Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Omg. That is literally exactly what happens. " the system was good enough for my kids"

Do you disagree with that? If you went to school or sent your kids to school somewhere where kids bought their own devices, language instruction didn't start until middle school, or classes had 30 students or more, you might think that 1 cent would be better off in your pocket than in APS' coffers.

Anonymous wrote:

It's beyond ridiculous to praise the board for not pushing a bunch of low income housing from the west Pike into Wakefield. That option SHOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN ON THE TABLE.
Lander seems to be completely lacking in nuance. Full of platitudes to make everyone fell good ( they are all guilty of it).
Such a great balance we've managed to strike. All of the weathly liberals can feel so good about living in such a progressive county, but don't have subject their own children to their politics.
The poor are just thrilled to be here and don't really want to integrate anyway. Everyone is happy.
Except the middle class moving into south Arlington. Just ignore them. What a bunch of racists!

Makes you wonder why anyone with kids would move to Arlington....

Anonymous wrote:
Omg. That is literally exactly what happens. " the system was good enough for my kids"

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This just shouldn't be so complicated.

What shouldn't? Running a school district with a half-billion dollar budget?

That's bound to be complicated. The problem is not that people can't learn to deal with complications, it's that they don't choose to., but Setting definable goals for a project and comparing goals to what's achieved would be a huge help, but that would require people to occasionally admit that they made a bad choice. I think Arlington voters could accept that if it came with an explanation, but that's not the board way. Have an idea, implement the idea, stand by the idea.

It's a small school system, relatively speaking. These folks tie themselves into knots over the simplest things. Build more schools. Reduce the fetish for gimmick schools. Done and done.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This just shouldn't be so complicated.

What shouldn't? Running a school district with a half-billion dollar budget?

That's bound to be complicated. The problem is not that people can't learn to deal with complications, it's that they don't choose to., but Setting definable goals for a project and comparing goals to what's achieved would be a huge help, but that would require people to occasionally admit that they made a bad choice. I think Arlington voters could accept that if it came with an explanation, but that's not the board way. Have an idea, implement the idea, stand by the idea.

It's a small school system, relatively speaking. These folks tie themselves into knots over the simplest things. Build more schools. Reduce the fetish for gimmick schools. Done and done.

Anonymous wrote:

It's beyond ridiculous to praise the board for not pushing a bunch of low income housing from the west Pike into Wakefield. That option SHOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN ON THE TABLE.
Lander seems to be completely lacking in nuance. Full of platitudes to make everyone fell good ( they are all guilty of it).
Such a great balance we've managed to strike. All of the weathly liberals can feel so good about living in such a progressive county, but don't have subject their own children to their politics.
The poor are just thrilled to be here and don't really want to integrate anyway. Everyone is happy.
Except the middle class moving into south Arlington. Just ignore them. What a bunch of racists!

Makes you wonder why anyone with kids would move to Arlington....

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This just shouldn't be so complicated.

What shouldn't? Running a school district with a half-billion dollar budget?

That's bound to be complicated. The problem is not that people can't learn to deal with complications, it's that they don't choose to., but Setting definable goals for a project and comparing goals to what's achieved would be a huge help, but that would require people to occasionally admit that they made a bad choice. I think Arlington voters could accept that if it came with an explanation, but that's not the board way. Have an idea, implement the idea, stand by the idea.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This just shouldn't be so complicated.

What shouldn't? Running a school district with a half-billion dollar budget?

That's bound to be complicated. The problem is not that people can't learn to deal with complications, it's that they don't choose to., but Setting definable goals for a project and comparing goals to what's achieved would be a huge help, but that would require people to occasionally admit that they made a bad choice. I think Arlington voters could accept that if it came with an explanation, but that's not the board way. Have an idea, implement the idea, stand by the idea.

cause 80% residents don't use APS.

Where does this stat come from?

And, what does it mean exactly? 80 percent may not use APS at this very moment, but it's BS that 80 percent didnt, or wont, use its services. You don't get to put your kids through the county schools and then wash your hands of it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This just shouldn't be so complicated.

What shouldn't? Running a school district with a half-billion dollar budget?

That's bound to be complicated. The problem is not that people can't learn to deal with complications, it's that they don't choose to., but Setting definable goals for a project and comparing goals to what's achieved would be a huge help, but that would require people to occasionally admit that they made a bad choice. I think Arlington voters could accept that if it came with an explanation, but that's not the board way. Have an idea, implement the idea, stand by the idea.

cause 80% residents don't use APS.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This just shouldn't be so complicated.

What shouldn't? Running a school district with a half-billion dollar budget?

That's bound to be complicated. The problem is not that people can't learn to deal with complications, it's that they don't choose to., but Setting definable goals for a project and comparing goals to what's achieved would be a huge help, but that would require people to occasionally admit that they made a bad choice. I think Arlington voters could accept that if it came with an explanation, but that's not the board way. Have an idea, implement the idea, stand by the idea.

cause 80% residents don't use APS.

