please put your students first and set the tone that they are resilient, that they will be okay no matter what, that you will make it okay for them. Don’t bring them up to the podium to cry that they’re going to lose all their friends (which may not be true anyway). Please. It’s not right.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Just whoever is organizing a protest and or speeches at the SB meeting, please leave the kids out of this. March all you want. Make signs, whatever. But it’s beyond selfish and cruel to expose the kids to this. They don’t need to know anything about it unless it actually happens. Parents and teachers, please put your students first and set the tone that they are resilient, that they will be okay no matter what, that you will make it okay for them. Don’t bring them up to the podium to cry that they’re going to lose all their friends (which may not be true anyway). Please. It’s not right.

PLEASE someone put this on AEM. As a teacher, I'm not going to post over there, but I have wanted to shout this from the rooftops. If parents are acting like this is the end of the world, how are their kids supposed to feel about anything happening? Any parent who brings a child to the meeting is doing them such a disservice. We are supposed to help them navigate change and help them grow, not make them feel like victims or manipulate them for our own selfish desires.