Hot off the presses - Arlington Parents for Education New Newsletter

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If this were my first exposure to APE this would all be very interesting but knowing that the same organization that now seems to be asking for increased teacher salaries was last year complaining that teachers were overly concerned about their health during covid and weren't working hard enough with remote learning tells me something about where the group really stands when it comes to teachers.

I'm at the point where APE says anything and I feel like I need to fact check it three different ways before I actually trust that it's true and not the product of some right-ish (for NOVA) wing spin machine. Beware.

Agreed!

+1

It’s a shame they didn’t just stick with the section about the testing. They didn’t even *lead* with that.

Instead, they started with that Northam/VDOE nonsense.

Tell me you didn’t read the newsletter without telling me you didn’t read the newsletter.

Which section do you think they led with? Wasn’t testing…

Hint: Go re-read the OP.

Troll.

School closures / SOLs / VMPI. All BS related to the current election. And apparently the #1 priority.

Section 2 was advocating for more testing. That was the only substantial section relevant to APS. Rest of newsletter was political filler.

You think public school closure regulations, standardized testing in public schools, and math curriculum in public schools have nothing to do with our public schools? That’s a new theory.

Yes, they started with a bunch of BS faux issues about “State-Level Education-Related Proposals and Legislation” because of the election.

They should have stuck with advocating for more testing. An actual issue with an actual solution that can help kids stay in the school.

The rest is BS, misinformation, or filler.

What part was misinformation? I am still confused about how public school regulation doesn’t relate to public schools. Do you think that just because the group’s focus is on APS they can’t advocate at all any level of public education regulation?

VMPI was misinformation. School closures is 100% political BS (explained on other thread). Aside from the testing section, the rest was filler.

Weak sauce.

Weakening SOL passing standards is filler?

Pretty much. What’s the point of focusing on an assessment from last year? It was a crazy year with so many atypical factors that certainly affected test scores? They may have adjusted it last year simply because kids couldn’t retake as they normally do. Or there were challenges with how it was given that skewed results.

The actual issue is the learning gap and how to push this year to get kids back on track. That would have been a meaningful topic instead of the filler to rag on VDOE/Northam during a gubernatorial election.

So transparent.

If that’s your view, then you actually should be really concerned about the changes to reading passing standards. The point of those passing standards isn’t to set a curve that ensures a certain number of students pass every year, it’s supposed to be to identify students and schools who aren’t meeting grade level standards for reading ability. Dropping the minimum score to pass that dramatically conceals how many children are not reading at the level they should be, which only reinforces the learning gap because it allows schools to pretend it doesn’t exist, or at least not to the extent it does.

Look what it’s done in practical terms - math scores weren’t adjusted he same way, we saw a massive drop in pass rates, and everyone is focused on how to address learning loss in math. We should be doing the same for reading but we’re not because this manipulation of passing scores let’s everyone pretend reading is going just fine.

Schools and teachers should absolutely assess and determine where to focus efforts on remediation this year. The SOL assessments from last year may not be the best tool to accomplish that. Focusing on that now (Oct 2021) is distracting from practical efforts to get kids back on track.

APE has an opportunity to advocate for meaningful things here for our kids (like they did pushing for more covid testing). It’s a shame they would rather play politics.

I don’t think you really understand the issue, because there are huge disconnects in your reasoning. You agree that schools should be addressing learning loss and providing remediation to students who are falling behind, right? So why are you fighting against efforts to highlight to extent of learning loss when it comes to reading, thereby enabling APS ignore the needs of students who are falling behind?

This is such a weird hill to choose to die on just because you don’t like APE.

Again, that is a non-meaningful area of focus if their real concern is remediation.

That was sandwiched in between “school closures” and VMPI, right? All non-meaningful areas of focus for topic #1.

Like I said, they should have stuck with topic #2 (pushing for more covid testing). And/or add meaningful ways to address remediation.

But I guess they want to get in on the political games. That’s their new focus.

There's a big problem with their testing push. Who is going to pay for it??? APE needs to say where the money will come from. There isn't money to spare as far as I know. So where are they going to take it from? Learning loss recovery?

These sorts of questions are probably why APE is encouraging people to direct their advocacy to both APS and to the governor/VDOE. Virginia had a massive budget surplus at the end of the 2021 fiscal year - why shouldn't we put some of that money toward funding testing in schools to help them stay safe?

To "stay safe"? I have some problem with that narrative given that test to stay is NOT recommended by the CDC. Quarantine is.

The CDC's position on test to stay is that they don't yet have enough data to endorse it, but are working with multiple jurisdictions that are using test to stay to develop that data. You know, doing research to see if a practice works before taking an official position. If no one tests out a test-to-stay protocol, we will never know if perhaps it could be superior to mandatory quarantines for exposed students to balance all of students' physical, mental and emotional health needs.

source?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
These sorts of questions are probably why APE is encouraging people to direct their advocacy to both APS and to the governor/VDOE. Virginia had a massive budget surplus at the end of the 2021 fiscal year - why shouldn't we put some of that money toward funding testing in schools to help them stay safe?

