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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a current McK family, I don’t love that our PTA president keeps emailing assuming we all support not moving. I understand she might have a personal preference and that’s fine to state openly. But the group think approach is pretty alienating. As in you agree with us or you’re not part of us.

Lots of McKinley families do not agree with the PTA’s position.

It’s pretty disappointing that the PTA president would do something contrary to the views of most of the PTA members. When Nottingham was on the chopping block a couple of years ago, there was an open meeting to discuss what the PTA should do and the president required a unanimous vote of those in attendance before the PTA would get involved. That vote included people who knew they were moving to Reed, and thus didn’t have a direct interest in Nottingham remaining a neighborhood school, because the PTA is supposed to represent all parents, not just a certain subset.

The vote also came with an explicit condition that Nottingham PTA activity on the issue would not involve throwing any other schools under the bus. Tto the extent any Nottingham people did that, they were acting in their individual capacity, not as part of the PTA.

Seems like the McKinley PTA is taking a very different approach.

Huh. That must have been a different pta than the one that threw McKinley under the bus by refusing the Tuckahoe PUs, thereby exacerbating the severe overcrowding situation at Mckinley.

Lol at any attempts to create warm and fuzzy memories of Nottingham pta presidents while pointing fingers at other schools. But glad to hear that some ethics kicked in at some point.

Enjoy your new school, McKinley.

I’m pp and not a Mckinley parent. I do personally know the pta president in question, however, and lost a lot of respect for her when that occurred.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I just moved to VA from NY and we are currently in a zone where kids are bussed to McKinley but would move to Reed under the current proposal. I’d be fine with pretty much any options because the choices are 1) go to a brand new school or 2) get bussed to any number of other good schools (I guess most likely either staying at McKinley or moving to Glebe, if not Reed). I’d actually prefer bussing with my work schedule. Am I missing something? Why are McKinley parents freaking out when they will either stay at a great school or move to what will surely be another great school?

You're not missing a thing other than experience in Arlington.
Welcome to Arlington!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t know what prompted the locking of the thread, but I do hope the link to the website is deleted. That sends people to the bs website without any discourse on it. It inadvertently promotes the crazy people. I think it’s clear most of those responding here are not opposed to the move.

That thread was calling more attention to the website and petition. I suspect some of the posts on that thread and/or this one discussing the website may be concern trolls who are actually trying to get more it attention (and more signatures).

Why report the thread about *supporting* the APS proposal?

Sounds like McKinley/Key parents trying to silence others.

You can discuss it here. I am pro-move, but there is an excessive level of hysteria going on here about that website.

Did you report those threads?

The second (deleted) thread wasn’t about the website.

He second thread was discussing moderating decisions, which belongs in Website Feedback, not VA Public Schools.

Seriously, you are giving more attention to the Key/McKinley nonsense with all of this. What’s your angle in continuing to try to get people to discuss the no moves campaign?

No. The deleted thread was a push for people to contact the school board in SUPPORT of the moves.

Did you report them? Are you a McKinley/Key mom?

That thread still exists, it’s just locked. The deleted thread was started to discussing the locking of the thread about supporting the move

Yes, I did report them (but remember, you’re talking to more than one poster here so don’t go batshit on everyone who responds to you here). No, I am not a McKinley/Key parent (nice bit of gender bias there). I support the proposed moves. My decision to report the threads was about the rules of DCUM, not about this particular issue. I’d be a hypocrite if I only reported rules violations that also went against my personal views, as opposed to reporting them regardless of how the posts aligned with my views.

1. Stop trying to silence parents who SUPPORT the move. It’s not your job to police DCUM.

2. There are multiple people posting - I didn’t say anything about tin foil/angle/hysteria.

Jeff actually does ask that posters report rules violations to help him moderate DCUM because he doesn’t have time to read all of the threads.

In your "zeal" for policing threads you are silencing supporters of the proposed move. Something to think about as you decide how to spend your time on a holiday weekend.

What rule did the new thread break?

[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:I don’t know what prompted the locking of the thread, but I do hope the link to the website is deleted. That sends people to the bs website without any discourse on it. It inadvertently promotes the crazy people. I think it’s clear most of those responding here are not opposed to the move.

That thread was calling more attention to the website and petition. I suspect some of the posts on that thread and/or this one discussing the website may be concern trolls who are actually trying to get more it attention (and more signatures).

Why report the thread about *supporting* the APS proposal?

Sounds like McKinley/Key parents trying to silence others.