It's beyond ridiculous to praise the board for not pushing a bunch of low income housing from the west Pike into Wakefield. That option SHOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN ON THE TABLE.
Lander seems to be completely lacking in nuance. Full of platitudes to make everyone fell good ( they are all guilty of it).
Such a great balance we've managed to strike. All of the weathly liberals can feel so good about living in such a progressive county, but don't have subject their own children to their politics.
The poor are just thrilled to be here and don't really want to integrate anyway. Everyone is happy.
Except the middle class moving into south Arlington. Just ignore them. What a bunch of racists!

Anonymous wrote:I have been totally unimpressed with Maura. She can't state her position clearly and she doesn't seem to understand how the SB works. I really wanted to like her, but even when asked directly about 4th comprehensive, she hedged. She talks about diversity with no specific action plan.

Monique O'Grady is 150% for Choice schools. Very welll spoken, but clearly stated that Choice schoools are the answer, the "safety valve" (in her words) for Capacity.

Even if you don't like Lander personally, he has actually stood for some important decisions. He was the ONLY SB member to vote AGAINST renewing Murphy's contract! He voted for neighborhood school at Stratford and tried hard to push for the Wilson/HB site to co-locate with more students, such as Montessori or Pre-K. He has been open to listening and has changed his mind when the facts support a better decision. And he shut down the BS accusations by the HB people that moving them to Wilson was racist. He is a strong supporter of neighborhood schools and has said he is in favor of a 4th comprehensive in the mid-term plan. He says we need 1300 seats short-term PLUS a 4th comprehensive.

With who we have on the ballot, if you favor neighborhood schools and a 4th comprehensive, you should vote for James.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Families with "no interest" will not enroll in these programs.

I think this is why it is an admin nightmare. Let's take this example.

For argument's sake lets make this a bit less complicated and assume both parents are in the West Zone.

Parent A's native Spanish speaking K child gets a lottery spot in immersion. Parent A has no interest and opts out.
Parent B's native Spanish speaking K child is on the immersion wait list. Parent B really wants immersion but by the time Parent A, who was NEVER interested in immersion, gets around to opting out, Parent B who was interested has already decided they'll just go with a guaranteed spot in their neighborhood STEAM school. So now you have a parent who was interested losing interest b/c they lost a lottery spot to someone who didn't want immersion to begin with.

BTW native language is important b/c the suggestion is to have two lotteries, Spanish speaking and non Spanish speaking. Which actually raises another question. If you are going to auto enter all the K kids into the immersion lottery you need to know which children are native speakers so you know which lottery to enter them into. So again, more unnecessary admin burden. If you are taking the time to collect the native language of each child, why not take that same time to inform all parents about option schools so they can enter, or not enter whichever lottery they think is right for their family.

I am hoping if they do this there will be a lottery for each option and that winning in one lottery doesn't impact the other lotteries. For example if you get a lottery spot in IB but you want immersion, being selected in the IB lottery should not mean you loose your chance to get a spot in the program you actually want for your child.

So while I understand the problem I am not sure the plan can easily be executed without causing widespread issues.

It's not all that hard, DC and MoCo have been doing this for years. You are guaranteed admission to your n'hood school. Sometime in February you fill out your "choice" application, ranking the schools you're applying to in order of preference. The first one that comes up spits out a "match." You either take it, or decline and go to your n'hood school. In terms of immersion, you simply check whether you're applying through the Spanish or English-speaker track. If it becomes a problem where families are trying to skirt the system & apply under the wrong track, maybe down the road you'll have to test AFTER a kid is selected. And just like DC and MoCo, spots will open up for families on the wait list as people move, decline the choice match, etc etc.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Families with "no interest" will not enroll in these programs.

I think this is why it is an admin nightmare. Let's take this example.

For argument's sake lets make this a bit less complicated and assume both parents are in the West Zone.

Parent A's native Spanish speaking K child gets a lottery spot in immersion. Parent A has no interest and opts out.
Parent B's native Spanish speaking K child is on the immersion wait list. Parent B really wants immersion but by the time Parent A, who was NEVER interested in immersion, gets around to opting out, Parent B who was interested has already decided they'll just go with a guaranteed spot in their neighborhood STEAM school. So now you have a parent who was interested losing interest b/c they lost a lottery spot to someone who didn't want immersion to begin with.

BTW native language is important b/c the suggestion is to have two lotteries, Spanish speaking and non Spanish speaking. Which actually raises another question. If you are going to auto enter all the K kids into the immersion lottery you need to know which children are native speakers so you know which lottery to enter them into. So again, more unnecessary admin burden. If you are taking the time to collect the native language of each child, why not take that same time to inform all parents about option schools so they can enter, or not enter whichever lottery they think is right for their family.

I am hoping if they do this there will be a lottery for each option and that winning in one lottery doesn't impact the other lotteries. For example if you get a lottery spot in IB but you want immersion, being selected in the IB lottery should not mean you loose your chance to get a spot in the program you actually want for your child.

So while I understand the problem I am not sure the plan can easily be executed without causing widespread issues.