To "stay safe"? I have some problem with that narrative given that test to stay is NOT recommended by the CDC. Quarantine is.

The entire state of Massachusetts is implementing it as is Montgomery County, Maryland and many countries in Europe. When the CDC is taking an ultra-cautious position that doesn't prioritize kids getting educated, the balance of the harms needs to be on kids getting educated.

We know COVID has less than a flu level risk for kids. And we know from studies that less than 2% of close contacts in schools are testing positive for COVID. And we know the massive harm caused by kids missing school.

Looks to just be a comment by the typical closed school activists of APS, still wanting to unnecessarily close schools to a large amount of kids. So sad they're continuing with their closed school advocacy.

Well if we're going by what others are doing why not just be like Texas or Florida?

And as for the Europe argument you can get back to me when we offer universal health and childcare, etc.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If this were my first exposure to APE this would all be very interesting but knowing that the same organization that now seems to be asking for increased teacher salaries was last year complaining that teachers were overly concerned about their health during covid and weren't working hard enough with remote learning tells me something about where the group really stands when it comes to teachers.

I'm at the point where APE says anything and I feel like I need to fact check it three different ways before I actually trust that it's true and not the product of some right-ish (for NOVA) wing spin machine. Beware.

Agreed!

+1

It’s a shame they didn’t just stick with the section about the testing. They didn’t even *lead* with that.

Instead, they started with that Northam/VDOE nonsense.

Tell me you didn’t read the newsletter without telling me you didn’t read the newsletter.

Which section do you think they led with? Wasn’t testing…

Hint: Go re-read the OP.

Troll.

School closures / SOLs / VMPI. All BS related to the current election. And apparently the #1 priority.

Section 2 was advocating for more testing. That was the only substantial section relevant to APS. Rest of newsletter was political filler.

You think public school closure regulations, standardized testing in public schools, and math curriculum in public schools have nothing to do with our public schools? That’s a new theory.

Yes, they started with a bunch of BS faux issues about “State-Level Education-Related Proposals and Legislation” because of the election.

They should have stuck with advocating for more testing. An actual issue with an actual solution that can help kids stay in the school.

The rest is BS, misinformation, or filler.

What part was misinformation? I am still confused about how public school regulation doesn’t relate to public schools. Do you think that just because the group’s focus is on APS they can’t advocate at all any level of public education regulation?

VMPI was misinformation. School closures is 100% political BS (explained on other thread). Aside from the testing section, the rest was filler.

Weak sauce.

Weakening SOL passing standards is filler?

Pretty much. What’s the point of focusing on an assessment from last year? It was a crazy year with so many atypical factors that certainly affected test scores? They may have adjusted it last year simply because kids couldn’t retake as they normally do. Or there were challenges with how it was given that skewed results.

The actual issue is the learning gap and how to push this year to get kids back on track. That would have been a meaningful topic instead of the filler to rag on VDOE/Northam during a gubernatorial election.

So transparent.

If that’s your view, then you actually should be really concerned about the changes to reading passing standards. The point of those passing standards isn’t to set a curve that ensures a certain number of students pass every year, it’s supposed to be to identify students and schools who aren’t meeting grade level standards for reading ability. Dropping the minimum score to pass that dramatically conceals how many children are not reading at the level they should be, which only reinforces the learning gap because it allows schools to pretend it doesn’t exist, or at least not to the extent it does.

Look what it’s done in practical terms - math scores weren’t adjusted he same way, we saw a massive drop in pass rates, and everyone is focused on how to address learning loss in math. We should be doing the same for reading but we’re not because this manipulation of passing scores let’s everyone pretend reading is going just fine.

Schools and teachers should absolutely assess and determine where to focus efforts on remediation this year. The SOL assessments from last year may not be the best tool to accomplish that. Focusing on that now (Oct 2021) is distracting from practical efforts to get kids back on track.

APE has an opportunity to advocate for meaningful things here for our kids (like they did pushing for more covid testing). It’s a shame they would rather play politics.

I don’t think you really understand the issue, because there are huge disconnects in your reasoning. You agree that schools should be addressing learning loss and providing remediation to students who are falling behind, right? So why are you fighting against efforts to highlight to extent of learning loss when it comes to reading, thereby enabling APS ignore the needs of students who are falling behind?

This is such a weird hill to choose to die on just because you don’t like APE.

Again, that is a non-meaningful area of focus if their real concern is remediation.

That was sandwiched in between “school closures” and VMPI, right? All non-meaningful areas of focus for topic #1.

