Who said there isn't a North-South divide?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1) figure out what you want
2) say what you want
3) figure out how to make it happen
4) make it happen

Good luck with the second half of your list.

Yup. That's where the "bus Barcroft Apts to ... without anyone raising objections" comes in. Hint: shouting the same thing at the same time won't do the trick.

[Anonymous]

APS already started the ball rolling on #3.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:APS already started the ball rolling on #3.

Yeah, no.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:APS already started the ball rolling on #3.

If by "ball rolling" you mean showed their hand when they accidentally posted an analytical document (that spreadsheet) online, then hastily retrieved it and then days later put the whole process on ice for two more years, yeah.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:APS already started the ball rolling on #3.

If by "ball rolling" you mean showed their hand when they accidentally posted an analytical document (that spreadsheet) online, then hastily retrieved it and then days later put the whole process on ice for two more years, yeah.

That’s not actually how it happened, what really happened was so dumb. That spreadsheet went up attached to the first round, not the second, and a parent found it and informed the staff (including noting how it showed a predetermination for a certain outcome despite the data). The staff uploaded the corrected document and changed the link, but never pulled the old document off the public system. The parents who knew about the document didn’t say anything publicly at the time, though, wanting to give the staff a chance to change course and do an actual data-driven process without being humiliated. When the staff came out with the second round that continued the same data manipulation, the parents went public with the spreadsheet to show what a farce the process was. It’s unknown what role, if any, that played in suspending the process, but it seems likely it was at least a consideration.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:APS already started the ball rolling on #3.

If by "ball rolling" you mean showed their hand when they accidentally posted an analytical document (that spreadsheet) online, then hastily retrieved it and then days later put the whole process on ice for two more years, yeah.

Perhaps when Staff starts a ball rolling, it could finally keep rolling and accomplish some success if the parents would get out of the way for a change. I'm sick of "the community" having to know every detail of every conversation through every process and hindering any development of a full plan because they only want a plan that fixes everything without changing anything. It's because of the public pressure for "transparency" that Staff has resorted to these ridiculous "this is what it might look like if we only considered criteria A" and "this is what it might look like if we consider only criteria B" and "if we look at B and C, it could look something like this." Ultimately, the SB is going to want and make a decision based on what it might look like considering A, B, and C. So why take it one factor at at time and waste so much time for everyone? Because the community won't let them just develop some actual proposals without criticizing them to death for not being transparent about how they got there. So instead, the public is in an uproar and debates and kills every step so that a process never actually finishes. And then they criticize SB for abandoning the whole initiative or moving forward with a partial initiative until more time can be devoted to a more complete analysis and process. AAAAAGGGGGGG!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:APS already started the ball rolling on #3.

If by "ball rolling" you mean showed their hand when they accidentally posted an analytical document (that spreadsheet) online, then hastily retrieved it and then days later put the whole process on ice for two more years, yeah.

That’s not actually how it happened, what really happened was so dumb. That spreadsheet went up attached to the first round, not the second, and a parent found it and informed the staff (including noting how it showed a predetermination for a certain outcome despite the data). The staff uploaded the corrected document and changed the link, but never pulled the old document off the public system. The parents who knew about the document didn’t say anything publicly at the time, though, wanting to give the staff a chance to change course and do an actual data-driven process without being humiliated. When the staff came out with the second round that continued the same data manipulation, the parents went public with the spreadsheet to show what a farce the process was. It’s unknown what role, if any, that played in suspending the process, but it seems likely it was at least a consideration.

LOL. So it was even worse than what I described. Parents gave the staff a freebie and they blew it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:APS already started the ball rolling on #3.

If by "ball rolling" you mean showed their hand when they accidentally posted an analytical document (that spreadsheet) online, then hastily retrieved it and then days later put the whole process on ice for two more years, yeah.