You can discuss it here. I am pro-move, but there is an excessive level of hysteria going on here about that website.

Did you report those threads?

The second (deleted) thread wasn’t about the website.

He second thread was discussing moderating decisions, which belongs in Website Feedback, not VA Public Schools.

Seriously, you are giving more attention to the Key/McKinley nonsense with all of this. What’s your angle in continuing to try to get people to discuss the no moves campaign?

No. The deleted thread was a push for people to contact the school board in SUPPORT of the moves.

Did you report them? Are you a McKinley/Key mom?

That thread still exists, it’s just locked. The deleted thread was started to discussing the locking of the thread about supporting the move

Yes, I did report them (but remember, you’re talking to more than one poster here so don’t go batshit on everyone who responds to you here). No, I am not a McKinley/Key parent (nice bit of gender bias there). I support the proposed moves. My decision to report the threads was about the rules of DCUM, not about this particular issue. I’d be a hypocrite if I only reported rules violations that also went against my personal views, as opposed to reporting them regardless of how the posts aligned with my views.

1. Stop trying to silence parents who SUPPORT the move. It’s not your job to police DCUM.

2. There are multiple people posting - I didn’t say anything about tin foil/angle/hysteria.

Jeff actually does ask that posters report rules violations to help him moderate DCUM because he doesn’t have time to read all of the threads.

In your "zeal" for policing threads you are silencing supporters of the proposed move. Something to think about as you decide how to spend your time on a holiday weekend.

What rule did the new thread break?

Very Important Rules Broken:
1. Already another thread on a similar topic. This original thread was about a small but vocal group trying to stop the move; the deleted third thread was another attempt to push for people to contact the school board if they do support the move - targeting a broader audience.
2. Mentioned the second thread getting locked.

Neither breaks the spirit of Jeff’s “rules”. Maybe overzealous reporter should hold back a wee bit on compulsive reporting every now and then.

[Anonymous]

I'm still not sure why the website in the 2nd one wasn't removed if the thread got locked.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a current McK family, I don’t love that our PTA president keeps emailing assuming we all support not moving. I understand she might have a personal preference and that’s fine to state openly. But the group think approach is pretty alienating. As in you agree with us or you’re not part of us.

Lots of McKinley families do not agree with the PTA’s position.

It’s pretty disappointing that the PTA president would do something contrary to the views of most of the PTA members. When Nottingham was on the chopping block a couple of years ago, there was an open meeting to discuss what the PTA should do and the president required a unanimous vote of those in attendance before the PTA would get involved. That vote included people who knew they were moving to Reed, and thus didn’t have a direct interest in Nottingham remaining a neighborhood school, because the PTA is supposed to represent all parents, not just a certain subset.

The vote also came with an explicit condition that Nottingham PTA activity on the issue would not involve throwing any other schools under the bus. Tto the extent any Nottingham people did that, they were acting in their individual capacity, not as part of the PTA.

Seems like the McKinley PTA is taking a very different approach.

Huh. That must have been a different pta than the one that threw McKinley under the bus by refusing the Tuckahoe PUs, thereby exacerbating the severe overcrowding situation at Mckinley.

Lol at any attempts to create warm and fuzzy memories of Nottingham pta presidents while pointing fingers at other schools. But glad to hear that some ethics kicked in at some point.

Enjoy your new school, McKinley.

I’m pp and not a Mckinley parent. I do personally know the pta president in question, however, and lost a lot of respect for her when that occurred.

When what occurred? I assume you’re not talking about the whole planning units to McKinley thing, because there was a male PTA president when that went down.

[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:I don’t know what prompted the locking of the thread, but I do hope the link to the website is deleted. That sends people to the bs website without any discourse on it. It inadvertently promotes the crazy people. I think it’s clear most of those responding here are not opposed to the move.

That thread was calling more attention to the website and petition. I suspect some of the posts on that thread and/or this one discussing the website may be concern trolls who are actually trying to get more it attention (and more signatures).

Why report the thread about *supporting* the APS proposal?

Sounds like McKinley/Key parents trying to silence others.

You can discuss it here. I am pro-move, but there is an excessive level of hysteria going on here about that website.

Did you report those threads?

The second (deleted) thread wasn’t about the website.

He second thread was discussing moderating decisions, which belongs in Website Feedback, not VA Public Schools.

Seriously, you are giving more attention to the Key/McKinley nonsense with all of this. What’s your angle in continuing to try to get people to discuss the no moves campaign?

No. The deleted thread was a push for people to contact the school board in SUPPORT of the moves.