Like I said, they should have stuck with topic #2 (pushing for more covid testing). And/or add meaningful ways to address remediation.

But I guess they want to get in on the political games. That’s their new focus.

DP. You will never get APS to provide meaningful remediation if APS will not admit there is a need for remediation in the first place. The changes to SOL scoring allow APS to pretend that remediation is not needed for reading. APE is trying to hold APS accountable so they will provide remediation. I do not understand why you are fighting that so hard.

I'm not "fighting" anything - just pointing out APE's priorities.

Why did APE also include school closures (twice) & VMPI as its #1 topic for this newsletter?

I have no idea why they chose the particular order for the news letter because I didn't write it. But since they are an educational advocacy group, legislative action on education issues seems like an appropriate topic for them to comment on.

Pushing “schools closures” as the top issue in Oct ‘21, weeks before Election Day, is sus.

You think Janet Howell is sus? Patrick Hope? Rip Sullivan? Alfonso Lopez? Hala Ayala? They all voted in favor of SB1303.

[Anonymous]

Seems to me that APE is the one whose agenda will lead to closed schools or more unnecessary quarantines if test to stay spreads cases.

APS is already using a version of test to stay on sports teams. Because of that now WHS has big outbreak among its athletes which has a big impact on the whole school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
There's a big problem with their testing push. Who is going to pay for it??? APE needs to say where the money will come from. There isn't money to spare as far as I know. So where are they going to take it from? Learning loss recovery?

These sorts of questions are probably why APE is encouraging people to direct their advocacy to both APS and to the governor/VDOE. Virginia had a massive budget surplus at the end of the 2021 fiscal year - why shouldn't we put some of that money toward funding testing in schools to help them stay safe?

To "stay safe"? I have some problem with that narrative given that test to stay is NOT recommended by the CDC. Quarantine is.

The CDC's position on test to stay is that they don't yet have enough data to endorse it, but are working with multiple jurisdictions that are using test to stay to develop that data. You know, doing research to see if a practice works before taking an official position. If no one tests out a test-to-stay protocol, we will never know if perhaps it could be superior to mandatory quarantines for exposed students to balance all of students' physical, mental and emotional health needs.

source?

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/19/health/coronavirus-school-quarantine-testing.html

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If this were my first exposure to APE this would all be very interesting but knowing that the same organization that now seems to be asking for increased teacher salaries was last year complaining that teachers were overly concerned about their health during covid and weren't working hard enough with remote learning tells me something about where the group really stands when it comes to teachers.

I'm at the point where APE says anything and I feel like I need to fact check it three different ways before I actually trust that it's true and not the product of some right-ish (for NOVA) wing spin machine. Beware.

Agreed!

+1

It’s a shame they didn’t just stick with the section about the testing. They didn’t even *lead* with that.

Instead, they started with that Northam/VDOE nonsense.

Tell me you didn’t read the newsletter without telling me you didn’t read the newsletter.

Which section do you think they led with? Wasn’t testing…

Hint: Go re-read the OP.

Troll.

School closures / SOLs / VMPI. All BS related to the current election. And apparently the #1 priority.

Section 2 was advocating for more testing. That was the only substantial section relevant to APS. Rest of newsletter was political filler.

You think public school closure regulations, standardized testing in public schools, and math curriculum in public schools have nothing to do with our public schools? That’s a new theory.

Yes, they started with a bunch of BS faux issues about “State-Level Education-Related Proposals and Legislation” because of the election.

They should have stuck with advocating for more testing. An actual issue with an actual solution that can help kids stay in the school.

The rest is BS, misinformation, or filler.

What part was misinformation? I am still confused about how public school regulation doesn’t relate to public schools. Do you think that just because the group’s focus is on APS they can’t advocate at all any level of public education regulation?

VMPI was misinformation. School closures is 100% political BS (explained on other thread). Aside from the testing section, the rest was filler.

Weak sauce.

Weakening SOL passing standards is filler?

Pretty much. What’s the point of focusing on an assessment from last year? It was a crazy year with so many atypical factors that certainly affected test scores? They may have adjusted it last year simply because kids couldn’t retake as they normally do. Or there were challenges with how it was given that skewed results.

The actual issue is the learning gap and how to push this year to get kids back on track. That would have been a meaningful topic instead of the filler to rag on VDOE/Northam during a gubernatorial election.

So transparent.

If that’s your view, then you actually should be really concerned about the changes to reading passing standards. The point of those passing standards isn’t to set a curve that ensures a certain number of students pass every year, it’s supposed to be to identify students and schools who aren’t meeting grade level standards for reading ability. Dropping the minimum score to pass that dramatically conceals how many children are not reading at the level they should be, which only reinforces the learning gap because it allows schools to pretend it doesn’t exist, or at least not to the extent it does.