Perhaps when Staff starts a ball rolling, it could finally keep rolling and accomplish some success if the parents would get out of the way for a change. I'm sick of "the community" having to know every detail of every conversation through every process and hindering any development of a full plan because they only want a plan that fixes everything without changing anything. It's because of the public pressure for "transparency" that Staff has resorted to these ridiculous "this is what it might look like if we only considered criteria A" and "this is what it might look like if we consider only criteria B" and "if we look at B and C, it could look something like this." Ultimately, the SB is going to want and make a decision based on what it might look like considering A, B, and C. So why take it one factor at at time and waste so much time for everyone? Because the community won't let them just develop some actual proposals without criticizing them to death for not being transparent about how they got there. So instead, the public is in an uproar and debates and kills every step so that a process never actually finishes. And then they criticize SB for abandoning the whole initiative or moving forward with a partial initiative until more time can be devoted to a more complete analysis and process. AAAAAGGGGGGG!

Democracy ain't easy. Can't fault the parents for voicing their opinions to elected officials. That the SB caves to parental whining EVERY TIME is the problem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:APS already started the ball rolling on #3.

If by "ball rolling" you mean showed their hand when they accidentally posted an analytical document (that spreadsheet) online, then hastily retrieved it and then days later put the whole process on ice for two more years, yeah.

That’s not actually how it happened, what really happened was so dumb. That spreadsheet went up attached to the first round, not the second, and a parent found it and informed the staff (including noting how it showed a predetermination for a certain outcome despite the data). The staff uploaded the corrected document and changed the link, but never pulled the old document off the public system. The parents who knew about the document didn’t say anything publicly at the time, though, wanting to give the staff a chance to change course and do an actual data-driven process without being humiliated. When the staff came out with the second round that continued the same data manipulation, the parents went public with the spreadsheet to show what a farce the process was. It’s unknown what role, if any, that played in suspending the process, but it seems likely it was at least a consideration.

LOL. So it was even worse than what I described. Parents gave the staff a freebie and they blew it.

For all the shit we gave them, that one was actually a really classy move and all the staff did with it was double down on their original strategy. I'm sure those parents are going to be so far up the staff's ass they'll know what the staff had for lunch before they swallow until the final Reed boundaries are implemented, and the staff will have brought it on themselves.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:APS already started the ball rolling on #3.

If by "ball rolling" you mean showed their hand when they accidentally posted an analytical document (that spreadsheet) online, then hastily retrieved it and then days later put the whole process on ice for two more years, yeah.

That’s not actually how it happened, what really happened was so dumb. That spreadsheet went up attached to the first round, not the second, and a parent found it and informed the staff (including noting how it showed a predetermination for a certain outcome despite the data). The staff uploaded the corrected document and changed the link, but never pulled the old document off the public system. The parents who knew about the document didn’t say anything publicly at the time, though, wanting to give the staff a chance to change course and do an actual data-driven process without being humiliated. When the staff came out with the second round that continued the same data manipulation, the parents went public with the spreadsheet to show what a farce the process was. It’s unknown what role, if any, that played in suspending the process, but it seems likely it was at least a consideration.

LOL. So it was even worse than what I described. Parents gave the staff a freebie and they blew it.

For all the shit we gave them, that one was actually a really classy move and all the staff did with it was double down on their original strategy. I'm sure those parents are going to be so far up the staff's ass they'll know what the staff had for lunch before they swallow until the final Reed boundaries are implemented, and the staff will have brought it on themselves.

Please. Trolling for gotcha’s on APS staff is anything but classy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:APS already started the ball rolling on #3.

If by "ball rolling" you mean showed their hand when they accidentally posted an analytical document (that spreadsheet) online, then hastily retrieved it and then days later put the whole process on ice for two more years, yeah.

That’s not actually how it happened, what really happened was so dumb. That spreadsheet went up attached to the first round, not the second, and a parent found it and informed the staff (including noting how it showed a predetermination for a certain outcome despite the data). The staff uploaded the corrected document and changed the link, but never pulled the old document off the public system. The parents who knew about the document didn’t say anything publicly at the time, though, wanting to give the staff a chance to change course and do an actual data-driven process without being humiliated. When the staff came out with the second round that continued the same data manipulation, the parents went public with the spreadsheet to show what a farce the process was. It’s unknown what role, if any, that played in suspending the process, but it seems likely it was at least a consideration.

LOL. So it was even worse than what I described. Parents gave the staff a freebie and they blew it.

