Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Always punting. It's their MO.

After they accidentally published a spreadsheet specifying staff preferences for option locations, identifying staff members by name, I wouldn't be surprised to learn that was a factor in pulling the plug. It really cast doubt as to whether the whole engagement process was authentic or just a dog and pony show.

I would. They are staff. We pay them to make recommendations. We're not in charge of Staff. They are not our hired help. If we don't like their recommendations, we press the elected officials not to adopt their recommendations. If they are good and sound recommendations, hopefully the SB ignores self-interested parents and act for the greater good. I think they are going to be very busy collecting data to show that their recommendations do align with the new strategic plan, which is about to be adopted. I think that's what they decided to wait for, because the strategic plan calls for quite a bit of change.

The engagement processes are not meant to indicate that parents, and the loudest among them, make the final call.

I think you are missing pp's point. Of course it is the staff's job to make recommendations, and they should do that based on what the data shows to be the best plan for APS rather than which parents shout the loudest. When you compare what that spreadsheet showed with the results of their first round of analysis and then again to their second, though, it gives the impression that the staff was being dishonest about both the process itself and about the bases for their eventual recommendation. The spreadsheet undermined the integrity of the staff and their work, and when asked about it directly in open office hours, the school board struggled to explain or defend it.

To the extent the spreadsheet is part of why they suspended the process, I think it's because the school board is trying to make some really big course corrections in its planning on short notice (e.g., fourth high school at the Career Center; elementary seats to the Education Center; relocating elementary schools and changing boundaries accordingly), and they can only do that if the public trusts that they are making sound judgments based on a thorough analysis of the considerations and data. The spreadsheet destroyed their ability to make that claim on the elementary location review, and there was no way for them to continue with that process without it carrying the stain of dishonesty that would have tainted their other work going on at the same time. I'm sure they will come back to it in a year or two with the appearance of a complete restart in the hopes that the community forgets this round.

But they aren't doing this. They are showing us what compromises we'd have to make if we went down that road. And nobody likes the compromises. This is all illustrative. Are they really going to not repair hvac's and roofs for four years? And move HS students into an ES and ES onto a HS campus? No, they are not. They are showing us how this is not a real option.

And I do not believe Staff has some sort of hidden agenda. If anything, they took community feedback and that's how Nottingham wound up as the option school (it has to be one of you, and you didn't show up to say "not it.")

You're welcome to your opinion, but that is absolutely not how Nottingham wound up as the option school. I don't care if you trust staff or not, but if you think that Nottingham was chosen because not enough people showed up at a particular meeting, you're suggesting that the loudest parents are the only ones who matter.

Anonymous wrote:Is this spreadsheet that indicates staff preferences about choice locations around? I am salivating!

Over what?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Always punting. It's their MO.

After they accidentally published a spreadsheet specifying staff preferences for option locations, identifying staff members by name, I wouldn't be surprised to learn that was a factor in pulling the plug. It really cast doubt as to whether the whole engagement process was authentic or just a dog and pony show.

I would. They are staff. We pay them to make recommendations. We're not in charge of Staff. They are not our hired help. If we don't like their recommendations, we press the elected officials not to adopt their recommendations. If they are good and sound recommendations, hopefully the SB ignores self-interested parents and act for the greater good. I think they are going to be very busy collecting data to show that their recommendations do align with the new strategic plan, which is about to be adopted. I think that's what they decided to wait for, because the strategic plan calls for quite a bit of change.

The engagement processes are not meant to indicate that parents, and the loudest among them, make the final call.

I think you are missing pp's point. Of course it is the staff's job to make recommendations, and they should do that based on what the data shows to be the best plan for APS rather than which parents shout the loudest. When you compare what that spreadsheet showed with the results of their first round of analysis and then again to their second, though, it gives the impression that the staff was being dishonest about both the process itself and about the bases for their eventual recommendation. The spreadsheet undermined the integrity of the staff and their work, and when asked about it directly in open office hours, the school board struggled to explain or defend it.

To the extent the spreadsheet is part of why they suspended the process, I think it's because the school board is trying to make some really big course corrections in its planning on short notice (e.g., fourth high school at the Career Center; elementary seats to the Education Center; relocating elementary schools and changing boundaries accordingly), and they can only do that if the public trusts that they are making sound judgments based on a thorough analysis of the considerations and data. The spreadsheet destroyed their ability to make that claim on the elementary location review, and there was no way for them to continue with that process without it carrying the stain of dishonesty that would have tainted their other work going on at the same time. I'm sure they will come back to it in a year or two with the appearance of a complete restart in the hopes that the community forgets this round.