Look what it’s done in practical terms - math scores weren’t adjusted he same way, we saw a massive drop in pass rates, and everyone is focused on how to address learning loss in math. We should be doing the same for reading but we’re not because this manipulation of passing scores let’s everyone pretend reading is going just fine.

Schools and teachers should absolutely assess and determine where to focus efforts on remediation this year. The SOL assessments from last year may not be the best tool to accomplish that. Focusing on that now (Oct 2021) is distracting from practical efforts to get kids back on track.

APE has an opportunity to advocate for meaningful things here for our kids (like they did pushing for more covid testing). It’s a shame they would rather play politics.

I don’t think you really understand the issue, because there are huge disconnects in your reasoning. You agree that schools should be addressing learning loss and providing remediation to students who are falling behind, right? So why are you fighting against efforts to highlight to extent of learning loss when it comes to reading, thereby enabling APS ignore the needs of students who are falling behind?

This is such a weird hill to choose to die on just because you don’t like APE.

Again, that is a non-meaningful area of focus if their real concern is remediation.

That was sandwiched in between “school closures” and VMPI, right? All non-meaningful areas of focus for topic #1.

Like I said, they should have stuck with topic #2 (pushing for more covid testing). And/or add meaningful ways to address remediation.

But I guess they want to get in on the political games. That’s their new focus.

DP. You will never get APS to provide meaningful remediation if APS will not admit there is a need for remediation in the first place. The changes to SOL scoring allow APS to pretend that remediation is not needed for reading. APE is trying to hold APS accountable so they will provide remediation. I do not understand why you are fighting that so hard.

I'm not "fighting" anything - just pointing out APE's priorities.

Why did APE also include school closures (twice) & VMPI as its #1 topic for this newsletter?

I have no idea why they chose the particular order for the news letter because I didn't write it. But since they are an educational advocacy group, legislative action on education issues seems like an appropriate topic for them to comment on.

Pushing “schools closures” as the top issue in Oct ‘21, weeks before Election Day, is sus.

You think Janet Howell is sus? Patrick Hope? Rip Sullivan? Alfonso Lopez? Hala Ayala? They all voted in favor of SB1303.

Uh. They voted on it back in Feb/Mar. It’s now October.

Who legit thinks “school closures” is a concern now?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honest question from a newcomer here...just moved into the area a few months ago and have just started getting acquainted with APE and AEM. I don't understand how someone can be "in" either of these groups? They're just raising two separate collections of ideas/concerns, and everyone is free to disagree or agree with them, right? Why the animosity for debating policy? I would think that's a good thing. So far, both groups have brought up reasonable things I thought - this isn't the case of deranged right-wingers at school boards.....

There is a lot of history with APE behaving poorly last year. They *did* have crazies yelling at the SB meeting. Very irrational and angry. Teacher bashing, aggressive attacks of other parents, etc.

They are trying to reinvent themselves now as a political lobbying entity. While discussion and advocacy are certainly great for everyone, it’s important to understand their positions and call out when they push misinformation or try to skew the conversation.

We shall see how much they help - or hurt - the conversation as the election nears.

There are a few people who happen to be in APE who have behaved poorly in issues in the past. I’m pretty sure anyone can join APE. But my multiple requests to join Smart Restart have never been approved - probably because I’m in APE - despite the fact that I never post in APE. AEM has its own set of “crazies” and yet I don’t see AEM being painted with a broad brush to take responsibility for all of their members’ behavior. Personally I like to hear all sides of these issues because I don’t trust anyone in APE or AEM to be unbiased. Personally, I like that AEM is taking a position on certain issues and being transparent about what they support as an org - so that I can separate it from individuals in the group who are way more conservative / less Covid conscious than I am. The main difference is you can raise questions in APE about masks, test types or program methodology, etc. and people will tell you in a calm, factual way if they think you are wrong. If you even dare question certain things or admit you don’t have a panic attack if your kid eats indoors on AEM or here on DCUM, you are shouted down and shamed. I’m pretty sure lawsuit dad has very few actual supprters in APE - but I like reading what other people in my community are thinking instead of being blissfully unaware in my safe little bubble.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honest question from a newcomer here...just moved into the area a few months ago and have just started getting acquainted with APE and AEM. I don't understand how someone can be "in" either of these groups? They're just raising two separate collections of ideas/concerns, and everyone is free to disagree or agree with them, right? Why the animosity for debating policy? I would think that's a good thing. So far, both groups have brought up reasonable things I thought - this isn't the case of deranged right-wingers at school boards.....

There is a lot of history with APE behaving poorly last year. They *did* have crazies yelling at the SB meeting. Very irrational and angry. Teacher bashing, aggressive attacks of other parents, etc.