For all the shit we gave them, that one was actually a really classy move and all the staff did with it was double down on their original strategy. I'm sure those parents are going to be so far up the staff's ass they'll know what the staff had for lunch before they swallow until the final Reed boundaries are implemented, and the staff will have brought it on themselves.

Please. Trolling for gotcha’s on APS staff is anything but classy.

If that's what they were doing, they would have aired it all when they first found it. They tried to deal with it privately.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:APS already started the ball rolling on #3.

If by "ball rolling" you mean showed their hand when they accidentally posted an analytical document (that spreadsheet) online, then hastily retrieved it and then days later put the whole process on ice for two more years, yeah.

That’s not actually how it happened, what really happened was so dumb. That spreadsheet went up attached to the first round, not the second, and a parent found it and informed the staff (including noting how it showed a predetermination for a certain outcome despite the data). The staff uploaded the corrected document and changed the link, but never pulled the old document off the public system. The parents who knew about the document didn’t say anything publicly at the time, though, wanting to give the staff a chance to change course and do an actual data-driven process without being humiliated. When the staff came out with the second round that continued the same data manipulation, the parents went public with the spreadsheet to show what a farce the process was. It’s unknown what role, if any, that played in suspending the process, but it seems likely it was at least a consideration.

LOL. So it was even worse than what I described. Parents gave the staff a freebie and they blew it.

For all the shit we gave them, that one was actually a really classy move and all the staff did with it was double down on their original strategy. I'm sure those parents are going to be so far up the staff's ass they'll know what the staff had for lunch before they swallow until the final Reed boundaries are implemented, and the staff will have brought it on themselves.

Little of the public behavior during this process could be considered classy, and digging out that document and disseminating it certainly doesn’t make the cut. Waiting to do it earns no one a badge of nobility.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:APS already started the ball rolling on #3.

If by "ball rolling" you mean showed their hand when they accidentally posted an analytical document (that spreadsheet) online, then hastily retrieved it and then days later put the whole process on ice for two more years, yeah.

That’s not actually how it happened, what really happened was so dumb. That spreadsheet went up attached to the first round, not the second, and a parent found it and informed the staff (including noting how it showed a predetermination for a certain outcome despite the data). The staff uploaded the corrected document and changed the link, but never pulled the old document off the public system. The parents who knew about the document didn’t say anything publicly at the time, though, wanting to give the staff a chance to change course and do an actual data-driven process without being humiliated. When the staff came out with the second round that continued the same data manipulation, the parents went public with the spreadsheet to show what a farce the process was. It’s unknown what role, if any, that played in suspending the process, but it seems likely it was at least a consideration.

LOL. So it was even worse than what I described. Parents gave the staff a freebie and they blew it.

For all the shit we gave them, that one was actually a really classy move and all the staff did with it was double down on their original strategy. I'm sure those parents are going to be so far up the staff's ass they'll know what the staff had for lunch before they swallow until the final Reed boundaries are implemented, and the staff will have brought it on themselves.

Little of the public behavior during this process could be considered classy, and digging out that document and disseminating it certainly doesn’t make the cut. Waiting to do it earns no one a badge of nobility.

Nobody dug out anything, the staff posted it as a supporting document and then never took it down when the parents told them they appeared to have posted the wrong version. When the staff kept manipulating data despite having been caught once, they called them out on it.

But whatever, it's not worth fighting about here. I thought acknowledging it could be a little bit of an olive branch to bring them back around and maybe get some support from the north for our stuff since they seem to have completely walked away from this conversation. You using it as fodder to reinforce grudges doesn't help anyone.

[Anonymous]

“The north” isn’t involved because this isn’t their fight/ problem. They care about their kids. This isn’t their fight.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:“The north” isn’t involved because this isn’t their fight/ problem. They care about their kids. This isn’t their fight.

I don't think it's a totally lost cause. Earlier in this thread there were people who claimed to live in north Arlington who seemed open to helping before they were run off. If we want to have the possibility of a solution that involves changes north of 50 to implement, such as where option schools might go or if school boundaries will cross 50, it would be helpful to have some of them on board with us. Why alienate people just because we don't see their immediate utility?