But they aren't doing this. They are showing us what compromises we'd have to make if we went down that road. And nobody likes the compromises. This is all illustrative. Are they really going to not repair hvac's and roofs for four years? And move HS students into an ES and ES onto a HS campus? No, they are not. They are showing us how this is not a real option.

And I do not believe Staff has some sort of hidden agenda. If anything, they took community feedback and that's how Nottingham wound up as the option school (it has to be one of you, and you didn't show up to say "not it.")

Is this spreadsheet that indicates staff preferences about choice locations around? I am salivating!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Always punting. It's their MO.

After they accidentally published a spreadsheet specifying staff preferences for option locations, identifying staff members by name, I wouldn't be surprised to learn that was a factor in pulling the plug. It really cast doubt as to whether the whole engagement process was authentic or just a dog and pony show.

I would. They are staff. We pay them to make recommendations. We're not in charge of Staff. They are not our hired help. If we don't like their recommendations, we press the elected officials not to adopt their recommendations. If they are good and sound recommendations, hopefully the SB ignores self-interested parents and act for the greater good. I think they are going to be very busy collecting data to show that their recommendations do align with the new strategic plan, which is about to be adopted. I think that's what they decided to wait for, because the strategic plan calls for quite a bit of change.

The engagement processes are not meant to indicate that parents, and the loudest among them, make the final call.

Exactly.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Always punting. It's their MO.

After they accidentally published a spreadsheet specifying staff preferences for option locations, identifying staff members by name, I wouldn't be surprised to learn that was a factor in pulling the plug. It really cast doubt as to whether the whole engagement process was authentic or just a dog and pony show.

I would. They are staff. We pay them to make recommendations. We're not in charge of Staff. They are not our hired help. If we don't like their recommendations, we press the elected officials not to adopt their recommendations. If they are good and sound recommendations, hopefully the SB ignores self-interested parents and act for the greater good. I think they are going to be very busy collecting data to show that their recommendations do align with the new strategic plan, which is about to be adopted. I think that's what they decided to wait for, because the strategic plan calls for quite a bit of change.

The engagement processes are not meant to indicate that parents, and the loudest among them, make the final call.

I think you are missing pp's point. Of course it is the staff's job to make recommendations, and they should do that based on what the data shows to be the best plan for APS rather than which parents shout the loudest. When you compare what that spreadsheet showed with the results of their first round of analysis and then again to their second, though, it gives the impression that the staff was being dishonest about both the process itself and about the bases for their eventual recommendation. The spreadsheet undermined the integrity of the staff and their work, and when asked about it directly in open office hours, the school board struggled to explain or defend it.

To the extent the spreadsheet is part of why they suspended the process, I think it's because the school board is trying to make some really big course corrections in its planning on short notice (e.g., fourth high school at the Career Center; elementary seats to the Education Center; relocating elementary schools and changing boundaries accordingly), and they can only do that if the public trusts that they are making sound judgments based on a thorough analysis of the considerations and data. The spreadsheet destroyed their ability to make that claim on the elementary location review, and there was no way for them to continue with that process without it carrying the stain of dishonesty that would have tainted their other work going on at the same time. I'm sure they will come back to it in a year or two with the appearance of a complete restart in the hopes that the community forgets this round.

Anonymous wrote:I would. They are staff. We pay them to make recommendations. We're not in charge of Staff. They are not our hired help. If we don't like their recommendations, we press the elected officials not to adopt their recommendations. If they are good and sound recommendations, hopefully the SB ignores self-interested parents and act for the greater good. I think they are going to be very busy collecting data to show that their recommendations do align with the new strategic plan, which is about to be adopted. I think that's what they decided to wait for, because the strategic plan calls for quite a bit of change.

The engagement processes are not meant to indicate that parents, and the loudest among them, make the final call.

+1,000. I'm no fan of John Chadwick, but the rest of the staff are good and hard-working people who care about the students in our community. Of course they have their own thoughts on what might work best, and it's their job to play with all the possible scenarios. It's no secret that Tara Nattress wants more IB at the elementary level. Two or three years ago they were exploring the idea of setting up mirror programs on an East-West basis for immersion, IB, Montessori to give even more kids access to option schools. Personally I think we don't have the space for option schools any more, but it doesn't surprise me to see that there's discussion of replacing ATS with IB since ATS really is so random.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What new multifamily housing will inform APS in 2020/21?