They are trying to reinvent themselves now as a political lobbying entity. While discussion and advocacy are certainly great for everyone, it’s important to understand their positions and call out when they push misinformation or try to skew the conversation.

We shall see how much they help - or hurt - the conversation as the election nears.

There are a few people who happen to be in APE who have behaved poorly in issues in the past. I’m pretty sure anyone can join APE. But my multiple requests to join Smart Restart have never been approved - probably because I’m in APE - despite the fact that I never post in APE. AEM has its own set of “crazies” and yet I don’t see AEM being painted with a broad brush to take responsibility for all of their members’ behavior. Personally I like to hear all sides of these issues because I don’t trust anyone in APE or AEM to be unbiased. Personally, I like that AEM is taking a position on certain issues and being transparent about what they support as an org - so that I can separate it from individuals in the group who are way more conservative / less Covid conscious than I am. The main difference is you can raise questions in APE about masks, test types or program methodology, etc. and people will tell you in a calm, factual way if they think you are wrong. If you even dare question certain things or admit you don’t have a panic attack if your kid eats indoors on AEM or here on DCUM, you are shouted down and shamed. I’m pretty sure lawsuit dad has very few actual supprters in APE - but I like reading what other people in my community are thinking instead of being blissfully unaware in my safe little bubble.

AEM doesn't take positions. It's just an education discussion group with people of all viewpoints.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
There's a big problem with their testing push. Who is going to pay for it??? APE needs to say where the money will come from. There isn't money to spare as far as I know. So where are they going to take it from? Learning loss recovery?

These sorts of questions are probably why APE is encouraging people to direct their advocacy to both APS and to the governor/VDOE. Virginia had a massive budget surplus at the end of the 2021 fiscal year - why shouldn't we put some of that money toward funding testing in schools to help them stay safe?

To "stay safe"? I have some problem with that narrative given that test to stay is NOT recommended by the CDC. Quarantine is.

The CDC's position on test to stay is that they don't yet have enough data to endorse it, but are working with multiple jurisdictions that are using test to stay to develop that data. You know, doing research to see if a practice works before taking an official position. If no one tests out a test-to-stay protocol, we will never know if perhaps it could be superior to mandatory quarantines for exposed students to balance all of students' physical, mental and emotional health needs.

source?

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/19/health/coronavirus-school-quarantine-testing.html

Thanks. CDC says they don't endorse it. I'll wait til the data comes in from schools willing to use kids as guinea pigs. I don't want mine to be guinea pigs in this covid experiment.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If this were my first exposure to APE this would all be very interesting but knowing that the same organization that now seems to be asking for increased teacher salaries was last year complaining that teachers were overly concerned about their health during covid and weren't working hard enough with remote learning tells me something about where the group really stands when it comes to teachers.

I'm at the point where APE says anything and I feel like I need to fact check it three different ways before I actually trust that it's true and not the product of some right-ish (for NOVA) wing spin machine. Beware.

Agreed!

+1

It’s a shame they didn’t just stick with the section about the testing. They didn’t even *lead* with that.

Instead, they started with that Northam/VDOE nonsense.

Tell me you didn’t read the newsletter without telling me you didn’t read the newsletter.

Which section do you think they led with? Wasn’t testing…

Hint: Go re-read the OP.

Troll.

School closures / SOLs / VMPI. All BS related to the current election. And apparently the #1 priority.

Section 2 was advocating for more testing. That was the only substantial section relevant to APS. Rest of newsletter was political filler.

You think public school closure regulations, standardized testing in public schools, and math curriculum in public schools have nothing to do with our public schools? That’s a new theory.

Yes, they started with a bunch of BS faux issues about “State-Level Education-Related Proposals and Legislation” because of the election.

They should have stuck with advocating for more testing. An actual issue with an actual solution that can help kids stay in the school.

The rest is BS, misinformation, or filler.

What part was misinformation? I am still confused about how public school regulation doesn’t relate to public schools. Do you think that just because the group’s focus is on APS they can’t advocate at all any level of public education regulation?

VMPI was misinformation. School closures is 100% political BS (explained on other thread). Aside from the testing section, the rest was filler.

Weak sauce.

Weakening SOL passing standards is filler?

Pretty much. What’s the point of focusing on an assessment from last year? It was a crazy year with so many atypical factors that certainly affected test scores? They may have adjusted it last year simply because kids couldn’t retake as they normally do. Or there were challenges with how it was given that skewed results.

The actual issue is the learning gap and how to push this year to get kids back on track. That would have been a meaningful topic instead of the filler to rag on VDOE/Northam during a gubernatorial election.

So transparent.

If that’s your view, then you actually should be really concerned about the changes to reading passing standards. The point of those passing standards isn’t to set a curve that ensures a certain number of students pass every year, it’s supposed to be to identify students and schools who aren’t meeting grade level standards for reading ability. Dropping the minimum score to pass that dramatically conceals how many children are not reading at the level they should be, which only reinforces the learning gap because it allows schools to pretend it doesn’t exist, or at least not to the extent it does.