Did you report them? Are you a McKinley/Key mom?

That thread still exists, it’s just locked. The deleted thread was started to discussing the locking of the thread about supporting the move

Yes, I did report them (but remember, you’re talking to more than one poster here so don’t go batshit on everyone who responds to you here). No, I am not a McKinley/Key parent (nice bit of gender bias there). I support the proposed moves. My decision to report the threads was about the rules of DCUM, not about this particular issue. I’d be a hypocrite if I only reported rules violations that also went against my personal views, as opposed to reporting them regardless of how the posts aligned with my views.

1. Stop trying to silence parents who SUPPORT the move. It’s not your job to police DCUM.

2. There are multiple people posting - I didn’t say anything about tin foil/angle/hysteria.

Jeff actually does ask that posters report rules violations to help him moderate DCUM because he doesn’t have time to read all of the threads.

In your "zeal" for policing threads you are silencing supporters of the proposed move. Something to think about as you decide how to spend your time on a holiday weekend.

What rule did the new thread break?

Very Important Rules Broken:
1. Already another thread on a similar topic. This original thread was about a small but vocal group trying to stop the move; the deleted third thread was another attempt to push for people to contact the school board if they do support the move - targeting a broader audience.
2. Mentioned the second thread getting locked.

Neither breaks the spirit of Jeff’s “rules”. Maybe overzealous reporter should hold back a wee bit on compulsive reporting every now and then.

You realize that posts/threads aren’t automatically locked/deleted when people report them, right? Jeff reviews the reports and decides whether to lock/delete, so apparently Jeff agreed that those threads violated the rules.

[Anonymous]

ASFS be like: not enough popcorn in the world to enjoy this.

[Anonymous]

Current pulse check. Thoughts on whether moves will happen?

I think yes, especially after the vibe of the last SB meeting. And I certainly hope yes, in the name of having a school board that respects staff’s judgement and doesn’t always cave under pressure from special interests. I fear the boundary process if the moves don’t happen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Current pulse check. Thoughts on whether moves will happen?

I think yes, especially after the vibe of the last SB meeting. And I certainly hope yes, in the name of having a school board that respects staff’s judgement and doesn’t always cave under pressure from special interests. I fear the boundary process if the moves don’t happen.

I also think yes. There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth, but it will go through.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Current pulse check. Thoughts on whether moves will happen?

I think yes, especially after the vibe of the last SB meeting. And I certainly hope yes, in the name of having a school board that respects staff’s judgement and doesn’t always cave under pressure from special interests. I fear the boundary process if the moves don’t happen.

I also think yes. There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth, but it will go through.

I am leaning towards yes, but school board members who are not running again are wild cards.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:ASFS be like: not enough popcorn in the world to enjoy this.

A lot of ASFS opposed the swap, and the new boundaries for Key will carve them up. This is basically the real end of ASFS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:ASFS be like: not enough popcorn in the world to enjoy this.

A lot of ASFS opposed the swap, and the new boundaries for Key will carve them up. This is basically the real end of ASFS.

I bet 75% of the current community will stay together and form a new great school at the Key location.

ASFS will continue to exist. I doubt it will change much unless the principal retires.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:ASFS be like: not enough popcorn in the world to enjoy this.

A lot of ASFS opposed the swap, and the new boundaries for Key will carve them up. This is basically the real end of ASFS.

I bet 75% of the current community will stay together and form a new great school at the Key location.

ASFS will continue to exist. I doubt it will change much unless the principal retires.

What are you talking about? A lot of ASFS will be redistricted to Key. They have to relieve the overcrowded at ASFS plus make room for all the kids that currently go to Taylor but could walk to ASFS, plus the “tail” of Ashlawn.

And then there is the Reed redistricting... I have no clue how staff is going to accomplish this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:ASFS be like: not enough popcorn in the world to enjoy this.

A lot of ASFS opposed the swap, and the new boundaries for Key will carve them up. This is basically the real end of ASFS.

I bet 75% of the current community will stay together and form a new great school at the Key location.

ASFS will continue to exist. I doubt it will change much unless the principal retires.

What are you talking about? A lot of ASFS will be redistricted to Key. They have to relieve the overcrowded at ASFS plus make room for all the kids that currently go to Taylor but could walk to ASFS, plus the “tail” of Ashlawn.

And then there is the Reed redistricting... I have no clue how staff is going to accomplish this.

Yes, I’m estimating that 75% of the current population will stay together and move together to the new Key location.

?