Rosslyn alone has 2300 housing units approved or under construction. A not insignificant number of those are CAFs, which produce kids at a rate comparable to single family homes. The rest of the R-B corridor and Columbia Pike are also slated for some major infill development.

https://projects.arlingtonva.us/wp-content/uploads/sites/31/2017/08/Development-Summary-2017-8-7-17-FINAL.pdf

Also, note that St. Charles is going to redevelop potentially with housing on site? Or they may do as some commenters suggest and sell to a developer given its prime location? ...https://www.arlnow.com/2018/05/16/diocese-considering-redevelopment-for-st-charles-borromeo-catholic-church/

The Vatican or whatever must be salivating over that parcel of land. Could clear $50 million.

St Charles is definitely not selling and only at the beginning stage of deciding how to redevelop.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Always punting. It's their MO.

After they accidentally published a spreadsheet specifying staff preferences for option locations, identifying staff members by name, I wouldn't be surprised to learn that was a factor in pulling the plug. It really cast doubt as to whether the whole engagement process was authentic or just a dog and pony show.

I would. They are staff. We pay them to make recommendations. We're not in charge of Staff. They are not our hired help. If we don't like their recommendations, we press the elected officials not to adopt their recommendations. If they are good and sound recommendations, hopefully the SB ignores self-interested parents and act for the greater good. I think they are going to be very busy collecting data to show that their recommendations do align with the new strategic plan, which is about to be adopted. I think that's what they decided to wait for, because the strategic plan calls for quite a bit of change.

The engagement processes are not meant to indicate that parents, and the loudest among them, make the final call.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What new multifamily housing will inform APS in 2020/21?

Rosslyn alone has 2300 housing units approved or under construction. A not insignificant number of those are CAFs, which produce kids at a rate comparable to single family homes. The rest of the R-B corridor and Columbia Pike are also slated for some major infill development.

https://projects.arlingtonva.us/wp-content/uploads/sites/31/2017/08/Development-Summary-2017-8-7-17-FINAL.pdf

Also, note that St. Charles is going to redevelop potentially with housing on site? Or they may do as some commenters suggest and sell to a developer given its prime location? ...https://www.arlnow.com/2018/05/16/diocese-considering-redevelopment-for-st-charles-borromeo-catholic-church/

The Vatican or whatever must be salivating over that parcel of land. Could clear $50 million.

Anonymous wrote:Always punting. It's their MO.

After they accidentally published a spreadsheet specifying staff preferences for option locations, identifying staff members by name, I wouldn't be surprised to learn that was a factor in pulling the plug. It really cast doubt as to whether the whole engagement process was authentic or just a dog and pony show.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Flight simulator?!?!

Yes! Now you know why ASFS snowflakes can’t be forced to leave their school!

It was a donation at least 15 years ago that was offered to the technology/computer coordinator. I had 4 kids go through the school and not one of them ever had the opportunity to use. It was not a big deal.

It’s a wooden box with vintage 80s computers and dummy hardware switches.

People are thinking of the hydraulic maneuver rides at smithsonian... so very not that.

+1

It's not a big deal at all.

But I will say it complements the curriculum, because the staff helps train them on following procedures, dealing with faults and acting in leadership roles as a "flight" team. But you can do that with a couple of cardboard boxes and ipads with probably better technical experience; the hardware switches are a nice vintage touch tough... I miss radio shack!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Flight simulator?!?!

Yes! Now you know why ASFS snowflakes can’t be forced to leave their school!

It was a donation at least 15 years ago that was offered to the technology/computer coordinator. I had 4 kids go through the school and not one of them ever had the opportunity to use. It was not a big deal.

It’s a wooden box with vintage 80s computers and dummy hardware switches.

People are thinking of the hydraulic maneuver rides at smithsonian... so very not that.

+1

It's not a big deal at all.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Flight simulator?!?!

Yes! Now you know why ASFS snowflakes can’t be forced to leave their school!

It was a donation at least 15 years ago that was offered to the technology/computer coordinator. I had 4 kids go through the school and not one of them ever had the opportunity to use. It was not a big deal.

It’s a wooden box with vintage 80s computers and dummy hardware switches.

People are thinking of the hydraulic maneuver rides at smithsonian... so very not that.

Anonymous wrote:

Flight simulator?!?!

Yes! Now you know why ASFS snowflakes can’t be forced to leave their school!

It was a donation at least 15 years ago that was offered to the technology/computer coordinator. I had 4 kids go through the school and not one of them ever had the opportunity to use. It was not a big deal.