Look what it’s done in practical terms - math scores weren’t adjusted he same way, we saw a massive drop in pass rates, and everyone is focused on how to address learning loss in math. We should be doing the same for reading but we’re not because this manipulation of passing scores let’s everyone pretend reading is going just fine.

Schools and teachers should absolutely assess and determine where to focus efforts on remediation this year. The SOL assessments from last year may not be the best tool to accomplish that. Focusing on that now (Oct 2021) is distracting from practical efforts to get kids back on track.

APE has an opportunity to advocate for meaningful things here for our kids (like they did pushing for more covid testing). It’s a shame they would rather play politics.

I don’t think you really understand the issue, because there are huge disconnects in your reasoning. You agree that schools should be addressing learning loss and providing remediation to students who are falling behind, right? So why are you fighting against efforts to highlight to extent of learning loss when it comes to reading, thereby enabling APS ignore the needs of students who are falling behind?

This is such a weird hill to choose to die on just because you don’t like APE.

Again, that is a non-meaningful area of focus if their real concern is remediation.

That was sandwiched in between “school closures” and VMPI, right? All non-meaningful areas of focus for topic #1.

Like I said, they should have stuck with topic #2 (pushing for more covid testing). And/or add meaningful ways to address remediation.

But I guess they want to get in on the political games. That’s their new focus.

DP. You will never get APS to provide meaningful remediation if APS will not admit there is a need for remediation in the first place. The changes to SOL scoring allow APS to pretend that remediation is not needed for reading. APE is trying to hold APS accountable so they will provide remediation. I do not understand why you are fighting that so hard.

I'm not "fighting" anything - just pointing out APE's priorities.

Why did APE also include school closures (twice) & VMPI as its #1 topic for this newsletter?

I have no idea why they chose the particular order for the news letter because I didn't write it. But since they are an educational advocacy group, legislative action on education issues seems like an appropriate topic for them to comment on.

Pushing “schools closures” as the top issue in Oct ‘21, weeks before Election Day, is sus.

You think Janet Howell is sus? Patrick Hope? Rip Sullivan? Alfonso Lopez? Hala Ayala? They all voted in favor of SB1303.

Uh. They voted on it back in Feb/Mar. It’s now October.

Who legit thinks “school closures” is a concern now?

The bill is set to expire after this school year, which means if the pandemic is still going on next year, there would no long be a requirement that schools offer in-person learning. If that’s going to change, the legislature needs to act before then - it can’t wait until August to start thinking about it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honest question from a newcomer here...just moved into the area a few months ago and have just started getting acquainted with APE and AEM. I don't understand how someone can be "in" either of these groups? They're just raising two separate collections of ideas/concerns, and everyone is free to disagree or agree with them, right? Why the animosity for debating policy? I would think that's a good thing. So far, both groups have brought up reasonable things I thought - this isn't the case of deranged right-wingers at school boards.....

There is a lot of history with APE behaving poorly last year. They *did* have crazies yelling at the SB meeting. Very irrational and angry. Teacher bashing, aggressive attacks of other parents, etc.

They are trying to reinvent themselves now as a political lobbying entity. While discussion and advocacy are certainly great for everyone, it’s important to understand their positions and call out when they push misinformation or try to skew the conversation.

We shall see how much they help - or hurt - the conversation as the election nears.

There are a few people who happen to be in APE who have behaved poorly in issues in the past. I’m pretty sure anyone can join APE. But my multiple requests to join Smart Restart have never been approved - probably because I’m in APE - despite the fact that I never post in APE. AEM has its own set of “crazies” and yet I don’t see AEM being painted with a broad brush to take responsibility for all of their members’ behavior. Personally I like to hear all sides of these issues because I don’t trust anyone in APE or AEM to be unbiased. Personally, I like that AEM is taking a position on certain issues and being transparent about what they support as an org - so that I can separate it from individuals in the group who are way more conservative / less Covid conscious than I am. The main difference is you can raise questions in APE about masks, test types or program methodology, etc. and people will tell you in a calm, factual way if they think you are wrong. If you even dare question certain things or admit you don’t have a panic attack if your kid eats indoors on AEM or here on DCUM, you are shouted down and shamed. I’m pretty sure lawsuit dad has very few actual supprters in APE - but I like reading what other people in my community are thinking instead of being blissfully unaware in my safe little bubble.

AEM doesn't take positions. It's just an education discussion group with people of all viewpoints.

Except that any viewpoint that is not aligned with the most vocal people on there is summarily dismissed. I’m pretty liberal AND conservative about Covid risks and I am afraid to post there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
You think Janet Howell is sus? Patrick Hope? Rip Sullivan? Alfonso Lopez? Hala Ayala? They all voted in favor of SB1303.

Uh. They voted on it back in Feb/Mar. It’s now October.

Who legit thinks “school closures” is a concern now?

The bill is set to expire after this school year, which means if the pandemic is still going on next year, there would no long be a requirement that schools offer in-person learning. If that’s going to change, the legislature needs to act before then - it can’t wait until August to start thinking about it.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If this were my first exposure to APE this would all be very interesting but knowing that the same organization that now seems to be asking for increased teacher salaries was last year complaining that teachers were overly concerned about their health during covid and weren't working hard enough with remote learning tells me something about where the group really stands when it comes to teachers.

I'm at the point where APE says anything and I feel like I need to fact check it three different ways before I actually trust that it's true and not the product of some right-ish (for NOVA) wing spin machine. Beware.

Agreed!

+1

It’s a shame they didn’t just stick with the section about the testing. They didn’t even *lead* with that.

Instead, they started with that Northam/VDOE nonsense.

Tell me you didn’t read the newsletter without telling me you didn’t read the newsletter.

Which section do you think they led with? Wasn’t testing…

Hint: Go re-read the OP.

Troll.

School closures / SOLs / VMPI. All BS related to the current election. And apparently the #1 priority.

Section 2 was advocating for more testing. That was the only substantial section relevant to APS. Rest of newsletter was political filler.

You think public school closure regulations, standardized testing in public schools, and math curriculum in public schools have nothing to do with our public schools? That’s a new theory.

Yes, they started with a bunch of BS faux issues about “State-Level Education-Related Proposals and Legislation” because of the election.

They should have stuck with advocating for more testing. An actual issue with an actual solution that can help kids stay in the school.

The rest is BS, misinformation, or filler.

What part was misinformation? I am still confused about how public school regulation doesn’t relate to public schools. Do you think that just because the group’s focus is on APS they can’t advocate at all any level of public education regulation?

VMPI was misinformation. School closures is 100% political BS (explained on other thread). Aside from the testing section, the rest was filler.

Weak sauce.

Weakening SOL passing standards is filler?

Pretty much. What’s the point of focusing on an assessment from last year? It was a crazy year with so many atypical factors that certainly affected test scores? They may have adjusted it last year simply because kids couldn’t retake as they normally do. Or there were challenges with how it was given that skewed results.

The actual issue is the learning gap and how to push this year to get kids back on track. That would have been a meaningful topic instead of the filler to rag on VDOE/Northam during a gubernatorial election.

So transparent.

If that’s your view, then you actually should be really concerned about the changes to reading passing standards. The point of those passing standards isn’t to set a curve that ensures a certain number of students pass every year, it’s supposed to be to identify students and schools who aren’t meeting grade level standards for reading ability. Dropping the minimum score to pass that dramatically conceals how many children are not reading at the level they should be, which only reinforces the learning gap because it allows schools to pretend it doesn’t exist, or at least not to the extent it does.

Look what it’s done in practical terms - math scores weren’t adjusted he same way, we saw a massive drop in pass rates, and everyone is focused on how to address learning loss in math. We should be doing the same for reading but we’re not because this manipulation of passing scores let’s everyone pretend reading is going just fine.

Schools and teachers should absolutely assess and determine where to focus efforts on remediation this year. The SOL assessments from last year may not be the best tool to accomplish that. Focusing on that now (Oct 2021) is distracting from practical efforts to get kids back on track.

APE has an opportunity to advocate for meaningful things here for our kids (like they did pushing for more covid testing). It’s a shame they would rather play politics.

I don’t think you really understand the issue, because there are huge disconnects in your reasoning. You agree that schools should be addressing learning loss and providing remediation to students who are falling behind, right? So why are you fighting against efforts to highlight to extent of learning loss when it comes to reading, thereby enabling APS ignore the needs of students who are falling behind?

This is such a weird hill to choose to die on just because you don’t like APE.

Again, that is a non-meaningful area of focus if their real concern is remediation.

That was sandwiched in between “school closures” and VMPI, right? All non-meaningful areas of focus for topic #1.

Like I said, they should have stuck with topic #2 (pushing for more covid testing). And/or add meaningful ways to address remediation.

But I guess they want to get in on the political games. That’s their new focus.

DP. You will never get APS to provide meaningful remediation if APS will not admit there is a need for remediation in the first place. The changes to SOL scoring allow APS to pretend that remediation is not needed for reading. APE is trying to hold APS accountable so they will provide remediation. I do not understand why you are fighting that so hard.

I'm not "fighting" anything - just pointing out APE's priorities.

Why did APE also include school closures (twice) & VMPI as its #1 topic for this newsletter?

I have no idea why they chose the particular order for the news letter because I didn't write it. But since they are an educational advocacy group, legislative action on education issues seems like an appropriate topic for them to comment on.

Pushing “schools closures” as the top issue in Oct ‘21, weeks before Election Day, is sus.

You think Janet Howell is sus? Patrick Hope? Rip Sullivan? Alfonso Lopez? Hala Ayala? They all voted in favor of SB1303.

Uh. They voted on it back in Feb/Mar. It’s now October.

Who legit thinks “school closures” is a concern now?

The bill is set to expire after this school year, which means if the pandemic is still going on next year, there would no long be a requirement that schools offer in-person learning. If that’s going to change, the legislature needs to act before then - it can’t wait until August to start thinking about it.

IF the pandemic is still going in a year
IF there is some new strain
IF kids aren’t vaccinated
IF vaccines aren’t effective against that strain
IF the GA wouldn’t pass a similar law to what it has already passed

That’s a lot of IFs for that top #1 “concern”.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honest question from a newcomer here...just moved into the area a few months ago and have just started getting acquainted with APE and AEM. I don't understand how someone can be "in" either of these groups? They're just raising two separate collections of ideas/concerns, and everyone is free to disagree or agree with them, right? Why the animosity for debating policy? I would think that's a good thing. So far, both groups have brought up reasonable things I thought - this isn't the case of deranged right-wingers at school boards.....

There is a lot of history with APE behaving poorly last year. They *did* have crazies yelling at the SB meeting. Very irrational and angry. Teacher bashing, aggressive attacks of other parents, etc.

They are trying to reinvent themselves now as a political lobbying entity. While discussion and advocacy are certainly great for everyone, it’s important to understand their positions and call out when they push misinformation or try to skew the conversation.

We shall see how much they help - or hurt - the conversation as the election nears.

There are a few people who happen to be in APE who have behaved poorly in issues in the past. I’m pretty sure anyone can join APE. But my multiple requests to join Smart Restart have never been approved - probably because I’m in APE - despite the fact that I never post in APE. AEM has its own set of “crazies” and yet I don’t see AEM being painted with a broad brush to take responsibility for all of their members’ behavior. Personally I like to hear all sides of these issues because I don’t trust anyone in APE or AEM to be unbiased. Personally, I like that AEM is taking a position on certain issues and being transparent about what they support as an org - so that I can separate it from individuals in the group who are way more conservative / less Covid conscious than I am. The main difference is you can raise questions in APE about masks, test types or program methodology, etc. and people will tell you in a calm, factual way if they think you are wrong. If you even dare question certain things or admit you don’t have a panic attack if your kid eats indoors on AEM or here on DCUM, you are shouted down and shamed. I’m pretty sure lawsuit dad has very few actual supprters in APE - but I like reading what other people in my community are thinking instead of being blissfully unaware in my safe little bubble.

AEM doesn't take positions. It's just an education discussion group with people of all viewpoints.

Except that any viewpoint that is not aligned with the most vocal people on there is summarily dismissed. I’m pretty liberal AND conservative about Covid risks and I am afraid to post there.

I completely agree, the general culture of AEM does not allow for differing viewpoints. The people who are active in the group do not seem to appreciate the extent to which they are operating in an echo chamber that does not necessarily reflect the views of the broader community on every issue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I'm not "fighting" anything - just pointing out APE's priorities.

Why did APE also include school closures (twice) & VMPI as its #1 topic for this newsletter?

I have no idea why they chose the particular order for the news letter because I didn't write it. But since they are an educational advocacy group, legislative action on education issues seems like an appropriate topic for them to comment on.

Pushing “schools closures” as the top issue in Oct ‘21, weeks before Election Day, is sus.

You think Janet Howell is sus? Patrick Hope? Rip Sullivan? Alfonso Lopez? Hala Ayala? They all voted in favor of SB1303.

Uh. They voted on it back in Feb/Mar. It’s now October.

Who legit thinks “school closures” is a concern now?

The bill is set to expire after this school year, which means if the pandemic is still going on next year, there would no long be a requirement that schools offer in-person learning. If that’s going to change, the legislature needs to act before then - it can’t wait until August to start thinking about it.

IF the pandemic is still going in a year
IF there is some new strain
IF kids aren’t vaccinated
IF vaccines aren’t effective against that strain
IF the GA wouldn’t pass a similar law to what it has already passed

That’s a lot of IFs for that top #1 “concern”.

It is fine if you do not believe school closures are an issue. I will not tell you that you have to think it is, or that you have to agree with APE's viewpoint. People can have different ideas about what issues are and are not priorities without either operating in bad faith, though. Operating under an assumption that anyone who does not completely share your views must be operating in bad faith does not change anyone's mind; the only purpose is to stifle discussion of different viewpoints.